Could a Dem candidate run honestly with the issue of raising taxes?

[babylonsister]

Since that seems to be Il Dunce's "issue", I am curious. I also think it's inevitable.

That will be an issue and I'm trying to gauge the mindset. It seems from this thread that it could work, but I'd like others to weigh in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2880831&mesg_id=2880831

[pitohui]

1. no because real people have nothing left EOM

,

[babylonsister]

3. So you'd vote for dimson and no taxes on the

rich?
I'm a real person and pay taxes, and wouldn't mind paying a bit more to get his ass out of here.

[Erika]

2. Absolutely, the rich must pay their fair share in taxes

They've been let off the hook in some kind of worship of the rich. Buffet, Gates, and many others agree.


Why shold the poor pay a higher % of taxes than the most wealthy?

[babylonsister]

4. That is the dilemma, isn't it. ?

It's whacked, I tell ya!

[Vulture]

5. I think the problem...

...is that most people do not think they get their money's worth with the taxes they pay now. Americans pay a fortune in taxes and get mediocre squat in return. That, in a nutshell, is why Americans are not keen on the idea of raising taxes.

As a strategy, I would suggest demonstrating efficient usage of the taxes already extracted from the population *before* suggesting that the government should take even more. Until the government becomes vaguely comparable to the private sector in terms of efficiency of capital allocation, most people won't be interested. That is the bottom line truth.

Hell, even between States there is wildly different levels of efficiency. One of the canonical examples is the comparison between California and Nevada on how much they spend on their roads, being next door. California spends something like 12x per mile per year for equivalent traffic loads and has worse roads. A lot of this has to do with the fact that Nevada pays for its roads entirely with use (read: gas) taxes, which forces them to be frugal since they have no guaranteed budget that can expand from year to year.

[babylonsister]

6. I think you're right, Vulture. But how does anyone fix something

that's so broken? A prez won't do it, nor a senator or rep. I'm lucky if I get a form letter.

[Erika]

8. War is not paid by the private sector

but our taxes pay the private sector to be involved in the war? Where's our recoup of our tax dollars?

[Vulture]

11. Defense is one of the few legitimate functions

At least from a strict Constitutionalist standpoint. And we paid next to nothing for it for most of the country's history. These days, we pay a bit more, though surprisingly current defense expenditures are roughly half of their 20th century average as a percentage of GDP even accounting for Bush's misadventures and well below historical rules of thumb for peacetime expenditure. One of the unspoken geopolitical complications is that we spend a lot of money on the military in Europe, which has been there so long that European militaries have largely atrophied. Kind of like how shipping free grain to Africa killed their agricultural industries. We spend a lot of money maintaining a footprint that is entirely unnecessary from the standpoint of security but which is very necessary for the purposes of international goodwill because everyone else has let their militaries atrophy and enjoyed the economic boost for so long under the American umbrella. I would think the Europeans would be embarrassed that NATO desperately requires the American military to cover European regional responsibilities.

By far, the biggest arguably unnecessary expense of the military is operational. You could probably slash the defense budget in half if we cut back on that part, but a lot of countries are addicted to US military presence and the money that comes with it. Interestingly, weapons research and development is *profitable* for the government; most new weapon systems completely amortize their development and acquisition costs in a few years, due to vastly reduced maintenance and operational overhead. For better or worse, weapons R&D and acquisition is only something like 15% of the defense budget, so it is pretty negligible in the big picture but is one of the few parts that actually pays for itself if the US is to have a military at all.

The US could get by just fine spending 2% of GDP on defense, and as the percentage drops year after year, we may get there some day. It would require pulling many industrialized nations off the American military teat against their will though.

[TahitiNut]

7. GOP debt today is a GOP tax tomorrow. Bush wants YOU to pay HIS bills.

That must be repeated and repeated.

[babylonsister]

9. That's not answering the question. Can a large part of this country,

after they've accepted the current admin, acknowledge that something has to change, and higher taxes might be a part of it? We've been so duped, and it might take years for people to get over their fear of any government or anyone who tries to do the right thing.

[kysrsoze]

10. Absolutely. These "lower" taxes are a farce

The tax cuts for the rich are given to the detriment of everyone else. Cuts in federal funding are subsidized by state income and sales taxes (let's not forget all the local additional tax revenue from high gasoline prices, which are typically a percentage of price). They also mean worse healthcare, education and care for the poor. Dems aren't against cutting taxes, but it's a different story with the wealthy class. Still, I still have no idea why they can't seem to get the idea across.

