Obama's Compromise on Extending Highest-Income Tax Cuts Unpopular in Poll

By John McCormick and Julianna Goldman

Dec. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Americans don’t approve of keeping the breaks for upper-income taxpayers that are part of the deal President Barack Obama brokered with congressional Republicans, a Bloomberg National Poll shows.

The survey, conducted before, during and after the tax negotiations, shows that only a third support keeping the lower rates for the highest earners, and less than half of those respondents say the breaks for the wealthy should last for a shorter period than cuts for the middle class. Overall, two- thirds of those polled favor a permanent extension of the lower rates for the middle class.

More than a fourth say all the tax cuts should be allowed to expire Dec. 31, as scheduled.

The agreement Obama announced Dec. 6 would temporarily sustain the tax cuts for all income levels. The president said the compromise was needed to break a deadlock with congressional Republicans who vowed to block tax cuts for middle-income Americans if those for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 weren’t extended, too.

More...

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGy7SOhLImh8&pos=8

Now people expect us to keep the most expensive part of the Bush tax cuts.

We are so Screwed.

Are you suggesting that having Congress vote on a bill to extend the tax cuts only up to $250,000 was a disaster? And that having led people on with the prospects of keeping those cuts for the lower income levels "they" now expect "us" to pass the billionaire's tax cuts as well?

If so, I don't follow your logic. What would you have done instead? And how would the outcome have been different?

And if that's not what you're saying, I'm even more confused.

The cost is 4 trillion over 10 years but most of that is the $3.2 trillion we call the middle class cuts. About $700 billion over 10 years was for the wealthy.

So now the middle class expects their taxes to be permanently decreased. Clinton balances the budget based on that large amount of taxes on the middle class. Getting the $700 billion from the wealthy won't get us far.

If we had just said the Bush tax cuts need to be repealed we would raise revenue by $4 trillion over 10 years. If we just raise the funds from the wealthy we get only $700 billion over 10 years. With our $1.4 trillion deficit JUST FOR 2010, 10 years of tax increases on the wealthy only covers 6 months of this years deficit.

Well, I'll go along with you as far as agreeing that those cuts are ultimately unaffordable -- and that making them permanent would cripple this country politically and economically into the foreseeable future.

But the real underlying problem is the stagnation in wages, which means that the middle class can no longer afford to pay a level of taxes that they could have handled easily if their income was anywhere near keeping up with inflation. Having the government cover the difference instead of the employers is ultimately as much a gyp as letting Walmart get away with having its poorly-paid employees on food stamps.

But I still don't understand why you're talking in terms of "disaster" and "we're screwed." Are you staking out an extreme deficit hawk position, in which all the tax cuts should be allowed to expire and letting people think they can get their middle class cuts without any impact on the budget is a con?

If you are, you probably need to say so explicitly, because not many people here are going to get where you're coming from without explanations.

Through income tax redistribution.

This necessitates an examination of labor, trade, and immigration policy. Without structural changes, trying to fix things through tax credits to the poor is not going to work as a long term solution as every congress and President tinkers around with it.

The only stability in life is savings and assets, not relying on Government services which can change with the wind.

But they are a shrinking minority in our society.

And since redistribution upwards is what got us into this mess, some downwards distribution may be what we need to get out of it. The income tax isn't the only means to achieve that -- though it did a pretty good job of ending the Gilded Age when it was introduced a century ago. But one way or another, the rich have to be stripped of some of the wealth they've been hoarding, and that wealth needs to be put back into the common pool.

I would certainly be glad to see trade policies which discourage outsourcing and labor policies which give the workers more control over the means of production -- since as you say, tax credits to the poor are no more than a band-aid.

But how do you hope to see those changes come about as long as the wealthy control the government and the government caters to the wealthy? Is there a pressure point where you can reach in and pry the whole self-reinforcing structure apart at the seams?

All our efforts are on safety nets, not on compensating workers enough to create their own safety nets.

no, not really.

Everyone know the majority of Americans don't want tax cuts for the rich extended. This poll also indicates that two-thirds want the middle-class tax cuts extended.

What it doesn't indicate is if they want them to expire if the tax cuts for the rich are part of the deal.

Why can't these pollsters ask a direct question?

I'm shocked, just shocked, by the results of this poll.

What is the world coming to when the very wealthy cannot keep a little more of their money during the worst economic times since the Great Depression. What was a populist president to do?

:eyes:

Everyone knows that's the provision Republicans fought for - and it's unpopular.

So why not write it up as "GOP Intiative on Extending Highest-Income Tax Cuts Unpopular in Poll".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145109/Americans-Support-Major-Elements-Tax-Compromise.aspx

Dems support it by 52 percent.

Inependents support it 67 percent. Which is more important than progressive Dems, who want to primary the President and are saying they won't vote for him.

Perhaps you can count on them too! Screw those stupid Democrats! We dont need them!

If it's between him and Palin, I think we can count on a number of them. Progressive whiners can go twiddle their tumbs in the corner or vote for Palin.

All of the 'moderate' republicans I work with sat out the last presidential election rather than vote for a Democrat.

If you believe that the GOP will save Obama from himself because he abandoned Democrats in favor of supply side, you are delusional.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.