Americans back tax increases in debt fix: Reuters poll

[Auburn85 434]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110511/pl_nm/us_usa_taxes_congress;_ylt=AkY8D7iYYN8fijIFFvGctwlvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTJtZmlnZDBnBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwNTExL3VzX3VzYV90YXhlc19jb25ncmVzcwRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDYW1lcmljYW5zYmFj

By Kim Dixon and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – More than half of Americans say higher taxes should be part of a fix to tame the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt, a Reuters poll released on Wednesday found, signaling a disconnect with Republicans who reject any tax increases.

Fifty-two percent of respondents in a Reuters/Ipsos poll said a combination of spending cuts and tax increases was the best strategy to reduce deficits, dovetailing with other recent surveys.

Republicans have taken higher taxes off the table in negotiations to reduce soaring deficits, while President Barack Obama, a Democrat, favors raising taxes, but only for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

"We're not going to raise taxes. That was decided in last November's election," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday. "I think the American people pretty clearly believe that we have the deficit problem because we spend too much, not because we tax too little."

Tackling rising deficits to keep the economy competitive is seen as a key issue going into 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

The polling results resonated with Neal Weber, who advises corporate clients at the McGladrey tax and accounting firm in Washington.

"As I talk to my business clients ... I believe that more than half of them share the same belief," that taxes should be in the deficit-cutting mix, Weber said.

Democratic Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad noted on Monday that revenue is at its lowest share of the economy in decades, while spending is at its highest.

"Clearly you've got to work both sides of the equation," he said.

But Republicans say raising taxes would stifle economic growth and say instead the focus must be cutting spending, including for the government pension and healthcare programs for the elderly.

HARD REALITIES

Some critics say Democrats are not calling for enough of a tax increase to raise more revenue.

Although Obama wants to end tax breaks for the wealthiest, he favors extending the George W. Bush-era tax rates on middle incomes, at a cost of $2.9 trillion over a decade, according to White House estimates.

"It is obvious that the nation's desperate fiscal condition requires higher taxes on the middle class, not just the richest two percent," David Stockman, budget director under President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the New York Times recently.

The May Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted May 5-9, with a randomly selected sample of 1,029 adults interviewed by telephone, both landlines and cell phones. The results are considered accurate within 3 percentage points.

Among independent voters, who were key to Obama's 2008 presidential win, slightly more than half favored combining spending cuts and tax increases. Sixty-two percent of Democrats and 40 percent of Republicans favored the same.

A separate Reuters poll of bond dealers and money managers released on Tuesday found a majority believe spending cuts alone cannot solve the nation's fiscal woes and that tax increases must be part of the mix.

RAISING REVENUE, CUTTING TAX BREAKS

The president's deficit commission proposed raising revenue with a tax code overhaul that trims tax breaks enjoyed mainly by those with middle and higher incomes, including the mortgage interest deduction, and health care benefits.

Reagan, a hero of conservative Republicans, took office in 1981 ushering in $265 billion worth of tax cuts. But as deficits worsened and Social Security faced insolvency, he agreed to tax increases, which, according to government documents, ended up totaling $132 billion over his two terms in office.

Many analysts believe decisions on taxes will be put off until after the elections.

"We're looking at the next election, and a huge fight over how much tax we should have in this country and who should pay it," said Clint Stretch, a former legislative counsel at the congressional Joint Committee on Tax.

(Editing by Vicki Allen)

[AURaptor 1,137]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

[cptau 169]

Opinion polls are misused beyond belief. Polls are based on statistics. Lies, darn lies, and statistics.....

And these same people who mention paying more taxes usually want someone else to pay more taxes. Does not work that way, if taxes go up they get passed on to everyone in some manner.

[Raven_tiger 5]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

I agree...

Cost of War

Who do you think is footing the bill for these endeavors (aside from the brave soldiers who have been killed and injured in combat)? $790 billion (& counting) on Iraq, that's more than TARP. Factor in health care cost for the soldiers that are returning from the theaters... We will have a spending issue for quite some time to come.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Obama's stimulus package was over 800 billion, and it wasn't spread out over 10 years.

In January, the CBO pegged the ultimate cost to taxpayers of the $700 billion TARP at $189 billion. When the agency issued revised numbers in late March, it revised that to $356 billion, a change that drew little attention. The larger estimate reflects, among other things, the Treasury's move to use the TARP to help avoid foreclosures, as well as the changing details of its aid to American International Group Inc., and the deterioration of financial conditions and of banks in which the Treasury has invested TARP money.