[frogcycle]

12. "Dems raise taxes" is pure crap

These phoneys are wasting untold billions of tax (and borrowed) dollars in Iraq and elsewhere. I just saw "Iraq for Sale" tonight.

There is NO WAY the "they'll raise your taxes" bogeyman has any validity.

We need fiscal responsibility. Dems do that. Reps don't. What needs to be spent needs to be funded. Period. Dems would tax rich people more, hurt poor people less, than reps. Reps can have all the millionaire's votes, as far as I'm concerned. Won't get them one seat, except maybe the Beverly Hills district.

The scare tactics that the dems are going to stick their hand in your pocket (oops - can't use that one any more can we?), take your money and spend it foolishly (oops, cant use that one) is just a worn-out mantra that should be put to rest. Somebody do the math, tell it like it is, and dispell that demon. Then we can just frickin sweep the whole thing! :)

[DocSavage]

33. Argue that

all day, but when the leaders of the party get on TV and state they WILL roll back the presidents tax cuts, well, democrats become the subject of "they will raise your taxes" commercials.

[frogcycle]

34. acknowledged, but

fiscal responsibility and fairness to the middle/lower incomes should count for SOMETHING!

[DocSavage]

35. But that

is the part neither party gets. There are 2 sides to the tax equation. Taxes going to the govt and govt spending the money.

To me personally, seeing that I am middle class. I want to keep as much of MY MONEY as I can. I guess that makes me evil than.

[frogcycle]

40. well, then

i'm evil too.

yes, i want to keep as much of my money as I can. I want wasteful spending like the entire itaq thing, the "bridge to nowhere" and on and on and on stopped. then I want a flat tax with no loopholes. then i'll grudgingly fork over what I "owe". it will be more than i want it to be, but i'll abide. what I cannot abide is all the lopholes and scams and what have you to make extremely wealthy and corporations pay nothing, thus making my "share" bigger. But just cutting my taxers doesnt fix the problem. If someone will fix the real problems, I am confident my taxes will go down.

[rman]

13. Raise taxes on the rich and the corporations,

spend it on things like healthcare, education, social services.

Who would oppose that, except for the rich corporatist minority?

[DocSavage]

15. thats the problem

define rich.

Raise money on cooportations. OK, you own a company. say you sell widgets. you sell them for a buck a piece. Out of that cost, you make 2 cents a piece. that is your pofit after you pay for material, labor, taxes, insurance, you know your fixed costs and variable costs. all those balance to 1 dollar. Looking at your fixed cost, who pays it. Well, the customer does. If you increase cooporate taxes, you just tell the customer that thier costs for a product is going to go up.

Tell me, truthfully, that you as a owner or a corporation, you are going to accept less profit. If your business plan is to make money, well....otherwise, run a non-profit.

The problem with just stating "raise taxes on the rich, leave the middle class alone" is that no one will define where the line is. Raising taxes is like throwing blood in the water for the sharks, How come the party can not come up with somthing new. Many people think the IRS is broken, come up with a new idea.

[maine_raptor]

16. The was drawn at one time, Doc.

It's the mixing of "corporate" entities with the personal ones.

Bush talks about the S-Corps all the time; how they pay the "individual rate", and he's right, they do.

Because of accounting gimmicks such as that, the tax line has become mighty blurry these days.

[rman]

17. Of course a line can be drawn.

How about rich as in, those who have more income than the tax cap?
Or rich as in, those who have more income from stocks, dividends etc, then they have from their wage - including those who have a wage of $1 per year, and Billions in the bank (CEOs of Apple, Google).

And by "corporations" i don't mean mom-and-pop shops, i mean big corporations, corporations for which it is worth it to offshore their bank accounts to places like the Cayman Islands so that they pay virtually no taxes.

As the (hypothetical) owner of a large corporations i might not want to accept less profits - but then again, i'm not calling the shots, i'm part of a small minority.

And unlike you i am sure non-profit is not the only alternative to ever more profit. After all, less profit is still profit. It's not like making less profit means you're going to go bankrupt.

