Poll: Most Americans Want Tax Cuts for the Rich to Expire

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

While leaders in Washington remain divided over whether to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans, as President Obama has proposed, just over half of Americans think it is a good idea, a new CBS News/ New York Times poll shows.

The Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year, and Mr. Obama has strongly urged Congress to extend them for everyone except for Americans making more than $200,000 or households making more than $250,000. Republicans and some moderate Democrats, by contrast, have called for an extension of all the tax cuts.

Fifty-three percent of Americans agree with Mr. Obama that the tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire, while 38 percent do not, according to the poll, conducted Sept. 10-14.

Two of three Democrats think it is a good idea, and most independents (55 percent) agree. Most Republicans (57 percent) think it is a bad idea.

A small minority of Americans (19 percent) think it is a good idea to let the tax cuts expire for households earning under $250,000 a year - a policy no elected official in Washington is promoting, given the state of the economy.

Meanwhile, one third of Americans believe the Obama administration has raised taxes. Fifty percent think taxes have stayed the same, but only 8 percent think taxes have gone down. In fact, most Americans received a tax break in 2009.

More from the poll:

Poll: Obama Approval Rating Mixed, but Most See No Economic Progress
Poll: Most Want New Blood in Congress
Poll: Most Know Those With Anti-Muslim Feeling
Most Say They Would Not Heed Palin Endorsements
Tea Party Supported by One in Five in New CBS News/NYT Poll
Read the Complete Poll

---

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 990 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone September 10-14, 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from random digit dial samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher.

This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

[honorsmom]

$250,000 a year is a perfectly reasonable place to draw the line. If you don't think so you are as disconnected as politicians. My husband and I make about $120,000. At $120K we are keeping ahead of things here in super-expensive New England. But we aren't rich, we don't have a savings, we have a lot of debt accrued before he got a promotion 10 years ago and before I got a degree. We do not go on vacation. We buy used cars. We shop at consignment stores. If we were making $250K we could go on vacation and save some money. It is ridiculous that our current income isn't enough for us to do those things. My husband has gotten one raise in ten years and I am at the highest level of salary for my profession. So we will probably never see our salaries increase much. But we have three kids and no concept of how to help them pay for college. But I know there are people reading this who are saying, "I am trying to support my three kids on $30,000 a year or $40,000 a year." What is the solution? My husband and I thought, when we started college in the mid-eighties, $100,000 a year would be enough for us to do anything. In fact, we thought we would be RICH. And we really didn't think we would attain that - nor did we care. We just hoped that a degree and hard work would make us comfortable. It makes me angry that I feel lucky right now because I am employed. I should not have to feel that I am being granted some special favor to be employed. The uneven distribution of wealth and power in this country is a disaster. So I cannot resist commenting about the "Yacht" controversy. If you are in the yacht income bracket and you fell compelled to save money by buying your yacht overseas, well I guess I can see how you keep accumulating a morally bankrupt amount of wealth. But YOU put yacht builders here out of business. Because of your greed. Under Eisenhower the rich were taxed at about 90%. And they were doing well. You are not entitled. You are lucky. And luck should be spread around. The problem with excessive wealth is that it makes people think they are somehow better than those with less. But you can only occupy one small space at any given moment. When you think of it that way, how much do you really need?

[magnumdr]

The USA should have a flat tax here. The more you make the more you pay. Those in a poverty situation pay nothing, then set a flat tax rate on a persons "real" income from a working aspect, not SS or any other type of benefit that has already been taxed.

[ky7474]

The rich care only for themselves and their greed just brought down the economies of the world. If there was ever a war worth fighting, this is it. Tax them hard, then tax them some more. They will still be rich and many families will be helped. There should also be a limit to the wealth that can be obtained. Their greed has taken the ability of the masses to prosper and in many cases to feed their families. There is no greater sin.

[oldman47701]

people people....Corp will not pay taxes...WE PAY the taxes in the end...it will be passed to US by prices/services raised..lay off's..plant closing...
There was provisions to Corp.'s about hiring/expanding...watch the BS
We PAY>> lookie lookie >>
http://electivedecisions.wordpress.com/the-tax-list/

[Mortar_29]

All true. And great list!

[bigmac456]

Polls like this are purposely phrased to give an intended outcome. I'd like to see the author come out with another poll and ask if income taxes should be raised on small business owners who employ over 50% of the workforce in this country. See what the public says then.

I own a small business and have to pay myself a lot of money just to pay rent for buildings that have plummeted in value. I don't pocket that money. Raise my taxes and I'll have no choice but to let more people go.

[velma179]

Oh, but if the poll says what YOU agree with... it is automatically what "the American people say".

If you are paying yourself to pay rent... that is an EXPENSE and you do not pay taxes on expenses (getting into the value of assets paradigm is another issue, but too complicated to mention here). Either you really do not own a business -- you just think you can say it with nobody catching on OR you are a very bad, uninformed business person that is clueless and those folks that might lose their jobs are going to be out of work because of YOU! Not the government. Period.

[bigmac456]

Velma, You make my point. Polls can be skewed to give whatever headline you want them to make.

