Will higher taxes on the rich help reduce the deficit?

by Fox Report with Shepard Smith Posted 2010/04/14 16:47:26

5,143 votes
Read all 82 opinions
Lightning Report + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	378 votes	7%
	No	4,765 votes	93%

Question Closed

Constitutional Conservative 2010/04/14 20:31:01

No

+7
By forcing the "rich" to pay more, where would the incentive be to work hard and be successful? Why do we now have in America a redistributive, punitive tax system? How many poor people have ever offered anyone a job? And why does the definition of "rich" change every month,...now anyone making $250,000.00 a year is considered rich. The inmates are officially in charge now, ladies and gentlemen.
>> See Replies

More polls by Fox Report with Shepard Smith

Meijin Ryuu - Imperial Indi... 2010/04/16 21:49:20

No

+1
If anyone actually believes the wealthy do not pass it down to the poor in form of fees or price increments, well damn, I have an oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you!

reply
KeithBright 2010/04/14 23:41:12

No

+5
Has anyone ever worked for a poor person? Do we really want to keep heading down this silly path of driving them away. It is a fact that more people will offshore their income and assets as oppressive rates go up. It also takes away the "American Dream". Why earn more and more if progressively more of it is stolen by those that think they know best how to spend it?
The rich will always buy their expensive toys and luxury items. Switching to a Fair Tax (consumption only based) tax collection and killing income tax will actually yield more money from those with more to spend. It will also include all the "under the radar" spenders that do not pay taxes today because they do not want the government to know where they got their money. They do go to stores however. But everyone buys stuff especially the rich. If we make these changes, billions will come back to our shores.
We should strive to be the best place in the world to make and keep your money, not the worst.

reply
charles_1 2010/04/14 23:21:22

Yes

+3
In the short term it will reduce the deficit. In the long term it may make the deficit and the debt worse. The "rich" can move. They can turn money into things untaxable. They can move their money. Take their factories and jobs overseas. And basically abandon the US. In the long run there may be no rich people as we all become poor people with no jobs. At the end of the day the middle class bares the burden for government spending.

reply
Trevor 2010/04/14 23:19:51

No

+4
The rich create jobs therefore we would be the ones who suffer from it the most, rising cost of taxes = loss in jobs/inflation. Plus we all know that the rich hide their assets from the gov't so what diffrence will it make.

We all know the middle class will pick up the tab as usual. "Hope and change" Yeah right more like "Fraud and the usual"

reply
Momof5 2010/04/14 23:17:35

Yes

+3
Taxes on the rich are at the lowest point in our modern history. In the 50's & 60's taxes were as high as 90% and the country enjoyed great prosperity for all. Today, with the lowest tax rate on the rich, the middle class iis struggling to survive and in many cases, disappearing.

reply
Velanarris to Momof5 2010/04/16 00:00:27 (edited)

And back then the rich were able to be taxed as the poor because they could hide all their money overseas.

The rich didn't pay a dime back then, jacking the rate to an unreasonable level, ie: 50%, will only serve to bankrupt the government as they take their money into tax shelters or simply leave the country all together, taking their companies with them.

reply
FUBAR to Momof5 2010/04/16 19:27:12

+3
And 40% of the people in this country pay nothing.

reply
JamesSWoody 2010/04/14 23:15:28

No

+3
Letting the rates go up, does not increase revenues. Rate increases don't increase revenue - the only thing that does is to increase the amount of work done. Close all the loopholes in the tax code and let everyone pay their fair share (including the 50% that don't pay anything).

reply
mike 2010/04/14 23:14:54

No

+3
hell no unless you classify all Americans as rich and make everyone have a stake in the game

reply
I am the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT 2010/04/14 22:23:37
nightlight 2010/04/14 21:35:19

No

+1
Punishing the rich for having created wealth will not benefit the poor. What will reduce the deficit is to get rid of all those in our government who keep spending money that we don't have.

reply
Kirby 2010/04/14 21:15:13

Yes

+1
Yeah, higher taxes on anyone will reduce the deficit. That doesn't make it the right thing to do. We COULD, and this is just an idea here, but, we COULD "tax" large corporations like Exxon. I know this is radical, but hear me out. Exxon is apparently an "oil company". They make that liquid that makes your car go. Since the prices of that liquid hit the roof a few years ago these so called "oil companies" have been posting record profits at our expense. And how much did Exxon pay in taxes for last year? About $15 BILLION dollars...but NONE of it was to the US. Not one cent in taxes to the US. So you have to ask, if the bottom 47% not paying any federal income tax is bad, what about the top percentage of companies not paying any either?