[DocSavage]

21. Less profit

for a coporation means less investment from stockholders. Less investment means less capitol for expansion. Less expansion means less new employment opportunities, less new product lines. Profit is very important to a company. A buyer for a company looks for the best deal on every item that they purchase that goes into a product. The idea is to minimize cost, keep sales high, make money. Taxes are a function of unit cost just like the price of steel or plastic is. If the cost of one item goes up, and you want to keep the price the same, somthing has to give. Easiest thing off the top is to streamline production more, decrease labor costs. Seeing that all your suppliers are coping with an increase in tax, they cannot lower thier prices because it affects the bottom line.

The only other option is to raise prices. I feel that everyone has to understand that corporations do not pay taxes. They just take money from the consumer of thier product and pass it on to the govt. Profit will stay where it is, just watch CNBC when quarterly earnings come out and a company reports less profit than they estimated. See what happens to the stock.

As for overseas bank accounts. Well, as long as the US tax laws punish a company or individuals to an extent that they are feel that they have to protect thier money (it is thier money, not the govt's) they will continue to do so. Make it illegal, a smart accountant will find another way to protect it. It is not only rich republicans that play this game, it is everyone that wants to keep Uncle from getting in thier pockets.

[rman]

23. Same old rhetoric we've been hearing for decades

"trickle-down", and its variations.
It is typical that you frame taxation of corporations as "punishment".

After several decades of that kind of capitalism it is clear that it does not trickle down, but rather that it does the opposite. The rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. People are catching on to that, and they have had enough of it. It is time we take back our government from the corporations that have hijacked it.

[FormerDem06]

25. I think it's crap too

but this statement is a little wierd....

==============================================================
It is typical that you frame taxation of corporations as "punishment".
--------------------------------------------------------------

It's not that the poster has framed it that way, it's how the corps view it. Take Accenture for instance, they moved their ENTIRE operation offshore and take BILLIONS out of the US economy each year (19 billion in revenue to be exact). They are based in Bermuda now, and when they moved they specifically cited taxes as the reason they left.

They already charge 175/hr+ for their services in order to maintain a highly trained staff but now they are in Bermuda for the sole purpose avoiding US taxes.

from Wikipedia:

==============================================================
In October 2002, the Congressional General Accounting Office (GAO) identified Accenture as one of four publicly-traded federal contractors that were incorporated in a tax haven country. <2> The other three, unlike Accenture, were incorporated in the United States before they re-incorporated in a tax haven country, thereby lowering their U.S. taxes. Still, critics have panned Accenture's incorporation in Bermuda, generally because they viewed Accenture as having been a U.S.-based company trying to avoid U.S. taxes. The GAO itself did not characterize Accenture as having been a U.S.-based company; it stated that "prior to incorporating in Bermuda, Accenture was operating as a series of related partnerships and corporations under the control of its partners through the mechanism of contracts with a Swiss coordinating entity."
==============================================================

I hate to say it, but the more you raise taxes on corps, the more they will run offshore as fast as they can. Stanley Works (the tool folks), Ingersoll-Rand and Tyco International, and telecommunications firm Global Crossing (if it's still in business) have all incorporated or plan to incorporate in Bermuda. Those of the mega-firms and there are hundreds of medium sized ones who are following suite as well. When you are under pressure to hit numbers on the penny, you will find a way to get around the tax issues, even if it means leaving US soil.

Do we really want to open the floodgates for this? I say fix the personal income tax issues and raise the corps taxes only modestly. It does no good to hamper the economic enviroment (by shrinking the tax base).

[rman]

27. "...as long as the US tax laws punish a company or individuals..."

Doesn't sound like the poster is quoting a corporation. Corporations view taxation as punishment, and the poster seems to agree.

For all i know offshoring of bank accounts is not allowed, it is condoned. And if it is legal, it should be made illegal.
So we could very well raise taxes on corporations and have them not evade taxation.

"When you are under pressure to hit numbers on the penny"

That is at the root of the problem; the idea that a corporation is only doing well if its value increases continuously. Given a finite amount of resources and labor, this inevitably leads to exploitation of labor, it is inevitably to the detriment of the vast majority of people. There's nothing good about it except for an already wealthy and influential minority.

[DocSavage]

29. What do you equate

taxes to?

Who ownes a corporation? To go any further, got to know what you think.