So, while Bush's TARP bill is costing us more than originally estimated, it falls FAR short of Obama's pointless stimulus package, which doesn't even include other cost increases, like Kash for Klunkers, and general increases in hiring and the pay for govt employees.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Obama's stimulus package was over 800 billion, and it wasn't spread out over 10 years.

In January, the CBO pegged the ultimate cost to taxpayers of the $700 billion TARP at $189 billion. When the agency issued revised numbers in late March, it revised that to $356 billion, a change that drew little attention. The larger estimate reflects, among other things, the Treasury's move to use the TARP to help avoid foreclosures, as well as the changing details of its aid to American International Group Inc., and the deterioration of financial conditions and of banks in which the Treasury has invested TARP money.

So, while Bush's TARP bill is costing us more than originally estimated, it falls FAR short of Obama's pointless stimulus package, which doesn't even include other cost increases, like Kash for Klunkers, and general increases in hiring and the pay for govt employees.

Unlike Bush's Folley it appears we're getting some of the money back

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-03-31/business/os-suntrust-repays-tarp-20110331_1_tarp-program-suntrust-banks-troubled-asset-relief-program

and another

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/keycorp-suntrust-offer-debt-to-pay-back-tarp-bailout-funds-1-.html

and another

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/14/news/companies/citigroup_tarp/index.htm

add B OF A to the list

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/bank-of-america-finishes-tarp-repayment/

add

Huntington Bank Shares

First Horizon National Corp

Wintrust Financial Corp

Susquehana Bank Shares

Heritage Financial Group

The Bank of Kentucky

'The banks also paid the government a total of 13.7 Million that they owed in exchange for the loans"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/tarp-funds-repaid-by-6-mo_n_800645.html

[Tigermike 3,425]

Obama's stimulus package was over 800 billion, and it wasn't spread out over 10 years.

In January, the CBO pegged the ultimate cost to taxpayers of the $700 billion TARP at $189 billion. When the agency issued revised numbers in late March, it revised that to $356 billion, a change that drew little attention. The larger estimate reflects, among other things, the Treasury's move to use the TARP to help avoid foreclosures, as well as the changing details of its aid to American International Group Inc., and the deterioration of financial conditions and of banks in which the Treasury has invested TARP money.

So, while Bush's TARP bill is costing us more than originally estimated, it falls FAR short of Obama's pointless stimulus package, which doesn't even include other cost increases, like Kash for Klunkers, and general increases in hiring and the pay for govt employees.

Unlike Bush's Folley it appears we're getting some of the money back

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-03-31/business/os-suntrust-repays-tarp-20110331_1_tarp-program-suntrust-banks-troubled-asset-relief-program

and another

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/keycorp-suntrust-offer-debt-to-pay-back-tarp-bailout-funds-1-.html

and another

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/14/news/companies/citigroup_tarp/index.htm

add B OF A to the list

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/bank-of-america-finishes-tarp-repayment/

add

Huntington Bank Shares

First Horizon National Corp

Wintrust Financial Corp

Susquehana Bank Shares

Heritage Financial Group

The Bank of Kentucky

'The banks also paid the government a total of 13.7 Million that they owed in exchange for the loans"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/tarp-funds-repaid-by-6-mo_n_800645.html

some

How's that Recovery Summer working out?

[arnaldoabru 11]

Obama's stimulus package was over 800 billion, and it wasn't spread out over 10 years.

In January, the CBO pegged the ultimate cost to taxpayers of the $700 billion TARP at $189 billion. When the agency issued revised numbers in late March, it revised that to $356 billion, a change that drew little attention. The larger estimate reflects, among other things, the Treasury's move to use the TARP to help avoid foreclosures, as well as the changing details of its aid to American International Group Inc., and the deterioration of financial conditions and of banks in which the Treasury has invested TARP money.

So, while Bush's TARP bill is costing us more than originally estimated, it falls FAR short of Obama's pointless stimulus package, which doesn't even include other cost increases, like Kash for Klunkers, and general increases in hiring and the pay for govt employees.