reply
I am th... to Kirby 2010/04/14 22:25:42
Kirby to I am th... 2010/04/15 13:31:01

With oil corporations it's passed along whether they pay it or not.

reply
I am th... to Kirby 2010/04/15 13:42:18
Kirby to I am th... 2010/04/15 13:43:24

And still our roads are crap. Go figure. This is why we can't have nice things.

reply
I am th... to Kirby 2010/04/15 13:49:57
trainfan to Kirby 2010/04/15 20:42:52

Go a head! Put higher taxes on them, they will close there doors just like other companies are doing. Why would they want the head aches when they can get out of the business, kick back and relax?
Same reason I got out of the business I had, to much gov. regulation and the gov. steal all my money. I got out, have no more head aches and I am relaxing.

reply
Kirby to trainfan 2010/04/15 21:13:13

Oil companies will close their doors? Perhaps you need a reminder of how oil companies operate. When oil was at record highs they did not feel the need to increase production to level out the price. When oil began to drop to what they were a couple years before, production had to be cut to keep the prices from dropping any more. The price at the pump went up and up and up citing one problem after another that FORCED them to raise prices. yet with all this financial burden they still easily made record profits quarter after quarter. They paid $15 billion in taxes last year, not one cent to the US.

SOMEONE has to pay taxes. If nobody pays taxes, learn Chinese because the military doesn't run off hopes and dreams. So who should pay these taxes? Apparently not some of the richest corporations in the world, so who?

reply
trainfan to Kirby 2010/04/15 21:18:01

Any company will close with more and more BS to deal. The people will only take so much!!!!

reply
Kirby to trainfan 2010/04/15 21:35:11

They are currently paying NO taxes in the US. If not them, who will pay the taxes the government requires to run?

By the way, I have a business, too, and my small business paid more taxes last year than Exxon. I don't even have employees.

reply
trainfan to Kirby 2010/04/15 21:49:12

+2
Exxon paid 116.2 billion dollars in taxes in 2008.

reply
Wilbur to Kirby 2010/04/17 14:47:43

Guess who makes more money from oil than the companies that process and sell it? The government.

They get people like you all worked up over excess oil company profits and greed, and all the while they profit more than the greedy oil companies.

The U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Higher rates only means higher prices. You and I pay the penalty in the end.

reply
Angus to Kirby 2010/04/16 08:58:49

How about simply those that don't pay any? A group that was largely increased by the creation of more entitlement incentives by the current regime? How about putting a small tax on welfare, foot stamps etc. to let those that suck off the system realize that nothing is for free? But then again, if they had to pay for everything Maobama would have nobody voting for him !!!!!!!!!!!

reply
Bluebird 2010/04/14 21:02:21

No

+1
The rich people will just move more of their money off-shore. According to International Living they have had a record number of rich people express an interest in moving to other countries with lower taxes than the U.S. The middle class people will be hurt the most ......as usual.

reply
Constitutional Conservative 2010/04/14 20:31:01

No

+7
By forcing the "rich" to pay more, where would the incentive be to work hard and be successful? Why do we now have in America a redistributive, punitive tax system? How many poor people have ever offered anyone a job? And why does the definition of "rich" change every month,...now anyone making $250,000.00 a year is considered rich. The inmates are officially in charge now, ladies and gentlemen.

reply
StupidQ... to Constit... 2010/04/16 01:41:11

+1
Considering that 70% of income tax revenue is paid by the top 10% of earners, the answer to this question is most certainly 'yes'. Regarding your comments, how many wealthy people do you know? Most wealthy people that I know are happy to pay a bit more to support the public good. Wealthy people have more to give, and are generally willing to give it to help the less fortunate. If you are religious, this should make you happy - it is the christian way, after all.

reply
Angus to StupidQ... 2010/04/16 08:52:58

+1
Your answer reveals that you have no idea what so ever. How much are you willing to pay more so others can sit at home and do nothing? Even if the rich would pay more taxes it would not have any impact on the deficit created by the Maobama Regime. And come to think of it, its not so much about more taxes but more about Maobama's agenda of redistributing wealth and to create a much larger group of Entitlement Recipients. For he knows that only that group will vote for any of the traitors of liberty currently in office.

reply
StupidQ... to Angus 2010/04/16 13:56:13

+1
"Traitors of liberty"? So you're concerned about the budget deficit?

Bush's budget for 2008: 460 billion.

Predicted budget for 2009 (before Obama took office): 1.2 trillion (CBO baseline prediction, without factoring in the cost of any stimulus).

Difference from '08 to predicted '09 due to Bush's financial crisis: 740 billion.

Obama's actual budget for '09: 1.4 trillion (including the cost of all stimulus measures).