Secondly, if labor is a finite, and corporations are doing well, and utilizing that resource at capacity, how does that exploit labor. Of course, exploiting is also "using" so exploiting can be a good thing. If you believe in supply and demand (currenty accepted world wide) as supply of labor decrease and demand increases, competition for labor will occur. How do you attract the best and the brightest. It is thru money. More money, more talent.

When businesses are not doing well, they shed labor. Higher un-employment, lower wages. Business can be picky about hiring and will only pay a premium of top quality employees.

It is not rocket science, it is business.

[rman]

30. Reducing labor cost to increase profit - as we can see both in the US

and abroad - that's exploitation of labor.
Most of the jobs corporations create are lousy, and many of those are in China. Exploitation of labor there is much worse than in the US.
Life is more than just business.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. That's only true to a certain extent

You are correct that if corporations are taxed more prices will go up. However if prices become too high demand for their product will go down far too much and they won't be able to sell their products anymore. If we can use the tax revenue to increase the standard of living for the middle/working classes more than the price increases than raising taxes was worth it.

The ideal economy is one where we can have a high rate of economic growth but also have it well distributed. In the 50's and 60's the middle and working classes prospered because we had both of these. In the 70's we had slow growth but it was much mor evenly distributed compared to today. Today we have faster economic growth in the 70's, but because of years of Republican policies, most of that growth has gone to the wealthy and the poorest Americans are worse off than they were in the 70's.

Right now our biggest problem is that American industry is having trouble competing since other countries are catching up. There's just too many things that Indian and Chineese works can't produce chaper than we can. We need to find some way to overcome this if we want to return to the economic growth rates of the 50's and 60's.

In the mean time, though, the fact remains that we still have the highest real GDP per capita in the world. We can afford to re-distribute SOME of that so that the people on the lower end of the capitalist system can have a decent standard of living.

[ComerPerro]

38. Generally, $200k a year in income is considered "rich"

and I think most people agree with that definition, its pretty widely accepted.

And, honestly, I am suprised you haven't been banned yet.

You post RW talking points and named yourself after "doctor" Michael Savage (aka Savage Weiner)

[high density]

44. Problem is...

The corporations don't want to pay us decent wages, but they want us to buy widgets up the wazoo on our credit cards. They are eager to drive down wages here and increase profits by offshoring everything. The greed and focus on shareholder return is simply amazing today.

[Selatius]

46. It's not a good idea to pass to consumers a higher tax burden on yourself

The cost of compliance comes from the hiring of accountants and lawyers to keep in compliance with the complex tax code, not necessarily because of being in a particular bracket. You can pass that onto consumers, but you can't pass on to consumers the added cost if all I did was simply adjust a tax bracket.

If, for example, you made 10 cents on every dollar of merchandise sold, and I taxed you 40%, you get back 6 cents. Now, if the previous year's tax rate was 30%, yeah, you say that you're simply going to pass on the tax burden to the consumer.

But if you did that, you'd end up in a price death spiral and drive yourself out of business.

If in the previous year you made 7 cents in profit after taxes but only made 6 cents in profit this year because of a higher tax rate, all else being equal, if you raised prices, you still pay 40% on whatever you make, and you drove away some of your customer base.

Year 1: 10 cents in revenue - (10 cents * .30) = 7 cents in net income
Year 2: 10 cents in revenue - (10 cents * .40) = 6 cents in net income

Now, you raise prices to try to make back the lost cent:

Year 3: 11 cents in revenue - (11 cents * .40) = 6.6 cents

The math is clear, you charged a cent higher, yet you only made back 60 percent after making that decision. It makes no sense to raise prices if your taxes are raised with all else being equal.

If you had done this in a competitive field, you would've given the advantage to your opponents because they wouldn't have raised their prices, and they would've eaten some of your market share.

An income tax is a tax on profit. It is not a tax on production.

[annabanana]

14. Dem COULD . . . . "roll back the giveaways"

Rollback the giveaways to multi-nationals and the super rich...They have received so much from the American Economy that it's only fair that they contribute...

[mmonk]

18. Depends on framing the issues (which our leaders seem

not to understand). At one time, Americans weren't against the concept of a commonwealth. Since the right's tax cut cult began in earnest, democrats have been reluctant to talk in an adult way about the debt situation and like so many issues, joined in instead of just backing sound economics, thereby conceeding the issue to the right's framing.

