Swing-State Voters Favor Taxing The Rich To Lower Deficit: Poll

WASHINGTON -- Republicans may find a resolution to make the rich share more of the pain in debt-reduction "rather pathetic," but new survey data suggest voters in swing states favor the idea -- strongly.

Poll data by the Democratic-aligned Public Policy Polling released Wednesday said voters in Ohio, Missouri, Montana and Minnesota back hiking taxes on the wealthy -- even for people with incomes as low as $150,000.

The respondents were asked: "In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose raising taxes on those with incomes over $1,000,000 a year?"

Nearly 80 percent of voters in the four states backed the idea.

The new poll comes a day after Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) labeled Senate Democrats' efforts to pass a non-binding resolution expressing that sentiment "pathetic."

But the poll, commissioned by a number of liberal groups including MoveOn.org and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, aims to support legislation that would not just support tax hikes, but actually enact hikes larger than many Democrats have been willing to back.

Legislation sponsored by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) aims to hike tax rates on income over $1 million to 45 percent and set rates as high as 49 percent for income over $1 billion. The top rate is currently at 35 percent. At the end of the Clinton administration, it was 39.6 percent.

Dean Baker, an economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, estimated that such rates would have a huge impact on the deficit in 10 years, while leaving other taxes and rates on the upper middle class on down untouched.

"Instead of cutting Medicare and Medicaid benefits, lawmakers could pass the Schakowsky millionaire's tax and raise about a trillion dollars," Baker said.

Republicans have insisted repeatedly that the only option for cutting the debt is cutting spending, and have been adamant that raising revenues should not be part of the equation.

"Making the rich pay higher tax rates is both overwhelmingly popular and necessary in these tough economic times," said PCCC co-founder Adam Green. "Cutting life-saving programs while saying new tax rates for the rich are off the table is an extreme position, completely out of step with the majority of Americans."

To back their argument, PCCC sent an email blast nationwide asking members to contact their senators and tell them to back Reid's resolution -- and the actual tax-hikes.

"Majority Leader Harry Reid is putting every senator on the record -- he's called for a vote in favor of raising taxes on the rich this week," the email said.

"Can you call your Senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, right now and ask them to vote yes?," said the version of the message sent to The Huffington Post.

Both senators have backed a more limited millionaire's tax before. Schumer (D-N.Y.) offered a measure last year to restore the Clinton-era tax rates for millionaires and billionaires, but it failed before President Obama cut a deal with the GOP to leave the Bush-era cuts in place for two more years. Sens. Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Schumer are also backers of the Reid resolution.

This story was updated to correct Baker's affiliation.

Comments

[Mandy Quimby]

12:54 AM on 08/13/2011

What American people fail to realize is that the wealthy INVEST IN OUR STOCK MARKET. They invest in small businesses, companies, and expect the Returns. It's called Capitalism and it's helped our country thrive since our beginning. Just say $5 Million more is taxed on the rich. That is $5 Million less being invested in our Stock Market, which is $5 Million less being invested in small businesses. You say taxing the wealthy would "lower the deficit", when it's actually screwing the American economy and businesses that make our country what it is. I never thought in America, could people be punished for being successful. 'Capitalism' isn't a bad word.

[Linda Rockhold]

06:31 PM on 08/02/2011

I don't care how many journalists say it won't help (just puts them in somebody's pocket in my view), taxing the rich, including a retroactive tax for the past ELEVEN years, will help a bunch! I am fed up at having tom pay for their defense, highways and schools while they gloat and smirk about not paying taxes. My motto:
Pay up or get out!

[Slopehead]

05:56 PM on 07/15/2011

Dude: "Democratic-aligned Public Policy Polling" is all I need to know how accurate it is. Michael, shame.

[Jeff McCabe]

04:39 PM on 07/15/2011

Wait? So people think that people who make and have more money that they do should be taxed even more than they are currently? How did they keep the number down below 100% And why stop at 49%? If 49% is good, 75% will be better, right? And it's not like anyone will modify their behavior, plus they will still have more money that most people. And once they get past $250K in a year, tax them at 100%. Yeah! What a wonderful idea.

[Linda Rockhold]

06:34 PM on 08/02/2011

Not clear, tax even more? The wealthy? I have clients who are not paying anything, millionaires and billionaires. Yet I am paying 24%-30%.Maybe I misunderstood your post, and you are on the same page with me.

