« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Hill poll: American electorate apparently *not* addicted to soaking rich.

Or, rather, they don't actually realize that the soaking is already happening.

The most immediate thing to take away from this Hill poll is what the article on the subject leads with: which is, that something like three-fourths of the American electorate thinks that that the tax rate for the wealthy should be lower than it actually is (about the same proportion has a similar attitude towards similar tax rates for corporations). So far, so good – but then there was this frankly laughable paragraph from the Hill article:

The new data seem to run counter to several polls that have found support for raising taxes on high-income earners. In an Associated Press-GfK poll released Friday, 65 percent said they favored President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” that millionaires should pay at least 30 percent of their income. And a Pew poll conducted in June found 66 percent of adults favored raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 as a way to tackle the deficit.

The bolding is mine – and is, of course, nonsense. And you can tell that quite handily by looking at the questions. In order:

  • The Hill: The questions was “Most Appropriate Top Tax Rate For Families earning $250,000 or More?” (75% said 30% or less). Note, again, that the poll didn’t tell people what the current rate was, and that the American public has been told for far too long that ‘the rich’ and ‘the corporations’ aren’t paying their ‘fair share.’ So said voters naturally picked a 30% maximum tax rate, since it is a bit more than the 25% or so that they’re paying. It’d be no doubt surprising to the poll recipients that 30% would be an absolute joy to the average small business owner. Or that there are a lot of small business owners that would get hit by a soak-the-rich initiative.
  • AP-GFK: The relevant question there was “Please tell me if you would favor, oppose or neither favor nor oppose a law requiring that all Americans with incomes of one million dollars or more pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes?” …Which implies that those Americans currently aren’t. Which is probably why 65% of responders decided to support the notion in that poll; one wonders what the results would have been if it had been mentioned that people with that kind of income have a marginal tax rate of 35%.
  • Pew: I presume that this was the poll in question. And the question in question? “Raise the income tax rate on incomes over $250,000 a year.” …Yes, that would get 66%; and no, that does not actually presume any knowledge of what the actual tax rates were.

Do you see where this is going? Those questions are not identical, or even semantically similar. The first poll asked “What, specifically, should rich people pay in taxes?” The second insinuated (falsely) “Rich people aren’t paying enough taxes. Is that fair?” And the third demagogued “Should rich people pay more taxes?” The important thing to consider here is that these results are not paradoxical: if you don’t know what somebody is actually paying in taxes then there’s nothing stopping you from thinking that they should be paying more. And there’s certainly nothing stopping you from having an erroneous idea of what they’re paying in the first place.

And that is an indictment of, among other things, media/research organizations like The Hill, The AP, and Pew. Because in a better universe I would not have had to walk people through this.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

COMMENTS

  • spinoneone

    The current tax rate on families and small businesses earning more than $250,000 per year is 35%. Do you think this is: a) too little; b) too much: or, c) about right? If you answered “a” or “b”, what rate would you suggest?

  • carolina

    S Ron Johnson was very articulate and slayed the dem contributer (Jared ?) The dem was left sputtering.
    S Johnson was impressive!

  • macbookben

    …in parentheses, write the actual taxed amount on that 250k, which is $87k. But then that would be too forthcoming of these “pollsters,” wouldn’t it?

  • kelp

    First of all, we are talking adjusted income (after deductions, etc), but that is neither here nor there. Let’s just say the taxable income is $250k. You’re taking 250k and taking out 35% which is wrong for two reasons:

    1) 250k isn’t in the top (35%) bracket unless you’re for some reason married filing separately. For single people and married filing jointly, the top bracket starts at $388k. 250k would land in the 33% bracket.

    2) You only pay that rate on the income earned within that bracket. The 33% bracket for married filing jointly starts at $217,450 so you would only pay 33% on $32,550. For a single person, the 33% bracket starts at $178,650 so you are only paying 33% on $71,350.

    The actual numbers would be:
    Married filing jointly: $59,406 (23%)
    Single: $67,028 (27%)
    Married filing separately: $72,069 (29%)

    This is all laid out pretty clearly in the IRS documents linked in the story if you want more detail.

  • goodolboy

    the news media that you could take all the assets, not just money, but all the assets of everyone making $250k and more to include cooporations and that would not run the government for a year. How in the world will increasing their taxes going to reduce the debt. When taxes are raised money to the government goes down because those with money change their financial behavior which liberals don’t understand with their static models. People talk about the Bush tax cut was not paid for. Tax revenue went up after the tax cuts went into effect in 2004. In 2002 it was 1853.4B and in 2003 it was 1782.5B. In 2004 it was 1880.3B. In 2005 it was 2153.9B. In 2006 it was 2407.3B. In 2007 it was 2568.2B. So you see tax cuts bring more money to the treasury. I just wish someone would point that out everytime some democratic or MSM person says the Bush tax cut was not paid for.

  • macbookben

    to you that I misunderstood what the effective rates would be. But I will defend my point that dollar amounts are more conceptually illustrative than percentages. The figures you’ve arrived at with your calculations are greater than or equal to the salaries of many highly educated, skilled professionals in my locality (folks likely to have taken such a survey). And that’s a chunk of change best expressed in dollar amounts, not percentage rates.

  • Martin Knight

    They’re in campaign mode – this was no innocent or incompetent error.

  • The_Gadfly

    are well aware of that. But their calculation is that if they keep demagoguing the issue, and the press keeps feeding the public lies, they can keep getting re-elected. Sadly, this has worked very, very well for them for a long, long time.

  • bwilliamson

    when people will take time to find out facts for themselves instead of accepting what “someone” said. Logic is the death of opinion, but opinion will never give in because it is emotional and we will defend our opinion to the death no matter the facts.

    When some liberal folks in my office start talking about a topic, Global Warming for example, they tell me how terrible it is and that we have to recycle light bulbs and turn off lights and stop breathing. ( Greenhouse gasses you know.) I ask a simple question usually. Oh, how do you know (insert topic here) global warming is real? The usual replay is everyone says or scientists say or look at what the government is doing. That;s when I ask what scientist? Have you seen their test data? Can you give me the name of someone who has studied it and I can look at their conclusions? I either get a blank look or a no. I then proceed to give them names, facts and challenges to their assumptions.

    We have to get out of the mode of accepting what everyone knows and take the time to find out for ourselves. The great thing is that more people are waking up and taking the time to learn. Unfortunately there are still a lot of lemmings out there willing to follow what someone with the shiny microphone says.

    One day…….