[Binka]

19. They Need To Quit Saying Wealthy & Elite And Put A Dollar Figure On The

Proposal. It is really simple...."If you make less than $250,000 a year you are paying X% MORE in taxes than someone who does. How fair is that? The rich pay less than working folks? That is NOT right and the people who should pay more taxes are those making $250,000 or more. These people have not been paying their share for years. The Bush tax cuts only benefited them. We need to change that NOW."

It is a bizarre fact that some people who make $45,000 seem to think they are wealthy and or elite. Point it out to them that they ARE NOT!

[bleedingheart]

20. You know that most people don't know the FICA breaks that

the wealthier folks get?

A couple where both individuals are making more than $100K a year stop paying FICA after the cap...and a lot of people don't realize that...and when you tell them that...they don't believe you.

[Binka]

22. I Think The Cap Is $87,000 Which Is Fucking Insane

FICA for ONE FICA for ALL. The vast majority of people are so ignorant (by design) about how the elites and corporations are taxed they would ALL shit if they understood. Why the DEMs don't explain it is because they don't want to lose their wealthy contributors and corporate lobbying cash. It is obscene. And must be changed.

[bleedingheart]

24. Personally I think the cap should be removed and

I think that to be fair to lower wage workers, the first $10-15K in income should be exempt for employees but not for employers.
I think it is ludicrous that the people who get a break on FICA are those who do not need the break.

Based on my method...everyone gets a break.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. It's At $94,200 This Year

It rises a bit every year. It was a pretty healthy rise this year, because in 2005, it was $90k. So it went up over 4.5% in 2006.
The Professor

On Edit: I concur that this is FAR too low. Just was providing accuracy.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

31. $50,000 Millionaire Syndrome

I see it all the time. People who swear they will be partying on the yacht with P Diddy and Donald Trump ANY MINUTE NOW.

I kid you not, I got into a long conversation with a young co-worker who was earnestly defending Bill Gates' god-given right to keep more of his fortune. This kid probably makes $50K a year. Not bad for a youngster out of college but he is really deluded if he thinks GOP economic policies are going to propel him into the jet set class. But he really believes that.

At least he voted for Kerry because of the war so there's some hope for the boy.

[DocSavage]

32. How

is increasing the amount of money that is taken from him in the form of taxes going to get him into the jet set class. What he is defending, is the right of Bill Gates to keep HIS money. It is his fortune isnt' it? Throwi"Plan ng out Tax the Rich, make them pay thier fair share is a loosing argument. Define Rich, Define Middle Class.

If the Democrats really want to clean up and take more than just 1 or 2 seat majority, there has to be a "plan" put forth that is bold and new. Rolling back tax breakes just puts "tax and spend" in every republican add made. Bring forth real tax reform, somthing that is good for business and people, make the republican compete, well, you win.

[Horse with no Name]

28. The sad truth is

If we want to even try to fix this mess, anyone with half a brain has to realize that we are going to have to pay more in taxes.
We are in the midst of TWO wars which is a sacrifice for any country.
I'd rather pay them now so that we don't leave our kids and grandkids saddled with an unsustainable debt.

[seabeyond]

36. i dont think middle class and i know poor can NOT afford a tax hike

it will have to be reversing the gift to the rich and corporations and streamlining the budget

[WinkyDink]

37. It's called: Make it Fair. Make the Rich Pay their Share.

[Toucano]

39. Yes. Here's how.

Eliminate federal payroll withholding taxes for all individuals earning less than $40,000 per year. These citizens are taxed too heavily by non-income taxes. Just one annual tax return for these people that simply certifies their income was less than the prescribed amount. Save a LOAD of paperwork for the government AND employers. Most people in this range now get all their withheld taxes back and more with earned income tax credits. Eliminating the refund process will save loads of money. Employers still match FICA withholding but now at $1.50 for every $1 employees contribute.

Leave the tax rate alone for those earning 40K to 100K. Increase the rate on those earning more than 100K but less than $500,000 by 3%. Increase the rate on income above $500,000 by 4%.

Small corporations (with less than $1 million in annual revenue) will be taxed like individuals in that income group.

Above annual revenue of $1 million, corporations will be taxed at a rate of 25% of net income. Eliminate all corporate tax credits for businesses in this income class except those for creating U.S. jobs (for every U.S. worker hired or employeed for 10 months or more, give them a $500 credit each year), investing in technology and expansions that benefit the environment, and contributions to charities.