[gradyp]

12:58 PM on 07/15/2011

When the wealthy are targeted with tax increases, people with means have the resources to maneuver and avoid them. The fall back position is then to tax people who do work and pay taxes but do not have the resources or clout to avoid increases. It's a perfect storm. Politicians pretend to soak the rich on behalf of folks who pay no income taxes and get the sandwich people (those in the middle) to make up the difference.

[gregory57]

07:08 PM on 07/11/2011

Politicians no longer care about the majority. Elections are so close these days it's a crapshoot.

What they CAN rely on is donations from big money sources, who like their rhetoric. The game has changed. Unlimited donations from corporate entities has changed the paradigm. Politics is no longer a beauty pageant, it's a money game.

[jwalter]

02:58 AM on 07/10/2011

Tax the rich some more. That's a reasonable solution. Why should I be expected to pay for services I value when I can vote to force someone else to do it for me?

[Linda Rockhold]

06:35 PM on 08/02/2011

Tax the rich more? No, tax the rich the same as the rest of us, ie, the middle class! I am paying for their services while they take what they want and walk away. In my book they are crooks and don't deserve to live in the USA.

[jturbayne]

11:15 PM on 07/09/2011

but to increase the wages , there is a marked decrease in the birth rate !
you making that comment shows the racism of your very rich base!

[Moneylaws]

05:01 PM on 07/09/2011

I think that a lot of people are forgetting that the Govt doesn't exactly spend money wisely. I get the impression that tax the rich tax the rich is like a populist joke that Dems like to play to get elected, especially because they along w Repubs get to waste the money. We are a spoiled country, even the poor are fat. Also, if you want to label big business as a kind of evil greed machine, the what the hell is the Govt? In terms of assets, if you consider the Govt a business how do you square that with a liberal philosophy? I think it's just a kind of envy. Just like I envy ridiculous people who get PAID to give thier opinion, how is that not a ripoff?

[gevan]

02:17 PM on 07/09/2011

As we used to say,
"Don't tax you, don't tax me,
tax that man behind that tree."

[SWadlington]

12:13 PM on 07/09/2011

Why not just tax EVERY stock market trade? These are the people who caused our economic problems and want us fighting with each other so we won’t put the blame and the burden where it belongs. Wall Street traders are the ones who made the real money with their reckless behavior and we should make them at least pay taxes on their trades. They also want to end social security so people will be forced to put their retirement savings into the stock market where the traders will have a chance to swindle them out of it. How much of your 401K’s have they gotten already?

[Sunny7]

07:24 AM on 07/09/2011

Did anyone ever work over-time? Was it worth it after they took out the extra taxes? Do you not realize the amount of taxes they already take out from the wealthy? When they spend their money, even more. They redistribute money, provide jobs and we would be taking away the American Dream to excell and instead provide sanctuary for those comming here for the "freebees" and not for freedom! We don't have a 'revenue problem, we have a "spending and borrowing" problem! Cut & Reform!

[DigESource]

11:30 AM on 07/09/2011

Overtime is mandatory in many jobs, because there are no functional Employment Rights laws as a result of Fire-At-Will State laws, and there is a high turnaround rate for many of these companies that send their hiring statistics into the Government saying, "See how many employees we hired last year?" Then they get a big tax break for providing jobs, but they did not provide new jobs.

If they spend so much of their money, then why do they have these unbelievable multibillion dollar personal savings that grow, and grow, and grow, and the jobs do not grow with it?

The problem with the "Cut & Reform" theory is that when it's used by Republicans, it's cutting the benefits to the poor, cutting the taxes to the Rich, and reforming the economics of the country into a system that keeps things that way.

Who is taking away the American Dream?

Oh.., I guess it's not being taken away from the rich.

[Linda Rockhold]

06:38 PM on 08/02/2011

Excuse me? I have clients who pay nothing! You don't get taxed more when you make more, the wealthy have paid almost NO taxes since 2000! NADA! Just who are you defending? I have clients who disagreed with Bush and thought he was certifiable, but voted for him so they could get the tax cuts. They bought another two houses and another jet!

[balmora]

09:59 PM on 07/08/2011

And a new poll has shown the 80% of all Americans dislike people who make more money than they do.

[DigESource]

11:52 AM on 07/09/2011

I don't have a problem with people that make more money than I do, I just have a problem with Government that gives them more breaks than me, the producer and consumer of goods and services.

