This is not a political site. This is an anti-political site. Our purpose is to advance civil society and the freedom philosophy and perhaps have a little fun while we're at it.

2/27/12

New Polling Data Shows How to Fight Obama’s Class Warfare

The following essay was published at International Liberty and is re-posted here by permission of the author.
I think the polling results and percentages you will encounter in this article may raise your eyebrows and perhaps give you some polite facts to share with some of your more leftward leaning friends at the next party or BBQ you attend.

Although it sometimes seems as if all the news is bad, these results can give us a sense of balance.


February 27, 2012 by Dan Mitchell

Since starting this blog, I’ve periodically shared polling data that gives me hope. Highlights include:

o More than two-to-one support for personal retirement accounts.

o Recognition that big government is the greatest danger to America’s future.

o An increasingly negative view of the federal government.

o More than eight-to-one support for less spending rather than higher taxes.

o Strong support for bureaucrat layoffs and/or entitlement reforms instead of higher taxes.

o And my favorite poll results are the ones showing that voters understand that the goal is less spending, not lower deficits.

Now there’s some new research that is both encouraging and educational. Here’s part of the report from The Hill.

Three-quarters of likely voters believe the nation’s top earners should pay lower, not higher, tax rates, according to a new poll for The Hill. The big majority opted for a lower tax bill when asked to choose specific rates; precisely 75 percent said the right level for top earners was 30 percent or below. The current rate for top earners is 35 percent. Only 4 percent thought it was appropriate to take 40 percent, which is approximately the level that President Obama is seeking from January 2013 onward. The Hill Poll also found that 73 percent of likely voters believe corporations should pay a lower rate than the current 35 percent… Republicans were more likely than Democrats to support lower tax rates for the wealthy, but voters in both parties solidly supported lower rates compared to current law. Eighty-one percent of Republicans favored tax rates below current levels, compared to 70 percent of Democrats. The Hill Poll, conducted by Pulse Opinion Research of 1,000 likely voters, also found broad support for lower rates across income groups. The group most supportive of lowering tax rates on the wealthy below current rates made between $20,000 and $40,000 a year; 81 percent supported tax rates of 30 percent or lower.

This data is important because it shows the value of framing an issue. Instead of defensively responding to Obama’s class warfare, proponents of good tax policy should be making a philosophical/economic point that “nobody in America, no matter how rich or how poor, should have to pay more than one-fourth of their income to government.”

And proponents of class warfare should be put on the spot and asked “what do you think is the maximum tax rate anyone should pay?”

Last but not least, friends of liberty should make the key point that higher tax rates on the so-called rich are merely precursors for higher tax rates on everyone else – as even the New York Times recently admitted.

2 comments:

Ema Nymton said...

.

“nobody in America, no matter how rich or how poor, should have to pay more than one-fourth of their income to government.”

Really? Why is that? What is so special about 25%? Why not 50% or 10%?

Paying taxes is part of being a member of civil society. The people benefit from the value added by its collective functions. The more services provided by society the more taxes are needed to pay for services. Those who have more use more and should pay more.

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

Grant Davies said...

Why 25%? Go ask Dan, it's his opinion.

I vote for no one paying more than 0%. No income tax whatsoever. Just like when the country was founded.

Direct taxes were expressly forbidden in the constitution until the collectivists took over and amended it.

Further, it is not a proper role of government in a free society to provide "services." The proper role is to defend rights. Receiving services is not a right.

Further, so called wealthy people do not receive more services, they receive less. But the point is moot.

Thanks for leaving the collectivist perspective though, it's always interesting to hear from the envious.