Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: SurveyUSA Virginia (8/8-10)


SurveyUSA
8/8-10/08; 655 LV, 3.9%
Mode: IVR

Virginia
McCain 48, Obama 47
(June: Obama 49, McCain 47)
Sen: Warner (D) 58, Gilmore (R) 34, Parker (G) 3, Redpath (L) 2

 

Comments
geek:

Crap!!!Looks like McCain is making ground all around. This has got to be unsettling for the
democrats. Has Obama peaked already?

____________________

OC_Manu:

Obama does not have to win VA. But he does not win there, he has to win PA and Ohio. This is not good news!

____________________

carl29:

No doubt that Virginia is becoming more and more purple, regardless if Obama carries the state or not.

I think this poll is overestimating those groups more simpathetic to McCain, Why? Well, in this SurveyUsa poll the bloc of those 65+ is 17%; however, in 2004 these lovely people were 10% of those voting. Why does this benefit McCain? Well, They are supporting McCain 58% vs. 37%, which is not a surprise since we know that the older the voter the least willing to vote for Obama.

SurveyUsa is also underestimating AA. In this poll AA make up 19%; however, they were 21% of those voting in 2004. Is it right to assume that AA will vote in lesser numbers this time around? I don't know you, but I really doubt it.

According to this SurveyUsa poll Obama has the edge among those who make less than $50,000, a category in which much minority people will fit. However, SurveyUsa is underepresenting this group, why? Well, in 2004 they were 39% of those voting, but SurveyUsa has this bloc at 27%.

Bottom line: Guys, this state is going to be a nailbiter. I will be more than happy to see a no long-ago reliable red state becoming the purplest state of all.

____________________

Stillow:

Its downright turning blue. Virginia used to be a solid red state, but you've had massive migration from the Northeast down into Virginia....and they are brining there left leaning politics with them, thus turning the state. I think McCain will probably hold the state red this time, but i nthe future after another 4 years of left leaning move-ins, the state goes all blue in 2012. If ya can't beat 'em, just move in with them!

____________________

geek:

@carl29
To be clear I do not have a horse in this race.
So no partisan spin please

I understand your analysis. All good, fair points I might add. But I have a question.
Has survey USA polled this state before with
the same weights? I yes then there is a trend.
no?

____________________

st paul sage:

Let's see - Kerry states + Iowa + NM = 264

Add VA and it's 279. Add CO and it's 273. Add OH and it's 284. As an Obama supporter, I feel pretty good about the scenario. Obama just needs to win one of the 5-10 states where he is tied or leading McCain.

As Clint Eastwood said, "Are you feeling lucky?" Is that the McCain strategy? To get really lucky and win every single swing state?

____________________

1magine:

50+ = 50% of Demographic? 65+ = 17%?
11% of liberal Dems voting for McCain?
14% of AA voting for McCain? AA = only 19% of electorate?

Uhhhmmm - ok. If with all this built into this poll, it is this close... I am happy as a clam.

McCain is in deep deep dog poo. Maybe he shouldn't have flip flopped on Bush's tax cuts, torture, negative campaigning....

____________________

1magine:

Ohhh - they switched from RV to likely voters. How interesting. I wonder what their likely vooter madel looks like? Older, white, Republican?

____________________

player:

If this military action by Russia escalates, it will be interesting to see the reaction of voter concerns in the polls. Their focus will lock in on national security. Also, this Edwards saga isn't good news for Obama. It brings back the Bill Clinton impeachment trial memories. In these next two weeks, the polls should tell the tale.

____________________

carl29:

Hello dear geek:

That was the first thing I looked for, and found out that they did some "adjustments." For example: In the June poll, the bloc 18-34 was 26%; however, in this poll they are 21%, a 5% decrease. Whom do this group support? Well...you guessed, Sen. Obama 60% vs. 37%.

Their June poll had a party ID advantage of 12% of favor of Democrats, Dem. 43% vs. Rep. 31%. Now, it is Dem. 37% vs. Rep. 32%, a 6% decrease among Democrats.

P.S: Thanks for helping me bring up these additional observations!!!

____________________

OGLiberal:

First of all, the previous SUSA poll was 49-47 Obama. This one is 48-47, McCain. All well within the MOE. Translation - this thing was and remains a tie, a least from a SUSA poll perspective. This is definitely a swing state this year and whoever wins it will probably see an edge similar to the one Webb had over Allen in 2006 - ie, a very, very small one. This is hardly bad news for Obama. That this state continues to be in play, big time, is actually great news for Obama and for Dems in general. Pollster.com avg. still has Obama up by just under 2%.