[Brian Erk]

01:33 PM on 07/15/2011

What do you mean by breaks? It makes sense, the more money you make the less tax burden you should have. Look, if you make 100K and your tax rate is 35% then you pay 35K in taxes a year. If you make 1,000,000, you think it's fair that they should pay more then 35%? In my opinion the American Dream is the harder you work the wealthier you are. When did becoming rich in America become a crime? Why should someone who busted their ass to get $1,000,000 have to give back $490,000 to the government? Who is going to spend that money in a way that generates jobs and more revenue? the governmnet or the individual?

[Brian Erk]

01:35 PM on 07/15/2011

Let's put it another way, say you are making 35K and then you get a raise that takes you to 100K? it's a 65K raise. Are you going to bank all that money and do nothing with it? Hell no. Sure, some will get saved but most likely, you are going to go by a car, or maybe a better home, take nicer vacations. That's spending money that creates jobs. Heck, you might even get a haircut more often with which means the hair stylist gets paid more. It certainly means you are going to eat out more often, go to the movies more often, spend more on groceries, etc.

BUT, if after you get your 65K raise and then the government take 49%, your life isn't going to change that much, in fact, you would most likely just save the difference but certainly no new big purchases becuase the net of your raise was all of 15k.

Now, just because someone makes $1M shouldnt mean the government should get 49%. The goverment isn't going to employ more people but someone who makes 1 million is. they are going to buy property which generates tax revenue, they are going to buy cars which generates tax revenue, buy food, buy boats, go on vacations that you and I can only dream about. All that money is going directly back in to the economy and people who are employed because of these purchases and expenditures are paying taxes like you and me.

[mweberhbr]

02:54 PM on 07/08/2011

End Welfare kick out all the illegals make congress and senate pay for their own health care end thier pentions then we can raise the taxes on the rich.

[madgrrl]

06:29 PM on 07/08/2011

how about instead the rich pay their fair share of taxes just like we have to? How about getting rid of loopholes that favor the wealthy? If the poor have good paying jobs, they won't need welfare.

[balmora]

10:01 PM on 07/08/2011

The "rich" already pay considerably more than the poor, so why don't you take a minute to define what is 'fair".

[petrushka69]

07:18 AM on 07/08/2011

Has Obama seen this? He could win the absurd Republican no-new-taxes debate with the vast majority of Americans behind him. I have a sinking feeling that he will not.

[mweberhbr]

02:59 PM on 07/08/2011

why doesnt governmnet just cut spending why do we need to punish hard workers with taxes that is bs its like me racking up credit card debit then not paying or me buying a home and leaving it so to bring down the value of homes everywere oh yeah thats happening now by people like you who think taxing workers is the way out! Well that may help but what happens when they keep spending you want them to tax them more keep it up they wont work anymore either then what welfare for all thats working out great in greece

[BlueBird55]

05:29 PM on 07/08/2011

Bushie racked up the credit card debt (2 wars, NCLB, Medicare D, TARP) and then did the equivalent of quitting his job--lowered taxes. Now this president and we citizens have to find a way to pay for those bills, along with finding a way to maintain the current bills. There is only 1 logical way to do so: Tax those poor rich people and cut spending. The Democrats want to do both, but the repubs are fighting them. That's idiotic. The rich aren't working any harder than the rest of us. They don't create jobs out of the goodness of their hearts. Demand creates jobs--nothing more, nothing less. The rich have had their incomes increase enormously under Bushie's policies. They will not suffer if we simply allow their tax rates to go from 35% to 39%. That's all anyone is asking. Back to the Clinton-era tax rates. We could make it more punitive and expect them to pay St. Ronnie's tax rates, which were 50% from 1982-1986. Sounds good to me. The right worships little St. Ronnie, so let's return to those golden years of tax rates, shall we?

BTW, why are you so vehemently protecting the rich? What's in it for you?

[artfuldodger10]

11:38 AM on 07/11/2011

It's pretty hilarious when people that do not have a pot to piss in think that the talk of raising taxes somehow includes them and the taxing of their wages. The tea party is littered with these ignoramuses.They say the wealthy are being punished by higher taxes when in reality, if taxes are not collected to maintain the infrastructure and system that they operate in and profit from, Then they are slitting their own throat. For this system to work, everyone has to participate. It's far better to own a smaller percentage of a vibrant market/economic system, than it is to own a larger percentage of a stagnant market/economic system. The republican party and their constituents have been blinded by bald faced greed.What makes it particularly hard to swallow is how they get their votes to maintain power. And by that I mean how they fire up the least educated of us with non issues like gay marraige,stem cell research an abortion.