Half the respondents of a new poll say taxing the richest Americans by at least 50 percent is a great idea, while more than a third consider Twitter a fad that will likely fade.
Those are among the findings of a new “60 Minutes”-Vanity Fair Poll released Sunday.
Nearly half of the respondents chose Wal-Mart as the institution that best symbolizes America today, leaving in the dust runners-up Google, Microsoft, the NFL, and the banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs.
Dining out was chosen most often by respondents as a luxury they hate sacrificing in these tough economic times. And 5 percent thought the best way to fight obesity among patrons of fast-food chains is to equip each restaurant with scales for them to weigh themselves.
A politician taking bribes is considered by far the greater sin (chosen by 37 percent of the respondents) when stacked against extramarital affairs (just 2 percent).
Check out the poll itself on a variety of topics and vote.
#88, ‘How does it feel to walk around in the world thinking everybody hates you?’
Sounds aweful. So what is that like? And what do you think you can do about it? I’d recommend trying to think about other people and their situation (including people other than your redoubtably huge workforce).
I believe that people will step up and take care of themselves should the opportunity present itself. It is the altruistic mindset that fears this will never happen so they take from one party to give to another party.
I have faith in my fellow man.
You don’t.
Would I let 10 strangers die to save my wife?[…]
This isn’t a healthcare question. It is a simple yes/no question. Nice avoidance.
Care to try again?
#90, So sure I’m happy to check out a different point of view – so I’ll check out your book. Thanks.
Thank you.
#91 LibertyLover
Err but you didn’t answer my equally absurd question either. So I guess that was avoidance too.
‘Your wife has some disease which only the $10,000 in your pocket can purchase the cure for (all other issues are out of the way). Just as you are about to take her to the hospital, 10 strangers come up and ask for that money because that same $10,000 would save their wives.’
I honestly don’t know. I could give you some crap answer either way. So my real answer is it depends on context. Does my wife die immediately or in 10 years time. Is my wife 90 years old and at deaths door anyway, and the other wives are in the prime of their life. Are the other wives axe murderers. Etc.
So if you’d like to distill it into a realistic and contained question I’d be happy to answer it with a yes/no answer. But although you’d like to say it’s a yes/no question as it stands it is not.
Just another thought – the thing about the question is that the money is irrelevant. It’s really about peoples lives. So the actual question is
‘Would you allow 10 people you do not know to die to save your wife’s life’
I’ve the same answer – depends on the context.
Still I’m not sure what any of this it has to do with the subject matter.
#95, It’s a simple question. It’s only complex because you worry too much. You fear too much.
Come on, your wife is in the car, sitting in the driveway. She wants the cure. She is looking in your eyes, waiting on an answer.
Dr. Dodd, you still didn’t answer the question. Tell us how, with 2.6 million workers losing their jobs in 2008, would your tactics [of lowering taxes and cutting off social assistance to everyone] in January of this Year, make for a better recovery today, than what Obama has achieved. What are the mechanics of that strategy? Give a scenario, or example… something… instead of unfounded accusations.
You are adamant to knock Obama for doing everything wrong, so you must also know what should have been done instead, and why, to arrive at that conclusion.
#96 LibertyLover
No its not a simple question, and its not a yes no question. I mean you can answer it that way – but so what? So lets say yes I’ll have 10 people killed to save my wife. Now what? Or lets say no I’ll allow my wife to die, so 10 strangers can live. And? So?
And just because I said it – doesn’t mean in real life I would – depends on the context. Talk is cheap. Life can be complicated.
But enlighten me – whats the right hypothetical answer?
Would you kill a baby to save your wife? How about a pregnant stranger? Or 50 pregnant strangers? I mean where are you going with this?
#97-JimR-you still didn’t answer the question
Perhaps we can save time by you giving me the answer you want. I mean you obviously have something in mind and me trying to guess is an exercise in futility.
I call ’em Wall-Martians!
Lets have a fair flat rate tax with no deductions. Lets make it a low tax, and take it easy on ourselves and everyone else. Maybe if they thought they were the ones paying for it people would think twice about paying for goons in black helicopters to baby sit them, big money transfers to any corporation that bribes some crooked official enough, piles of bullets to be shot at foreign sheep herders, and so on.