Now comparing SUSA's June poll with this one, it's party ID where you see the biggest demo difference. In June, their R/D/I breakdown was 31/43/23. This month it's 32/37/25. A 6% drop in self-identifying Dems and it's still a statistical tie? Again, that's far from bad news for Obama.

There's a shift of indies towards McCain in this poll - McCain led by 6 within this group in June, he now leads by 11. (and, again, there's more of them in this poll than in June's) June's poll showed 25% of AAs supporting McCain so even though the 14% in this poll still seems high, it's better than 25%. Sample size is about the same and kind of small. (and probably excludes "new" voters, who are more likely to support Obama)

Obama supporters looking at this poll as bad news need not worry too much. It's still very much in play.

____________________

Stillow:

@player

One would think that if the Russia/Georgia conflict worsens it would help McCain. As would an Israel/Iran conflict. Every poll I have seen shows people trust McCain more in foreign affairs and military realted issues. So I would assume McCain would do better if those conflicts worsened...people would look to the guy who they think would be best to manage the situations....

____________________

brambster:

Obama has 5 different 'outs' this cycle if you take for granted that he will win all Kerry states plus Iowa. Those outs are as follows and in the order of likelihood that I believe they would be:


1) Ohio
2) 2 of 3 -> New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada
3) Virginia
4) Indiana
5) Florida

Even if McCain picks up Michigan, Obama still has so many outs according to today's polls that he has a great shot, but I really, really, really doubt that McCain will win Michigan without the race changing dramatically. I believe that Bayh will be his VP pick, and that should help in not just Indiana, but also slightly in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

____________________

Stillow:

I am not sure the establishments would have him take Bayh, if he does and wins, the Dems will lose a senate seat which would lessen the likelihood of picking up a philibuster proof majoirty in the Senate. Traditionally the party occupying the WH will lose seats in Congress in the first mid term, so if Obama really wants to push his agenda thru, he needs all the Dems in the Senate he can get to break the philibuster on the more radical agenda items.

____________________

djneedle83:

What this poll tells me...

I like Obama winning Virgnia 51%-49%

1.) True Swing State... Tim Kaine will be Obama's Vice President.

2.) 14% of the black vote will not go to Mccain. The percentage will be 94%-96% for Obama. Also, blacks will make up atleast one in every five voters. The percentage of the voting electorate will be 20.5% to 23%.

3.) The cell-phone users will raise Obama’s figure by 0.5%-1.5% in Virginia because of the colleges, wealthy-suburbs, and various large cities.

____________________

boskop:

@stillow
chess like reasoning and really smart.
but obama just wants to get to the white house whichever way he can. first things first.

____________________

Undecided:

All RCP averages used from Electoral map--

First... Obama has to worry about a couple of Kerry States: Michigan (17EV) w/Obama +3.2 and New Hampshire (4EV) w/Obama +1.4.

Second... Colorado (9 EV) w/Obama +1.7.... Ohio (20 EV) w/Obama 0.5...and Virginia (13 EV)is a tie. (I do not see the optimism here.)

Virginia may have a large influx of Dems, but there is still a very large military presence there. Governor Tom Kaine has been on talk shows lately and his is not a very forceful advocate for Obama (or himself). He does not have the persona. He also supports offshore "discovery" of VA, but not offshore drilling. Funny, what if they "discover" oil/natural gas, then is he going to say no to drilling? And Kaine's experience is little to nothing for national office: 2 years to date as Governor, 4 years as Lt. Governor, 2 years as mayor of Richmond (pop. approx. 200K), and Richmond City Council 6 years. Really, would someone want this guy as next in line for President?

By the way, Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor has been representing McCain on talk TV also. He was elected to Congress in 2000, is the Chief Deputy GOP Whip,and the only Jewish Republican in Congress. Cantor served in the VA state House for 8 years. During Congressional first term Cantor was Chairman of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare... not a subcommittee and he held meetings. He is popular and charismatic. He is Obama's equivalent in many ways, except he is more experienced in national governance.

Tom Kaine does not hold a candle to Eric Cantor.

____________________

Undecided:

If one is going to use "cell phone" users as a variable, maybe you have a source for that? The only article I read on cell phone users was statistically-based and showed no significant difference.

____________________

boskop:

@undecided
'Funny, what if they "discover" oil/natural gas, then is he going to say no to drilling?"

this is a GREAT line~~
i hope the late night guys trawl around these here parts and pick it up.

someone should email this to mccain for an ad campaign or to youtube it.