Unlike Bush's Folley it appears we're getting some of the money back

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-03-31/business/os-suntrust-repays-tarp-20110331_1_tarp-program-suntrust-banks-troubled-asset-relief-program

and another

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/keycorp-suntrust-offer-debt-to-pay-back-tarp-bailout-funds-1-.html

and another

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/14/news/companies/citigroup_tarp/index.htm

add B OF A to the list

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/bank-of-america-finishes-tarp-repayment/

add

Huntington Bank Shares

First Horizon National Corp

Wintrust Financial Corp

Susquehana Bank Shares

Heritage Financial Group

The Bank of Kentucky

'The banks also paid the government a total of 13.7 Million that they owed in exchange for the loans"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/tarp-funds-repaid-by-6-mo_n_800645.html

some

How's that Recovery Summer working out?

I don't know, the ones who caused the collapse seem to be doing well.

How's 4:00$ a gallon gas going for you?

[Tigermike 3,425]

Obama's stimulus package was over 800 billion, and it wasn't spread out over 10 years.

In January, the CBO pegged the ultimate cost to taxpayers of the $700 billion TARP at $189 billion. When the agency issued revised numbers in late March, it revised that to $356 billion, a change that drew little attention. The larger estimate reflects, among other things, the Treasury's move to use the TARP to help avoid foreclosures, as well as the changing details of its aid to American International Group Inc., and the deterioration of financial conditions and of banks in which the Treasury has invested TARP money.

So, while Bush's TARP bill is costing us more than originally estimated, it falls FAR short of Obama's pointless stimulus package, which doesn't even include other cost increases, like Kash for Klunkers, and general increases in hiring and the pay for govt employees.

Unlike Bush's Folley it appears we're getting some of the money back

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-03-31/business/os-suntrust-repays-tarp-20110331_1_tarp-program-suntrust-banks-troubled-asset-relief-program

and another

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/keycorp-suntrust-offer-debt-to-pay-back-tarp-bailout-funds-1-.html

and another

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/14/news/companies/citigroup_tarp/index.htm

add B OF A to the list

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/bank-of-america-finishes-tarp-repayment/

add

Huntington Bank Shares

First Horizon National Corp

Wintrust Financial Corp

Susquehana Bank Shares

Heritage Financial Group

The Bank of Kentucky

'The banks also paid the government a total of 13.7 Million that they owed in exchange for the loans"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/tarp-funds-repaid-by-6-mo_n_800645.html

some

How's that Recovery Summer working out?

I don't know, the ones who caused the collapse seem to be doing well.

How's 4:00$ a gallon gas going for you?

It's almost up to where Obama said he wanted to to be and you helped vote him in, so what's your point.

[Aufan59 99]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

The spending problem is so bad that the only way to truely fix it is to increase revenue.

We know spending is the problem, but to say that we can fix things only with spending cuts is simply wrong.

[AURaptor 1,137]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

The spending problem is so bad that the only way to truely fix it is to increase revenue.

We know spending is the problem, but to say that we can fix things only with spending cuts is simply wrong.

No, it's not wrong, it's prudent and the right thing to do. We spend far too much tax payer $ on things the govt has no business paying for in the first place.

[Tigermike 3,425]

Americans know taxes may need to be raised to pay this BS debt off but are in no mood to even consider it till congress has shown they know how to cut spending and cutting waste and outright fraud.

[AFTiger 282]

1. I wonder how many taxpayers voted yes in that poll. Since more don't pay taxes than don't, of course poll would come to its conclusion.

2. Half of the economic growth is federal spending. Reducing taxes and regulations while implementing pro-business policies would accelerate growth in the private sector and increase revenues. The profligate and wasteful spending by the Obama administration is actually impeding growth. Obama has destroyed the oil industry in Louisiana, killed thousands of jobs in South Carolina, is trying to kill the energy industry in West Texas. Obama's policies are prolonging the recession.

3. Keynesian economics is a failure and only serves to give government more control over our freedoms.

[arnaldoabru 11]

1. I wonder how many taxpayers voted yes in that poll. Since more don't pay taxes than don't, of course poll would come to its conclusion.

2. Half of the economic growth is federal spending. Reducing taxes and regulations while implementing pro-business policies would accelerate growth in the private sector and increase revenues. The profligate and wasteful spending by the Obama administration is actually impeding growth. Obama has destroyed the oil industry in Louisiana, killed thousands of jobs in South Carolina, is trying to kill the energy industry in West Texas. Obama's policies are prolonging the recession.

