Most Americans continue to think the middle class pays more than its share in taxes and favor a system where everyone pays the same percentage of their income.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Voters appear to be showing a little less resistance to tax increases, and for the first time ever a majority would support a candidate who promised to raise taxes only on the wealthy over one who was against all tax increases.
I guess a lot depends on how the polling questions are asked.
Well, in the end their answer could be built upon the same premise: “The rich are paying a lower effective proportion of their total income as taxes than I am. I want us all to pay taxes at the same effective proportion of our total income. If that means their tax burden must go up, then let it go up.”
Polling obviously can be skewed by the bias of the pollster and the questions they ask, but I have throughout my life observed a lot of support for a flat tax from both sides of the political spectrum. Not amongst the people who actually understand the tax system or politics, most people like that should oppose a flat tax (it’s not fiscally sound at levels that are politically acceptable.) However, lots of “Joe on the street” people I know that vote Democrat think a flat tax is a good idea.
It’s a simple solution and most American whether they vote Democrat or Republican just don’t know very much about the actual issues, so they hear “flat tax rate for everyone” and that sounds simple and fair, so they’re all for it.
It’s another example of how the American people simply are not sophisticated enough to make intelligent decisions on most issues.
I think this is one reason so many conservatives are worried about a Romney nomination. His presidential campaign could be the cause of the general public becoming aware that wealthy people actually pay a lower effective tax rate than most middle-class voters are paying.
One the of the problems with how these questions get phrased in most polls is that questions tend to be posed as binary alternatives (easier to score) and with no or minimal context. I believe most Americans favor a simplified tax code. I also believe most Americancs favor a progressive tax code.
Of course, income tax is only one part of teh tax burden. And government fees tend ot get overlooked in these discussions as well.
I truly think that the majority of Americans in favor of a flat tax don’t know what it means. The word flat sounds like something that is low, and they told that it is simpler, and so they get the idea that it means that they will have to pay less taxes and won’t have to fill out the current 1040 form which they find confusing. In fact their taxes will go up and the only change to the form will be that rather than looking up the final number on the table they will have to do a multiplication.
This. I had two high school civics instructors who didn’t understand how marginal tax brackets worked. “So if you make $42,000 a year, a $2,000 raise could leave you with less income!”
Don’r remind me - when the Reagan/Bush tax cuts took effect, I had to explain this to half of the people I was working with at the time.
Another problem with “flat tax”: how many people think it means, “Everybody pays the same percentage of their income, with no exceptions - if you’re making $30,000 a year and your family barely scrapes by, imagine having to do it (assuming a 9% flat tax) on $27,300”?
I wonder how many people think, “I shouldn’t have to pay any income tax until everybody who makes more than I do is taxed to the point where their after-tax income matches mine”?
You think the rich would be backing a tax that would actually raise their tax rate?
Yeah, right.
If the rate was low enough, we’d clearly be getting less revenue, right? Since you’ve never printed out 89 pages of tax forms, you don’t know that the complexity is in what you can deduct. If you want to get rid of this, you don’t need to pass a flat tax to do it. But remember, every deduction has its champions, and few are going to care all that much about eliminating it. Anyway, as mentioned, the very easiest part of filling out a tax return is calculating your tax.
So, please explain how we are going to get the same amount of money if everyone pays less. Or do you think it makes sense for the middle class to pay more and the rich pay less? Mitt does, of course.
I like how when we talk about taxes, the Republicans are all uber-rich socialites but when we talk about social issues, the Republicans are all Bible-thumping hicks. I wish you people would get your story straight.
I’m guessing they think that the uber-rich socialites are the ones setting policy and controlling public broadcasting, so that the conservative rural voters are convinced to vote against their own economic interests (and not in the “give everything you own to the poor” sense, either).
You seriously aren’t aware that there are two types of Republicans: the social conservatives and financial conservatives? I mean, I agree that it’s a weird marriage, but that’s what your party has.
And, no, I’m not saying that all social conservatives are hicks or that all financial conservatives are rich. I’m just pointing out that there are two completely different factions in the Republican party. Thus it’s silly to act like someone can’t describe them differently.
Come on, don’t act like you can’t tell the difference between the beliefs of Ayn Rand and Rick Santorum.
Flat tax would be ok to me with a negative income tax instead of benefits-based welfare. I’d still prefer a negative income tax with a progressive tax scheme but I am not immune to compromise.