The lack of understanding of microeconomics I see in this thread is unfortunately not surprising. At the end of the day, the real question about raising taxes comes down to whether it will increase tax revenue. If increasing taxes on the rich would actually increase tax revenue then fine. However, most of you liberal yahoos would raise taxes on the rich even if you knew it would *decrease* tax revenue which is utter lunacy.
As many have pointed out, the optimal tax rate is on a curve (Laffer curve). If people think that our tax rate is too low, then raising taxes should increase tax revenue. However, typically, raising taxes on the rich decreases tax revenue because they find ways of hiding their income (see Mrs. Kerry).
The way to increase tax revenue is to entice people to put more of their money in taxable investments. If people can make more profit by putting their money in municipal bonds or overseas shelters, than by say starting a business, they’ll do it.
For those people that claim that our problems are all due to migrating to a more service-based economy, I would like to point out that this is not by accident. At some point, if you increase the production costs enough (taxes, labor, legal, health care etc), it becomes more economical to produce overseas than here. If you reduce production costs, businesses will be enticed to do more production here. That formula isn’t going to change any time soon. Keep raising the taxes on businesses that produce goods here and they’ll keep going overseas.
#99, Dr. Dodd, so you don’t have an answer. Why didn’t you say so in the first place.
#102-JimR
The liberal mind is a maze of inconsistency except for the one constant. Use the government to steal from one person and give it to another while shamelessly taking full credit for being generous.
Lowering taxes always creates economic activity which is the key to repairing an ailing economy. There will even be more tax revenue for your precious social assistance programs.
Obama is raising taxes which accomplishes the opposite. How can he be considered anything other than a disaster?
#103 Dr Dodd wrote “Lowering taxes always creates economic activity which is the key to repairing an ailing economy. There will even be more tax revenue for your precious social assistance programs.”
The most recent proof that your assertion is false is from the Bush era. According to publicly released OMB figures, tax year 2000 receipts of combined Individual and Corporate income taxes were $1,212 Billion, which amounted to 12.5% of GDP. Four years later, those same two combined tax sources accounted for 2004 receipts of only $998 Billion, amounting to 8.6% of GDP for that year.
The extra money for increased government spending came from borrowing, not increased tax revenue.
#104, #105
If the tax rate were actually based on being in the top 1% or not, most would be inclined to go along with it. Having the “tax the rich” based on some arbitrary level of income is, well, arbitrary. The simplest solution would be to determine the top 1% based on the previous year’s tax receipts. If your income this year, would put you in the top 1% of income earners based on the previous year’s results, you pay more tax (in theory at least).
#106 Thomas, those are the same lines along which Robert Shiller (of Case-Shiller Home Price Index fame) has been advocating, although I’m not aware that he’s made any specific proposal for a formula. The basic idea is simply to use a broad measure of rich/poor disparity to automatically adjust income tax brackets over time, which sidesteps the ongoing politics that always trip us up. I like the idea, too.
Didn’t Bush #1 raise taxes leading towards a balanced budget, end of a recession, and 6 years of unprecedented prosperity that Clinton inherited. Oh, didn’t he also actually win a war?
Didn’t his son lower taxes, made a mockery of the word budget, and created years of global recession which Obama inherited? Oh, and there was that pesky problem of two unfinished wars.
Hey qb==why do people turn a good idea like “we should balance the budget” into a dogma of “taxes are slavery?” Is there a point there I am missing, or vice versa?
Why do people take a valid point of consideration in the mix of 20 other issues and then consider nothing else? Does such a trait correlate to other traits?
If you don’t know—–guess.
I’ve lived in countries with a small circle of billionaires and the rest poor.
IT SUCKS.
Yet, this is the conservative vision for America.
I’ve also lived in countries with few poor, few rich and a huge middle class.
IT’S FANTASTIC!
This is the liberal vision for America.
Think Pakistan vs. Sweden. Mexico vs. Canada.
Even the conservatives would rather live in the liberal countries… carping and wining the whole time.
Bobbo,
The main problem with Libertarians is they don’t realize that the enemy of liberty has changed.
Government USED be the all-powerful fascists, now it is multi-national corporations.
Liberatians want to sell off our country — at fire sale prices — to the new fascists! Ironically, Libertarians are now the new enemies of liberty!
#6 bobbo, the retarded self-feltching troll said, on September 28th, 2009 at 7:53 am
“LIEBERTARIANS==symbolized by….” Blah, blah blah!