3. Keynesian economics is a failure and only serves to give government more control over our freedoms.

Just how has the President "destroyed" the oil industry in Louisana?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

The spending problem is so bad that the only way to truely fix it is to increase revenue.

We know spending is the problem, but to say that we can fix things only with spending cuts is simply wrong.

No, it's not wrong, it's prudent and the right thing to do. We spend far too much tax payer $ on things the govt has no business paying for in the first place.

No one's saying we shouldn't cut spending. What we are saying is that we can't just spending cut our way out of this mess. It's going to take both increasing revenues AND cutting spending. It will require some sacrifices from practically every segment of society to get this debt situation under control.

[AFTiger 282]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

The spending problem is so bad that the only way to truly fix it is to increase revenue.

We know spending is the problem, but to say that we can fix things only with spending cuts is simply wrong.

No, it's not wrong, it's prudent and the right thing to do. We spend far too much tax payer $ on things the govt has no business paying for in the first place.

No one's saying we shouldn't cut spending. What we are saying is that we can't just spending cut our way out of this mess. It's going to take both increasing revenues AND cutting spending. It will require some sacrifices from practically every segment of society to get this debt situation under control.

Economic growth and more jobs paying taxes will increase revenues. Obama and his fellow Democrats are stifling recovery. Tax increases right now are suicidal.

[Raven_tiger 5]

Obama's stimulus package was over 800 billion, and it wasn't spread out over 10 years.

In January, the CBO pegged the ultimate cost to taxpayers of the $700 billion TARP at $189 billion. When the agency issued revised numbers in late March, it revised that to $356 billion, a change that drew little attention. The larger estimate reflects, among other things, the Treasury's move to use the TARP to help avoid foreclosures, as well as the changing details of its aid to American International Group Inc., and the deterioration of financial conditions and of banks in which the Treasury has invested TARP money.

So, while Bush's TARP bill is costing us more than originally estimated, it falls FAR short of Obama's pointless stimulus package, which doesn't even include other cost increases, like Kash for Klunkers, and general increases in hiring and the pay for govt employees.

Unlike Bush's Folley it appears we're getting some of the money back

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-03-31/business/os-suntrust-repays-tarp-20110331_1_tarp-program-suntrust-banks-troubled-asset-relief-program

and another

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/keycorp-suntrust-offer-debt-to-pay-back-tarp-bailout-funds-1-.html

and another

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/14/news/companies/citigroup_tarp/index.htm

add B OF A to the list

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/bank-of-america-finishes-tarp-repayment/

add

Huntington Bank Shares

First Horizon National Corp

Wintrust Financial Corp

Susquehana Bank Shares

Heritage Financial Group

The Bank of Kentucky

'The banks also paid the government a total of 13.7 Million that they owed in exchange for the loans"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/tarp-funds-repaid-by-6-mo_n_800645.html

some

How's that Recovery Summer working out?

Pretty good so far, my 401K is performing pretty well since the Bush Stock Market collapse...

[TitanTiger 20,708]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

The spending problem is so bad that the only way to truly fix it is to increase revenue.

We know spending is the problem, but to say that we can fix things only with spending cuts is simply wrong.

No, it's not wrong, it's prudent and the right thing to do. We spend far too much tax payer $ on things the govt has no business paying for in the first place.

No one's saying we shouldn't cut spending. What we are saying is that we can't just spending cut our way out of this mess. It's going to take both increasing revenues AND cutting spending. It will require some sacrifices from practically every segment of society to get this debt situation under control.

Economic growth and more jobs paying taxes will increase revenues.

Not enough to pay down debt in big enough chunks.

Obama and his fellow Democrats are stifling recovery. Tax increases right now are suicidal.

Not when millionaires and billionaires can play tax shell games and pay lower overall tax rates than middle class taxpayers.

[AFTiger 282]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

The spending problem is so bad that the only way to truly fix it is to increase revenue.

We know spending is the problem, but to say that we can fix things only with spending cuts is simply wrong.

No, it's not wrong, it's prudent and the right thing to do. We spend far too much tax payer $ on things the govt has no business paying for in the first place.

No one's saying we shouldn't cut spending. What we are saying is that we can't just spending cut our way out of this mess. It's going to take both increasing revenues AND cutting spending. It will require some sacrifices from practically every segment of society to get this debt situation under control.

Economic growth and more jobs paying taxes will increase revenues.