____________________

Undecided:

I agree with geek... one can compare the SurveyUSA polls among themselves to find trends.

Notably, both June and this poll are well within the margin of error... but considering that the candidates switched front runner status leaves one to see a trend not in favor of Obama. Also both candidates have been advertising heavily in this state, but Obama has spent much more money in ads and in-state organization.

____________________

djneedle83:

The Vp will be a geogrpahically pickup in the 2008 election for Obama. And I did work on the Obama campaign for those reading this short paragraph.

For starters, let's assume that Mccain is capable of pulling off some swing-states. The current Obama electoral margain is significant, but you always have to play to your safety-net.


Swing-States Mccain is most likely to grab

1. Mizzou

2. Florida (felon vote will decide the election)

3. Nevada/Colorado/Montana/North Dakota

4. Ohio

____________________

djneedle83:

So who will the Vice President be people?

____________________

zotz:

The determining factors will be demographics, voter registration, and turnout. Obama's strategy is obviously to run up the non-white voter turnout while holding onto women voters and blue-collar. I think he accepts that the "Reagan Democrats" will vote the same as they usually do. Can he win without them? Nobody knows!

____________________

OGLiberal:

This is also a red state (Bush won it by about 8 in both 2000 and 2004) in the middle of transforming to purple and maybe eventually blue. To expect Obama to jump out to a 3-5pt lead in a state that has been traditionally red is wishful thinking. I still think that a tie in VA in August, especially with his edge in the ground game, is very good news for Obama.

____________________

Stillow:

Well I think Obama really wanted Edwards, but that won't happen now. To bad for the GOP the afair didn't break after he was named VP. Kaine is pro gun rights and pro life, which is sin #1 to the left to be pro life. Bayh would force the Dems to lose a senate seat. Hillary doesn't want it, cus she want sto run in 2012. In other words I have no idea who Obama will pick.
McCain, again, who the heck knows.

____________________

boskop:

obama takes richardson. there's no spot on the roster so far for bayh but has anyone heard if richardson is un-scheduled too?

mccain: who the heck knows. anything can happen, just hope it isnt eeyore (lieberman), hot wife (romney) or tom (homeland insecurity) ridge.
i'm hoping its pawlenty or that dame in alaska.

pawlenty versus richardson. yummy.

____________________

brambster:

Stillow, the Democrats are not a party-line group like the Republicans are. They would welcome Bayh with open arms, and he is well respected.

The Dems have almost no shot at reaching 60 seats without an epic blowout. Picking up 5 is very likely, but picking up even one more at this moment looks like a long-shot. They would need 4 more to reach the magic 60. That may well happen in 2010 as simimar circumstances will exist that year as does this year.

If Obama/Bayh did win, the next election would automatically give some coat-tails to the Democratic nominee since their own native son left the post and would be serving as VP.

Although Indiana has been traditionally Republican, they now have a majority of House in the hands of Democrats, with a switch of 2 seats in 2006. The Governor's race this year still looks very close if you throw out the Republican linked partisan polling that Pollster has tracked. A Bayh nomination should also help the Dems in the governor's race somewhat.

Although losing one Senate seat is a possibility should Bayh be chosen and succeed, it is not a certainty, and it wouldn't really make any difference in the Senate.

____________________

carl29:

I don't think is going to be Richardson. Obama needs a white man, and Richardson doesn't fit that bill. I think it could be Joe Biden or Evan Bayh.

____________________

Undecided:

So is Obama going to choose a VP for political gain or for good governance? Is he the same old politics or the new politics?

____________________

boskop:

@carl...
biden is out for two enornmous reasons:
age...which would just vindicate mccain. he is younger but reads visually older.

the other is securities fraud: his son and brother are under investigation for hedge fund securities fraud and there is no way this will fly especially now that edwards has screwed the pooch when it comes to INVESTIGATIONS>

____________________

carl29:

Obama is going to choose whoever he wants, a luxury a nominee has. However, I think that if he were to pick Hillary, whom he, his wife, and staff DO NOT stomach, everybody will agree that in fact he is making a very political decision, totally contradicting his vision for the country. Other than Hillary, one of the most polarizing figures in American politics, almost anybody will be a good partner for Obama in the White House.

____________________

A lifelong resident of the Commonwealth, I remain skeptical that Virginia will put Obama over the top. (I agree that OH, CO, NV, and even FL are more likely to flip).

On the other hand, no Democratic nominee in recent history has made a serious play for Virginia, and Obama is building a bigger organization than I've seen in any statewide race. At the very least, the VA effort will drain Republican resources from other states.