I appreciate the "tip" but I assure you I know what an expense is. Some of us small business owners happen to own the buildings our businesses are based out of. We pay ourselves rent (an expense!) so we can make our mortgage payments. Even if we're upside down on a mortgage we move on so the business will survive. Increased taxes mean the business must pay me more(increased expense!). It's really not a hard concept--maybe it is for you though... My advice to you, finish high school.

[jambo223]

My understanding is that extending the "Bush" tax cuts for all Americans will cost something like $4-trillion over the next 10-years. Extending the cuts for only income under $250,000.00/year will cost around $3-trillion over the same period. It is also my understanding that since their inception the tax cuts have already added trillions to the national debt. Of course there is the issue that none of these cuts were ever paid for and there is no plan to pay for them in the future. So it is all borrowed money. Politicians keep talking about making the tough choices. Shouldn't the tough and correct choice be to let the cuts expire unless a viable plan to make up the deficits were reached? How can Democrats, Republicans, Independents or tea-partiers feel that adding trillions to the debt is a good idea? Is this just pure politics? What is wrong with this picture?

[Mortar_29]

What bis wrong is the level of spending...not tax cuts.

[rightbehind]

What? You mean take tax breaks away from ambulance chasing lawyers, doctors who feed on medicare and medicaid, hedge fund and derivatives dealers, companies that off shore US jobs, banksters, big oil, wall street, health care insurance providers and worst of all, tea partying mining company ceos that make 16 thousand dollars an hour. You mean to tell me that that they want to take tax breaks away from those that don't need them so they'll hire more people than they need? Say it isn't so!

[Lifeson2112]

Doctors who feed on medicare and medicaid? You must be out of your mind. Doctors are dropping those left and right because they won't pay enough to cover costs, if they pay at all.

[jab232]

Why does it not surprise me that a majority would dump the Bush tax cut for high earners? Most people know that George W. Bush added more to the deficit than all the presidents before him put together. Two wars and a huge tax cut for the rich made that the case.

And even Republicans admit that extending the tax cuts will add even more to the deficit. Cut taxes for the middle class. They got stomped in the last decade. Another story on this same site tells us the number of families in poverty are the highest since 1994. Then rescind the tax cuts for high earners (many of whom were among those who worked for 'bailed out' corporations).

Priority number one--Rebuild the middle class.

[Mortar_29]

Presidents dont add to the deficit.

[katie_n_charlotte]

Priority number one is stop the spending. Taxing 'anyone' to cover the gov't's outlandish wasteful spending is like making your neighbor pay your bills, pay for your very own over-spending/credit card debt. If any of the 'tax cuts' of the last 10 years are eliminated, that is 'plain and simple' a Tax Increase. That never helps the economy-not in good times and never in tough times like now....it is suicide.
"What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom."
- Adam Smith

[askagain]

correction

Lets compare three families. The first family earns $40,000, the second family earns $150,000, and the third familiy is worth millions of dollars. Which family is most likely to spend the most money each year? Now lets take a wealthy person such as Senator John Kerry who is worth millions and just bought a boat for 7 million dollars. Think how many people were employed building that boat. A boat like that will eat a lot of fuel. It will probably need a captain and a crew. Now which do you think spends the most money each year and employs the most people by doing so. The family just getting by on $40,000 isn't going to provide many people with work. The family with a comfortable upper middle income of $150,000 will employ more people than the $40,000 family. Now the family who spends 7 million on a boat will be employing a lot of people. Who offers the greatest value to society? I rest my case.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8618-503544_162-20016602.html?assetTypeId=41&messageId=9854114&tag=contentMain;contentBody#ixzz0zihzg6d1

[euge005]

Try adding up the number of families that it takes to earn that 7 million and note the tax cut for them means homes paid for, college for the kids and timely medical care. A lot more benefit than the stupid boat. It is about everyone not just the few. Regretably, the Repugs tend to think anout "me". Remember McCain and his "you are own your own" policy for the country? And how we the people rejected him?

[Mortar_29]

What are you talking about Euge? The boat is a perfect example!

Here's how....

Clinton and the Dems almost destroyed the yacht industry in this country when they tried to "soak the rich." They raised taxes on yachts astronomically. Well ,the rich said "I'm not paying that muich for a yacht I can get for far less overseas." So, they bought overseas, and the yacht businesses began closing shop.

People out of work. Companies that sold supplies and materials to the yacht companies were hurt. Loss of income taxes on this employees and sales taxes on the yachts.

So, the idiots raising the taxes that way ended up getting less money, more people out of work and a whole industry practically destroyed.

And the rich still got their yachts.

Let's get intelligent people in the government again that wont do idiotic things like this!

[askagain]

Lets compare three families. The first family earns $40,000, the second family earns $150,000, and the third familiy is worth millions of dollars. Which family is most likely to spend the most money each year? Now lets take a wealthy person such as Senator John jKerry who is worth millions and just bought a boat for 7 million dollars. Think how many people were employed building that boat. A boat like that will eat a lot of fuel. It will probably need a captain and a crew. Now which do ypo think spends the most money each year and employs the most people by doing so. The family just getting by on $40,000 isn't going to provide many people with work. The family with a comfortable upper middle income of $150,000 will employ more people than the $40,000 family. Now the family who spends 7 million on a boat will be employing a lot of people. Who offers the greatest value to society? I rest my case.