Difference from predicted '09 to actual '09 due to Obama's "wild spending": 200 billion.

Reasons for the difference: "Key categories of changes included: tax receipt declines of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense - including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq." (summarized from CBO report)

Some more interesting facts: What three presidents most raised the national debt. Answer: Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. (Perhaps because as attributed to Dick Cheney: "...

"Traitors of liberty"? So you're concerned about the budget deficit?

Bush's budget for 2008: 460 billion.

Predicted budget for 2009 (before Obama took office): 1.2 trillion (CBO baseline prediction, without factoring in the cost of any stimulus).

Difference from '08 to predicted '09 due to Bush's financial crisis: 740 billion.

Obama's actual budget for '09: 1.4 trillion (including the cost of all stimulus measures).

Difference from predicted '09 to actual '09 due to Obama's "wild spending": 200 billion.

Reasons for the difference: "Key categories of changes included: tax receipt declines of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense - including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq." (summarized from CBO report)

Some more interesting facts: What three presidents most raised the national debt. Answer: Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. (Perhaps because as attributed to Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter")
(more)

reply
FUBAR to StupidQ... 2010/04/16 19:29:27

+1
There is a difference between willingly helping, the Christian way, and having it forcibly taken, the government way.

reply
StupidQ... to FUBAR 2010/04/17 01:03:42

+1
Perhaps, but when the majority of tax money goes back to helping build society, it is hardly as bad even as "render unto Caesar". It's more like "render unto your fellow man".

reply
FUBAR to StupidQ... 2010/04/19 12:11:15 (edited)

I see redistribution of wealth is now being called "rebuilding society". When are those being rebuilt going to start "standing" on their own rather than continuing to receive handouts month after month after month . . . after month after month?

reply
Charge 2010/04/14 20:04:03

No

+4
It would reduce revenue and increase the debt.... a true recipe for disaster.

reply
SurferJoe 2010/04/14 19:49:55

No

+2
Are you out of your freaking minds!
My wife and I both work and pay all our payroll and hidden taxes.
The IRS still wants more money, WE DON'T HAVE.
We're too rich, Ha.
We've no retirement. I have to work till I die, period.
I would do better to get divorced, abandon my family, renounce my American citizenship, go to Mexico buy a ton of dope.
Sneak back across the border, sell the dope for a small fortune, marry 101 Native American girls or illegal aliens then live on the system.
This has all become insanity….. “Impeach the Resident”

reply
StupidQ... to SurferJoe 2010/04/16 01:46:50

Interesting, since 95% of Americans got a TAX CUT under Obama this year.

" 'The 2009 economic stimulus bill actually reduced federal income taxes for tax year 2009 for 98 percent of all working families and individuals.' This total includes the 95 percent of working families that will or have received tax credits in the range of $400 to $800."

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index...

reply
Angus to StupidQ... 2010/04/16 09:25:44

Your answer speaks for itself. I rest my case. You may want to use the internet to get some non biast information with real intellectual values rather than propaganda crap.

"A refundable tax credit of up to $400 for working individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns. This tax credit will be calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income and will phase out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of $75,000, or $150,000 for married couples filing jointly. Taxpayers who do not have taxes withheld by an employer during the year can also claim the credit on their 2009 tax return. "

You can use the table below to figure out yourself what the acurate number should be.

-----------------------------...
Income
Group 0-90% 90-95% 95-99% 99-99.5%
-----------------------------...
1980 $29,797 $94,075 $134,839 $235,651
1990 $29,663 $102,915 $156,518 $301,139
2000 $32,978 $124,641 $213,641 $460,678
2001 $32,323 $120,936 $199,477 $410,818
2002 $31,215 $117,526 $190,076 $383,527
2004 $31,125 $119,668 $198,553 $419,239
2005 $31,318 $121,930 $207,894 $452,258
2006 $31,528 $125,831 $213,600 $471,207
2007 $32,421 $128,560 $220,105 $486,395

reply
StupidQ... to Angus 2010/04/16 14:10:19

This report gives a detailed breakdown on the effect of three different Obama tax cuts on families in different income brackets. Combined these cuts saved the average working family or individual $1158 (median $600).

reply
Gordon to SurferJoe 2010/04/17 04:42:41

That's pretty ignorant.

reply
Wilbur to Gordon 2010/04/17 14:50:12

Lol. Oh, the irony...

reply
JohnThompson 2010/04/14 19:40:01 (edited)

No

+4
@lovefly
IF you think that the "rich" actually PAY taxes without passing them on to the "poor" in the guise of price/fee increases, then I have concerns about YOUR intelligence.

reply