Log in
2012 Feb 9 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/10/14/47-of-americans-taxing-rich-good-for-economy/
0
0

According to quite a fascinating poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports, approximately 47% of Americans believe that Barack Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the rich (a year income of over $250,000) is good for the U.S. economy. The majority (51%), however, believe that lower, not higher taxes are the best way to spur economic growth.

When getting into the specifics of the proposals put forth by Obama a different picture emurges:

31% disagree with Obama’s proposal, saying it would hurt rather than help the economy.

16% say it will have no impact.

Interestingly enough, only 10% believe that higher taxes are a good way to spur the economy.

Lastly, 29% say taxes should remain the same. It is important to note that there are also many fiscal conservatives who believe that taxes should not remain the same, but who disagree with Obama’s plans to raise taxes on higher income households.

Important for Obama is that his plan is supported by Democrats and unaffiliated voters. The latter support his proposal 47% to 26%.

The bad news is, of course, that there is a lot of room for John McCain’s campaign to convince voters that Obama’s plans will not grow the economy; a majority of Americans is normally open to a message of lower taxes in times of crisis. Obama’s plan seems to resonate with quite some voters now, but that could all change if McCain criticizes the plan and offers an alternative.

Obama’s idea, to raise taxes on the rich, fits perfectly well in the Democratic ideology, of course. But raising taxes during times of crisis does not accomplish any good. Those who earn $250,000 or more are also those who invest in stock markets, who invest in small(er) businesses, who have people working for them, who take credit from the bank so they can grow their business; raising their taxes could very well have a negative impact on the economy as a whole.

Once their taxes go up, they will invest less. Since they invest in actual consumer products – not merely on food, housing, etc. – with that money normally, demand for such products will go down. When demand goes down, production goes down. Result: a shrinking rather than growing economy.

During times of crisis, raising taxes on higher income households is exactly the opposite of what should be done to revive the economy. History and research by economists have taught us that.

It is interesting to see that 47% of Americans believe raising taxes on those households is good nonetheless. When push comes to shove, however, a large part of this percentage is uninformed or not concerned about reviving the economy as such; for a large part of the progressive base, raising taxes on higher income households is part of some kind of ‘fairness’ doctrine, no rational being quite understands. In other words; ideology is driving the lust for raising taxes ‘on the rich,’ not pragmatism.

  1. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #72610 ›
    Jay_C "Those who earn $250,000 or more are also those who invest in stock markets, who invest in small(er) businesses, who have people working for them, who take credit from the bank so they can grow their business; raising their taxes could very well have a negative impact on the economy as a whole.  Once their taxes go up, they will invest less." Not to mention pay less to their employees because they have taken an even bigger personal financial hit (they still have to pay their household bills). "In other words; ideology is driving the lust for raising taxes ‘on the rich,’ not pragmatism. " You hit the nail on the head.... But I'd say it’s the first domino in a blind rabid ideology to push an over-arching paradigm switch in the way the US Government works. (before I get the dramaitc squirrel) this is not a conspiracy, but a simple ideology push). These moves are purposeful in my opinion.  They don’t care about the long term consequences and its effects on non-economic policy (what’s left of the free market)  I feel that these economic policies pave the way for their other ideology of bigger and bigger government. For example, if the “rich” (and I don’t thing 250K per household makes a family rich) make less, and therefore pay less to their employees (as I said above, the "rich" still have to pay their household bills). And they buy less from stores where people making less that 250K work, who’s is going to pick up the slack for the less than 250K workers, hmmm?… could it be the Government?  Yup…that’s right, more nanny state policies.  And does that buy votes for the next go around in 4 years?  You betcha.  And on and on we go.
  2. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #72630 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor
    You hit the nail on the head…. But I’d say it’s the first domino in a blind rabid ideology to push an over-arching paradigm switch in the way the US Government works. (before I get the dramaitc squirrel) this is not a conspiracy, but a simple ideology push). These moves are purposeful in my opinion.  They don’t care about the long term consequences and its effects on non-economic policy (what’s left of the free market)
    You evade the dramatic squirrel this time, but you also contradict yourself.  The move may be premised on an ideology, but that ideology is concerned with the "long-term consequences" as much as any other.  They just believe that the long-term consequences of increased government involvement are likely to be better than an unregulated free market.  Except when their primary goal is only to defeat the other side, those who act on an ideology do so precisely because they see the long-term consequences of that ideology prevailing to be better. Acting out of ideology is usually the opposite of what you say it is. As a committed moderate and pragmatist (that's an ideology too), I'm not sure any more that those advocating a heavier role for government in the economy aren't right. It does appear true to me to at least say that there are some conditions when the government as a pragmatic matter must get deeply involved to prevent a crisis from becoming so severe that it does catastrophic damage. Economic theories (capitalism, socialism) are theories, not religions. And all theories encounter anomalies -- conditions where their explanatory power breaks down. At such times, we have to be willing to make exceptions. And I think we are in such a time.
  3. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #72632 ›
    C Stanley
    As a committed pragmatist (that’s an ideology too), I’m not sure any more that those advocating a heavier role for government in the economy aren’t right
    But is that opinion based on the fact that past policies have failed, or is it based on any evidence that the opposing economic theory is likely to have positive long term. To me, it doesn't make sense that socialistic policy will work any better than it ever has proven to work; it doesn't address the actual production of wealth, or the motivators for individuals to increase their contribution of labor, in any realistic sense. Some periods of some level of redistribution might make sense, but those should be the exceptions rather than the rule IMO.
  4. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #72662 ›
    Jay_C “They just believe that the long-term consequences of increased government involvement are likely to be better than an unregulated free market.”    Oh I agree, that is what he thinks, but if he thinks we should move in that direction, then he should just say it.   These are the things I want to hear. Don’t “sugar coat the placebo” so it goes down better.  I’m a big boy, I can take it.  Dancing around the bare facts scares and sickens me to be honest.  I like things presented to me straightforward.  I’m not “in the tank” for capitalism; I’m not sure either that those advocating a heavier role for government in the economy aren’t right.  I just know for all its faults, it has worked pretty well for an awfully long time.  And has been the model for many a developing country.  It’s not that we found a “kink in the armor” of capitalism as it stood in the US, the problem is that someone came along, took away regulation (took off the armor. I’m not sure of the intentions), and wall st. and main St. and liberal “feel good” organizations took advantage of it. When folks like McCain, to his credit, spoke up to put back our armor, nobody listened. Now we are where we are.  I’ll have to live with the way the band-aid was put in place, (cleaning the armor) so now it’s seems that all we need is to replace the regulation right? (Just put the armor back on) (Not rewrite and invent new fancy ways to put in new regulation), and restore the status quo.   The armor worked just fine before from what I could tell, so why make a new suit?
  5. Posted by Chris
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #72673 ›
    Chris Well, we rich pay more because we're more patriotic than the average citizen!  ;-)
  6. Posted by Nicholas
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #72744 ›
    Nicholas From what I understand the "rich" peoples' tax rates will return to what they were when Regan was president.  I don't think any were hurting during that administration, so I don't see what the big deal is about.
1