I wonder if being manifestly the most ill-informed person on every topic in general and libertarianism in particular shouldn’t inhibit you from opening your mouth and removing all doubt that you are an idiot?
Greg Allen–very well analyzed and stated. Succinct. Something to consider/polish/make shine. My initial thought is that the liberty interest of standard old school libertarianism is to be distinguished from the moronic child like id suffocated Ayn Rand objectivism. They aren’t the same thing. I also think broadly enough to think the government and the corporations are both constantly but in varingly degrees enemies of liberty. Any person with common sense is an enemy of libertariansim, new school.
#112–somebody==#6? Really? #6?
EDITORS: There used to be a loose policy that when threads showed an interest, as in exceeeding 100 posts, it got reposted to keep the discussion going.
Seems like a good idea to me. I won’t comment on whether or not verbal diarrhea from folks like Alfie or myself should be factored into such an evaluation.
#111 Greg Allen said,
“Libertarians are now the new enemies of liberty!….”
Now there’s a sort of logic we can all relate to.
Stay tuned, gentle readers and Greg will explain how it is that War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength.
With especially moving personal testimonials about that last bit.
#115–somebody==up to #111 so soon? Evelyn Wood is proud of you.
Yes. The distinction between positive vs negative libertarianism. Reminds me of Anatol France’s great old quip that ‘the law, in its majesty, allows rich and poor alike to live under bridges.’ ==your kind of liberty. The negative kind.
But what does liberty mean when one is starving to death or ill?
What does liberty mean to you somebody? Does it go to anyone other than yourself?
#114 bobbo
EDITORS: There used to be a loose policy that when threads showed an interest, as in exceeeding 100 posts, it got reposted to keep the discussion going.
Threads don’t die but they do get buried. There’s a good reason for that. After a while they start to stink!
More stories, new discussions, please. Most of the time the people that post prolifically go off topic by their second or third comment anyways. Some of these guys ought to get a room together.
#117–ammarangadingdong:
EDITORS: If you use a policy of never bumping threads up or one of always posting threads up by whatever rule you might use, surely you have defaulted the the ammarangadingdong position of showing NO JUDGMENT AT ALL.
So, I agree with ammarangadingydongy: please don’t repost/bump stinky threads but keep the valuable ones going.
I think many good threads die off because when they don’t show on the main page, too many people think it is bad form to go to the older entries.
Discretion and judgment. What a concept.
#98, No its not a simple question, and its not a yes no question. I mean you can answer it that way – but so what? So lets say yes I’ll have 10 people killed to save my wife. Now what? Or lets say no I’ll allow my wife to die, so 10 strangers can live. And? So?
It is a simple question. You are only making it complex.
And who said anything about killing 10 people? I am asking which you would choose.
Simple and direct.
But enlighten me – whats the right hypothetical answer?
All questions posed on non-existent situations are hypothetical. That’s how progress is made in any arena.
AFA what the right answer is, only you can answer that.
Would you kill a baby to save your wife? How about a pregnant stranger? Or 50 pregnant strangers? I mean where are you going with this?
I would let the world burn to save to my wife.
Now that’s I’ve answered the question, your turn.
“I would let the world burn to save to my wife.” /// I’ve just read “The ego hides within itself. It protects itself by projecting its own wants into the outside world as the devil.”
Could have said LIEBERTARIAN, but said devil instead.
Yes, self centered little shits. Keep the confirmations flowing.
#119 LibertyLover
‘I would let the world burn to save to my wife.’
Well that’s nice. I mean it’s an answer. Would you really do that? Thankfully we’ll never know. I wonder what you’re wife thinks about this.
If you asked any red blooded male if they would shoot their enemy in war – the enemy that is capable and ready to kill them. 100% or close that to will say yes. Statistics from world war 2 show that less than 1% of soldiers actually can when able to do so if they can see the enemy. Those soldiers are different – medically classed as psychotic.
If that is the case then either your are deluding yourself, or you are probably psychotic.
As to my answer – I already answered.
#121, I don’t recall seeing a yes or no. You jumped around the bush quite a bit but you didn’t answer.
Then you tried to turn it around on me. You didn’t think I would actually answer it. And not only did I answer it, but escalated it as far as it would go — just as I promised to do on my wedding day.
That’s why you will never know happiness. You don’t want to make decisions. You want others to make them for you. You don’t want to take responsibility for your own actions.
Come on, get your balls out of your purse. Make a decision. Answer the question.