In this way, we are raising taxes on the rich and super-rich. Working families are guaranteed they won't see a tax increase - they get more money in the paycheck, businesses save a ton on senseless paperwork, but pay more taxes due to the elimination of credits.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. I Think Everybody, Including The Wealthy, Are Taxed Too Much Already.

Maybe I'm out of the mainstream on that, but I've always felt that taxes for everyone were way too much. When you truly look at the money our government spends on things it is obvious, at least in my opinion anyway, that there are so many things that could be reeled in to reduce spending without having to ask for another dime from anybody. Billions and billions of dollars just thrown here and there. I say figure out ways to get the funding for those things that are truly needed, and then make sure the costs for those things are trimmed as much as possible: i.e. no 1000 dollar pair of scissors.

I personally think that if the government received two thirds of the taxes they did right now and were forced to spend it with real legitimacy ,they'd still be able to have enough to pay for those things that truly need to be paid for in order for society and its infrastructure to be secure. I'm amazed at how carelessly money is thrown around washington, and that probably holds true for any administration or congress of any party ever. It's just simply politics and the way government works. But if it was forced to be TRULY fiscally responsible and the 'people' were watchin the books, I'd wager we wouldn't need to give them any damn additional dime, and in fact should be able to still have our taxes reduced greatly.

So no, I'm not in support of Dems or anyone raising taxes on any group, to be honest with ya. I am in complete support of some firm checks and balances on how they spend our damn money to begin with. :)

[Solon]

45. The rich are taxed far too little...

In fact, income taxes are relatively flat, across the board, and that is a major problem. As far as the budget, cut the Pentagon budget by 60% or more, and you cut 90% of the pork and waste right there. In addition, make income taxes progressive again, back during WWII and the Depression, how do you think they paid for all those programs? Through the rich, of course, they had their incomes taxed at a rate of close to 90%, and only had it reduced to 70% or so in the 1970s, then after Reagan entered office, their taxes kept on being reduced, while, oddly enough, corporate and CEO pay skyrocketed, and now its hovering around 30% or so.

You know what I find funny, the media loves harping of some pork a Congressman passed through as law, as a perk, more likely than not, for some local company that donated to their campaign. Usually these are relatively small amounts, somewhere around 50 grand or so, but always are trumpeted as the standard for waste in government. Yet you rarely here about the billions of dollars dumped straight into major corporations for designs, and redesigns, of the Bradley fighting vehicle or the Osprey.

We spend so much money on "defense" its getting ridiculous, and now we have wars on 2 fronts we simply can't afford, and at the same time, we still spend money on R+D, though public institutions, like DARPA, or JPL, and yet we give any patents from these to aerospace and other companies, FREE, without royalties, and THEY profit off of it. That is just stupidity. Same for a lot of medical research as well.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. I Disagree.

As you said, they are still being taxed at 30% or over. In my opinion, rich or not, NO american should have to give away a third of their earnings to the government.

In my opinion, like I said, if spending was done with more legitimacy there would be no reason for any american to have to pay 30% tax.

Reduce the spending, reduce the need for tax. Until they cut the billions and billions and billions of fat that they spend I don't want to hear a thing about the need for more taxes on anybody. That's just my position.

[high density]

43. I dunno

The problem is that many "Republicans" seem to suffer under a delusion that they're going to be billionaires some day, so they want the system stacked in their favor for when that occurs. I do feel that the income tax system needs to be more progressive again and cutting back the corporate welfare would be very welcomed by me as well. A problem with that is that our elections are currently at the whim of a group of "swing voters" who can't seem to get beyond the GOP sound bytes.

I write the following paragraph half-sarcastically... The obvious solution here is to just lie to people like the Repukes. Don't say you're going to raise taxes, just promise to cut them. Then once you're in office, raise taxes on the billionaires. At that point nobody should care but Fox News and the top 1%. When John Kerry said stuff like "I'm going to raise taxes on people making more than $250k a year," these people apparently heard the "I'm going to raise taxes" and then stopped listening. Dumb it down for people even further. The "swing voter" bloc seems to love getting taken on a ride, so I think the Democrats should offer one just like the Republicans do. I don't know if there's any other way to gain power and fix this mess given the level of political discourse in this country (Repukes stating that a Democratic congress will lead immediate terrorist attacks on this country and death of loved ones.)