Rasmussen: Voters Support Obama’s Plan To Raise Taxes On High Income Earners

It’s not at all surprising that a poll would show the public broadly supporting the idea of raising takes on high income earners. After all, we saw those same kind of results before the 2010 debate about extending the Bush Tax Cuts, and again just recently. What I suppose is surprising is that we’d see this kind of poll result from Rasmussen:

Most voters favor temporarily extending the so-called Bush tax cuts for those who earn less than $250,000 a year but are less enthusiastic about continuing those tax cuts permanently for all Americans.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with President Obama’s plan to extend the tax cuts for a year for those who make less than $250,000 annually. Just 20% oppose this temporary extension, and 13% are undecided

Interesting, no?

FILED UNDER: Barack Obama, Deficit and Debt, Politicians, Public Opinion Polls, Quick Takes, Taxes, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Chad S says:

    Since its Rasmussen, add 10% to the President’s side.

  2. DC Loser says:

    If the Bush tax cuts for the rich were as successful in stimulating the economy as the GOP claims, we wouldn’t be here having a debate about this today.

  3. Tsar Nicholas says:

    Rasmussen: Voters Support Obama’s Plan To Raise Taxes On High Income Earners

    In related news, people support the idea of other people paying their bills for them, other people doing their work for them, and other people wiping their asses for them after they crap.

    In any event, this man bites dog thing is nice fodder for the chattering classes but ultimately is meaningless. Team Obama is not dumb enough to raise taxes on small business owners going into an election. The GOP is not ruthless enough to avoid giving some quid pro quo. At the end of the day, then, both sides will cave, like they did last time around. Presumably they’ll wait until after the election to announce the deal, in which case this truly is nothing but a dog and pony show. Either way Zombieland will be older, but no wiser.

  4. al-Ameda says:

    I don’t believe that poll at all – it’s a mirage.
    People always support raising someone else’s taxes.

    Bottom line, this proposal to increase the tax rate on the top bracket to 39% to 35% is not going to happen. Despite the fact that our tax rates are the lowest they’ve been in over 80 years, GOP zombies are locked in to oppose any change in the tax code that is not a decrease.

  5. anjin-san says:

    The GOP is not ruthless enough

    I guess we have to consider the source here…

  6. Ben says:

    @Tsar Nicholas:

    Team Obama is not dumb enough to raise taxes on small business owners going into an election.

    If you’re bringing home over 250,000 in taxable income after payroll, inventory, reinvestment and everything else that goes into running a business, then you’re probably not a “small” business.

  7. An Interested Party says:

    If the Bush tax cuts for the rich were as successful in stimulating the economy as the GOP claims, we wouldn’t be here having a debate about this today.

    Nor would we be in the current economic recession…

  8. syn says:

    Rasmussen polled the 49% of Americans who pay no Federal Income Tax

    In Fairness, we should raise taxes 35% on the 49% who pay no Federal Income Tax then everyone can be Equal.

  9. superdestroyer says:

    I wonder how many would support tax increases on others if told that it will have no effect on the national debt or annual budget deifict but that the tax increases will be spent on increased entitlements for core Democratic Party blocks.

  10. superdestroyer says:

    @An Interested Party:

    Why do progressives keep pushing the idea that a country can tax its way to prosperity. With the demographics of the U.S., high taxes leads to the high unemployment failure that is California or Detroit.

  11. CarolinaStewPie says:

    @Tsar Nicholas:

    Yes, sweetie. However, since small business people do not make over 250K per year, you’ll remain in the minority on this topic. You, and Joe the Plumber, perhaps. The majority of small business folks make between 50 and 100K.

    Your assertion is groundless, ridiculous, and unsustainable.

  12. @Chad S:
    Rasmussen’s is always more accurate in elections than other polls. Part of the reason is they poll likely voters rather than just college students.

  13. @DC Loser: The “Bush Tax Cuts” would have worked had the Democrats not forced a change in housing loans in the Spring of 2007 starting with Chairman Barney Franks Housing Committee. They wanted to improve joblessness from the 4% to 6% the year before. It caused the housing starts to collapse as unemployment went from 7% in 2007, to 8% in 2008, 9% in 2009 and 10% in 2010.

