Pew Poll: 54% (75% of Dems) favor increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations to reduce poverty.

[pampango]

73% (90% of Democrats) favor raising the minimum wage to $10.10.



When asked what would do more to reduce poverty, 54% of all Americans say raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations in order to expand programs for the poor. Fewer (35%) believe that lowering taxes on the wealthy to encourage investment and economic growth would be the more effective approach.

Three-quarters of Democrats favor raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations to expand programs for the poor as the better approach to lessen poverty. Republicans, by about two-to-one (59% to 29%), believe the government could do more to reduce poverty by lowering taxes on the wealthy and corporations in order to encourage more investment and economic growth.

Divisions are comparably wide when it comes to the effect of government assistance programs to the poor: By a 66% to 26% margin, most Democrats think aid to the poor helps because people can’t get out of poverty until their basic needs are met. But by a 65% to 28% margin, most Republicans believe these programs do more harm than good by making people too dependent on the government.

Among Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party, 70% who agree with the Tea Party oppose an extension of unemployment benefits and nearly as many oppose raising the minimum wage (65%). Yet 52% of non-Tea Party Republicans favor a one-year extension of unemployment benefits and an even higher percentage (65%) supports increasing the minimum wage.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/23/most-see-inequality-growing-but-partisans-differ-over-solutions/

Interesting that 65% of non-tea party republicans actually support raising the minimum wage. Only the tea partiers themselves oppose it though that will be enough to make sure that the House blocks any increase.

[JaneyVee]

1. Tea-rrorists.

[Lucky Luciano]

2. There are a lot more republicans supporting the liberal position than I expected.

I guess they are republican due to their possibly putting more weight on god, guns, and gays issues.

[Enthusiast]

7. That's because they are no longer exclusively liberal positions.

Raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy is now a centrist position.

Even an idiot can see we must raise more revenue. And there is only one place to get it.

This is something the corporatist right wing media desperately wants to keep from you. And they are doing a fabulous job doing just that.

[Scuba]

3. Boy, just wait 'til the liberal media hears about this!

[Enthusiast]

5. I'm sure they will shout it from the rooftops.

[Enthusiast]

4. What does this tell us?

It tells us that raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, as a policy, is an UBER CENTRIST POSITION.

So, no matter how badly the nay sayers try to mislead us with their weasel words, advocating raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations is not a far leftist position.

And when President Obama is an advocate for lowering the corporate tax rate it is not centrist it is a right of center position.

There is no fucking way around this conclusion.

The polls determine what is "centrist", not some right wing think tank propaganda.

[Scuba]

6. +1

[ProSense]

8. Yes, there

"And when President Obama is an advocate for lowering the corporate tax rate it is not centrist it is a right of center position.

There is no fucking way around this conclusion. "

...is. The President's proposal is not simply lowering corporate taxes, it's to do so in conjunction with closing the loopholes and implementing additional taxes on overseas profits. As it stands now, the corporate rate is 35 percent, and hundreds of the biggest corporations are paying no tax.

Also, Senator Wyden has a proposal that lowers it even more:

Tax reform: How Ron Wyden will shape taxes

Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon is poised to become the new chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Mr. Wyden is the sponsor of a major tax reform plan that would reduce both individual and corporate tax rates without adding to the deficit or changing the current distribution of taxes among income groups very much, Gleckman writes.

By Howard Gleckman,

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is poised to become the new chair of the Senate Finance Committee, is the sponsor of a major tax reform plan that would reduce both individual and corporate tax rates without adding to the deficit or changing the current distribution of taxes among income groups very much.

The 64-year-old Wyden, who has a history of proposing creative, ambitious, and sometimes controversial ideas, initially sponsored a tax code overhaul in 2010 with former GOP senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. After Gregg retired, Wyden found another GOP cosponsor in Dan Coates of Indiana. Wyden-Coates follows the broad outline of the original Wyden-Gregg plan.

For individuals, it would set three rates—15-25-35. The top bracket would kick in at $140,000 for couples filing jointly. It would repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, nearly triple the standard deduction, and create a 35 percent exclusion for long-term capital gains and dividends (equal to a rate of 22.75 percent for top-bracket taxpayers). It would eliminate the tax advantages of many employee benefits–but not employer-sponsored health insurance–and simplify tax-preferred savings.

<...>

Wyden-Coates would cut the corporate rate to 24 percent from 35 percent. It would end the ability of U.S. multinationals to defer tax on income earned abroad but would allow them a one-time opportunity to bring old earnings back to the U.S at a very low rate.

- more -

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2013/1227/Tax-reform-How-Ron-Wyden-will-shape-taxes

The interesting thing is that some progressives are lining up behind Wyden's proposal because they agree with some aspects.

[pampango]

9. Since the rich benefit from corporate profits I could only support cutting corporate tax rates IF

taxes were increased on the rich at the same time so they actually pay more in taxes OR if corporate tax loopholes are reduced significantly so that corporations actually pay more taxes.

To me taxing corporations is a means to the end of making sure that the rich pay more and our overall taxes are high and progressive. Corporate taxes are a good way get to the end, but they are not an end in themselves.

The polls determine what is "centrist" ...

I agree but you will get an argument from many around here who reserve the right to define the "center" and "centrists" as whatever and whomever they disagree with.

[DFW]

10. Just playing Robin Hood isn't enough

Just taking money away from people who are well-off is useless if it's just for spite or to create more bureaucrats (see France).

It needs to be put right back to work to improve the nation's infrastructure and environment, as well as improve the social safety net (see FDR), if any good is to come from it.

[pampango]

11. Well said, DFW. "taking money away from people who are well-off" is a necessary but not sufficient

condition of a progressive society.

[DFW]

12. Well noted!

"not sufficient" indeed.

There are plenty of good-hearted people who are well-off, and spread it around of their own free will, and there are plenty of people of of modest means who are perfectly content to get rich by pocketing money they have embezzled from others. It's not all a picture of extremes, and not all people fit neatly into one box.

[Enthusiast]

13. For spite? To create more bureaucrats?

Sounds like something I would hear on Fox "News". That's the kind of things they say.

I've never heard a Democrat advocate higher taxes on the wealthy out of spite or to expand the number of bureaucrats. Never.