Not enough to pay down debt in big enough chunks.

Obama and his fellow Democrats are stifling recovery. Tax increases right now are suicidal.

Not when millionaires and billionaires can play tax shell games and pay lower overall tax rates than middle class taxpayers.

Will increasing taxes on millionaires and billionairs allow us to reduce the debt in big chunks???

[Tigermike 3,425]

Obama's stimulus package was over 800 billion, and it wasn't spread out over 10 years.

In January, the CBO pegged the ultimate cost to taxpayers of the $700 billion TARP at $189 billion. When the agency issued revised numbers in late March, it revised that to $356 billion, a change that drew little attention. The larger estimate reflects, among other things, the Treasury's move to use the TARP to help avoid foreclosures, as well as the changing details of its aid to American International Group Inc., and the deterioration of financial conditions and of banks in which the Treasury has invested TARP money.

So, while Bush's TARP bill is costing us more than originally estimated, it falls FAR short of Obama's pointless stimulus package, which doesn't even include other cost increases, like Kash for Klunkers, and general increases in hiring and the pay for govt employees.

Unlike Bush's Folley it appears we're getting some of the money back

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-03-31/business/os-suntrust-repays-tarp-20110331_1_tarp-program-suntrust-banks-troubled-asset-relief-program

and another

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/keycorp-suntrust-offer-debt-to-pay-back-tarp-bailout-funds-1-.html

and another

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/14/news/companies/citigroup_tarp/index.htm

add B OF A to the list

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/bank-of-america-finishes-tarp-repayment/

add

Huntington Bank Shares

First Horizon National Corp

Wintrust Financial Corp

Susquehana Bank Shares

Heritage Financial Group

The Bank of Kentucky

'The banks also paid the government a total of 13.7 Million that they owed in exchange for the loans"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/tarp-funds-repaid-by-6-mo_n_800645.html

some

How's that Recovery Summer working out?

Pretty good so far, my 401K is performing pretty well since the Bush Stock Market collapse...

NOTE TO CLUELESS: The recovery summer had nothing to do with your 401K it was all about JOBS, JOBS AND MORE JOBS. Which we haven't seen. Unless that is you were one of those hired by the government.

[Tigermike 3,425]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

The spending problem is so bad that the only way to truly fix it is to increase revenue.

We know spending is the problem, but to say that we can fix things only with spending cuts is simply wrong.

No, it's not wrong, it's prudent and the right thing to do. We spend far too much tax payer $ on things the govt has no business paying for in the first place.

No one's saying we shouldn't cut spending. What we are saying is that we can't just spending cut our way out of this mess. It's going to take both increasing revenues AND cutting spending. It will require some sacrifices from practically every segment of society to get this debt situation under control.

Economic growth and more jobs paying taxes will increase revenues.

Not enough to pay down debt in big enough chunks.

Obama and his fellow Democrats are stifling recovery. Tax increases right now are suicidal.

Not when millionaires and billionaires can play tax shell games and pay lower overall tax rates than middle class taxpayers.

Will increasing taxes on millionaires and billionairs allow us to reduce the debt in big chunks???

If they take enough!

And you do know their definition of rich is not limited to millionaires and billionaires.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Will increasing taxes on millionaires and billionairs allow us to reduce the debt in big chunks???

Not in and of itself, which I've said about several things now for months. We have to look at everything from our tax rates on various incomes and types of income to various tax loopholes and subsidies to spending on discretionary items to defense to entitlement spending. You can't cordon off one of these things and make it untouchable. They all have to be dealt with if we're going to put our budget in the black for decades to come and pay down debt.

[AFTiger 282]

Below is a historical table of revenues and outlays by the federal government.As you can see that for 2010, total outlays exceedtotal revenues by 1.4 trillion. I believe that if you doubled the tax rate on all current taxpayers, you will not close the deficit. You can clearly see that spending is the problem, and until you address that, you cannot pay down the deficit. Taxing the rich is a typical liberal and emotional reaction that only exacerbates this national crisis.

[AFTiger 282]

Here is a better chart:

http://heritage.org/~/media/InfoGraphics/2011/04/wmraisingtaxestocoverdeficitchart1_590.ashx

you will have to go to the link as it is not in a format that can be posted.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I must be confused...is anyone here advocating the idea that we can tax our way out of deficits or that we shouldn't address spending? Because I could have sworn no one has.