    Whether you push the private sector out of the credit market with constant deficit spending/borrowing or tax them out of competition with overseas markets, has the same results. Banks fail. The market crashes. Unemployment skyrockets.

  14. @al-Ameda: The ObamaZombees think you can spend the way out of a depression or recession, against all common sense.

  15. @An Interested Party: @al-Ameda: The supposed “lowest tax rates” needs some fact checking. However, those same cuts in the late 1990s, along with a freeze on spending, led to revenue surpluses. Clinton did not and could not write a budget under the Constitution. That was the job of a Republican controlled House and Newt Gingrich. Then the cost of government was less than 18% of the Gross National Product to over 25%. We have more government than we can afford. Deficit spending/borrowing is not a free lunch and every tax is paid by consumers. If you raise the tax on the “rich,” then they have the easiest time passing it on to the consumers. Playing musical chairs with taxes is a mirage and propaganda by the Democratic Party.

  16. Dave says:

    @Ben:
    This. I’ve actually been an owner in a pass-through small business (LLC), and if we were carrying more than $250K in taxable profits then we were doing it wrong. We would always find a way to spend the money on the company, assuming we actually had a good enough year to worry about it.

    That whole “small business owner” argument is straight up smoke and mirrors. This country is generally really good to small businesses tax-wise.. the issue is more that there’s no credit to be had.

  17. An Interested Party says:

    Why do progressives conservatives keep pushing the idea that a country can tax (cut) its way to prosperity.

    I’m sure most people would much rather live in California than low tax havens like Alabama and Mississippi…

    We have more government than we can afford. Deficit spending/borrowing is not a free lunch and every tax is paid by consumers. If you raise the tax on the “rich,” then they have the easiest time passing it on to the consumers. Playing musical chairs with taxes is a mirage and propaganda by the Democratic Party.

    That’s rather cute, but Republicans play right along with that “more government than we can afford”, as showcased by the fact that they expanded government when they held the Congress and the presidency…the real mirage and propaganda is that tax cuts for the wealthy somehow lead to prosperity for everyone…

  18. Eric Schichl says:

    to href=”#comment-1553452″>An Interested Party: Actually the reason government grows during republican governments is simple the taxpayer who is paying for those pass along taxes anyway is employed at below market rates by government subsidies because the well off people don’t want to pay theses people a fair wage. try to argue that one mr. conservative with what you just said. Also government is only % of gdp becuase the size of the pool making purchase saw their net income decline by significant percentage. Also to your point about clinton(closet republican) you forget the conservative talking heads talked about 0.9 to 1.9 percent growth that is on record the increase in taxes with restraint on spending is what caused the surpluses of that year.

  19. al-Ameda says:

    @John Lloyd Scharf:

    @al-Ameda: The ObamaZombees think you can spend the way out of a depression or recession, against all common sense.

    I’ve never heard of a case where austerity and reduced spending have increased aggregate demand and caused economic growth.

  20. al-Ameda says:

    @John Lloyd Scharf:

    Whether you push the private sector out of the credit market with constant deficit spending/borrowing or tax them out of competition with overseas markets, has the same results. Banks fail. The market crashes. Unemployment skyrockets.

    There is no evidence that the private sector was pushed out of the credit markets by government spending and borrowing.

  21. sam says:

    @John Lloyd Scharf:

    Clinton did not and could not write a budget under the Constitution. That was the job of a Republican controlled House and Newt Gingrich

    Uh, that is flat wrong.

    The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (Pub.L. 67-13, 42 Stat. 20, enacted June 10, 1921) was landmark legislation that established the framework for the modern federal budget. The act was approved by President Warren G. Harding to provide a national budget system and an independent audit of government accounts. The official title of this act is “The General Accounting Act of 1921,” but is frequently referred to as “the budget act,” or “the Budget and Accounting Act.”This act meant that for the first time, the president would be required to submit an annual budget for the entire federal government to Congress. The object of the budget bill was to consolidate the spending agencies in both the executive and legislative branches of the government.

    The president is responsible for preparing the budget. Congress approves or disapproves.