Vote in MSNBC Poll- How should the government pay the bill for Katrina?

[demo dutch]

Link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9379239/

Tax hikes - 32%
Cutting back in Iraq- 48%
Cut back domestic programs- 12%
Borrow the money- 2%
I don't know - 5%

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. How about 1 and 2.. is there an option for both?

[Toots]

8. 80% of respondants are for those two measures

:shrug: so those two are definitely out of the question for GOP

[tainowarrior]

2. how about #2

and not hiking taxes for the middle classes, but canceling the tax cuts for the rich? Progressive income Tax?

[MamaBear]

3. Okay.

Here's the update:
How do you think the government should pay the bill for Katrina? * 25510 responses


Tax hikes 32%

Cutting back in Iraq 48%

Cut back domestic programs 12%

Borrow the money 2%

I don't know 5%

[Roxy66]

4. Tax hikes?...lets call it what it is, Stopping tax breaks for the wealthy

[ProfessorGAC]

9. That's Not What It Is

The tax increase necessary will be more than merely reducing the tax cuts for the wealthy. These idiots have mucked the system so badly that the only way for revenues to be increased to meet the needs, will be to increase marginal rates by a little more than 1% on everything over $70k. (Maybe 1% of >$75k per household.)

Then, we can bring the troops home and save that cash. The combination of those two will cut the deficit by about $290 billion per year, which is about 60% of the current borrowing need.

But, merely eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy won't do what we need to have done. So you can call it that, but that would only be about half the revenue solution.

And, if we don't get the troops out of Iraq, then the percentage i propose would have to be more like 1.6%.
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

12. I thnk a return to Ford-era progressivity in income tax rates is needed

It (1975-76) was the only time earned income was at all 'honored' in top marginal rates.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. That Would Be Fine With Me

One interesting thing is that most people see progressivity as requiring huge jumps in margins. It would be better to have more rates with small shifts every several thousands of dollars. Then there is no confiscatory rate but the overall revenue boost would be dramatic.

The flimsy excuse that was used during Carter & Reagan, was the number of rates was too "complicated". That, of course, is utter nonsense. The only complicated part of the tax code is how deductions and credits are claimed, by whom, and under what circumstances. The number of rates, and the width of each stratum adds no complexity whatsoever.

But, when that happened, the jump in marginal rates between the "haves" and the "have somes" looked way larger. So, the talk about the "unfairness" became easier, during Reagan, to illustrate. The higher rates then fell and never got even close to where they need to be during non-boom economic periods. The upward moves of 41 and Clinton were almost right, but of course, Silverspoon tossed all those overboard.

Hence, we are where we are.
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

14. Agreed. I see little reason we shouldn't map marginal rates ....

... in a distribution that at the very least mirrors the progressivity of income distribution itself, possibly setting the zero (0%) rate at the point the slope of the curve reaches 1::1.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. An Excellent Suggestion T/N

Then one could use a visual aid to dispute the "complicated" talking point. The overlay would let everyone see just how simple it really was.

You know, you and i need to be running the Treasury department. We'd straighten that joint out in 3 months. Of course, the first thing i'd do is fire all the economists who work there. You can fire whomever you wish.
The Professor

[Jon8503]

5. Okay, done. I think 1 or 2 are ok & agree, both would have been a good

option.

[ourbluenation]

6. did 2 but would prefer repeal of tax cuts for the rich

[yurbud]

7. stop tax cuts for rich, reverse trend of cutting for them

This chart is from the uber conservative Heritage Foundation:

[sam sarrha]

10. Looting Tax on Halliburton.. pay it all off..

[Eugene]

11. Voted 1. We need both 1 and 2.

We need to reverse the tax cuts for the rich.