Since McCain has so much more territory to defend (and less money to spread around), any VA poll that's within the MOE is good news for Obama.

____________________

carl29:

Thanks boskop. I didn't know about the Bidengate. So, I have to pick Bayh. At least he fulfills the first requisite for a VP choice: DO NO HARM!!! He may not bring that much to the ticket but at least doesn't take away either.

____________________

Stillow:

@brambster

Don't forget about the liberal republicans i nthe Senate, the closer you are to the magic # of 60, the better off you are if your Obama's team. They'll have less Republicans to bribe, I mean convince to vote to stop debate. The GOP will most likely philibuster Obama's tax hikes, etc, etc..

____________________

brambster:

@Stillow

Obama doesn't want to raise your taxes...unless you make over $250,000 per year. He wants to let that piece of legislation expire as it was enacted with an expiration date. He wants to then cut taxes on those making under $250,000 and pay for it with the revenue generated from the Bush tax cut on the extremely wealthy's expiration.

Unlike McCain's plan, Obama's is almost entirely balanced in that it almost pays for itself (a net cut of 0.3% across all income groups). McCain on the other hand wants a net 2% cut that isn't paid for so it becomes an IOU with interest to pay. That's a scam.

Obama's tax cut is progressive, meaning that those that need the money most will have the largest percentage cut, while McCain's is entirely regressive in that the people that make the most also get the largest percentage cut. That is ridiculous considering that the lowest wage earners already pay a disproportionate share of their income consumption taxes (which are regressive).

Here's a study on the effects of both tax plans. Obama has a bigger cut for about 80% of the population:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

____________________

Undecided:

Duh... Obama wants to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends. FYI... that significantly impacts people making under $250K/year with any kind of investment.

All economic experts conclude that BOTH Obama's and McCain's tax plans will ADD to the deficit and the debt. Neither one is "paid for."

____________________

brambster:

Undecided/Nicki

More FUD from you I see.

First off, dividends are taxed at your income tax rates, so Obama would provide a bigger cut for dividend taxes for about 80% of people. Republicans want to end the corporate side of taxing dividends, but that hasn't happened. Corporations already have many tax breaks and generally pay a rate far below what the stated rate is. For instance, many tech companies wrote off the value of their stock options grants and effectively claimed losses for tax purposes because of it, while making billions.

Regarding capital gains, most of the capital gains tax breaks went to the very wealthy in the first place. This is such a small number for anyone that doesn't own substantial amounts of property or securities, and capital gains are not taxed in retirement accounts. There are exceptions for capital gains on things like selling your primary residence up to about half a million in profit. This was another one of those short-term tax breaks that was set to expire, and it does next to nothing for the vast majority of Americans.

The vast majority of Americans work hard for every dollar they make, and they pay Social Secirity tax on every dollar they make, and their employer matches those dollars too. Then they pay the same tax that a billionaire does for things like communications taxes, sales taxes on commodities, and gas taxes. Why should those that have more money than over 80% of the population benefit more from any tax break especially when it doesn't get taxed for SS or wage taxes, and when there are already enough loopholes allowing taxes to be avoided?

Warren Buffett said in regard to the capital gains tax before it went into effect that he already paid a lower effective tax rate than his own secretary (20% for Buffett, and 25% for his secretary), and that he didn't think it was fair for him to get such a large tax break on top of what he already benefited from.

Do you mean to tell me that billionaires that already pay lower effective tax rates than the average working man or woman should get even more tax breaks? No, really, do you mean to say that? Do sheep like you actually believe this garbage?

____________________

thoughtful:

i am surprised that none of the other pollsters can see the logic of the Sebelius VP pick for Obama. Some one says he needs a white man, I don't think so. Women, AAs, 18-29s, and Hispanics are the key groups for Obama.

Battleground is Mid West and West. Using Boskop's logic Richardson and Bayh are already delivering their states. Virginia and North Carolina! may well also be in play!

____________________

Stillow:

@brambster

I don't want to discuss tax policy with you, it will take way to log in a forum like this, but if you hink Obama is going to cut your taxes, you have another thing coming. The guy wants to increase spending by almost a trillion dollars....sorry, but the rich can't pay it....he will come after all our pocket books.....but this is opinion....but lets just tax the rich has been a slogan by librals for decades, it snothing new. Cutting taxes on everyone has proven time and time again to generate more revenues for the g'ment and allows hte people to prospure more. Its one of th ereasons many Clinton supporters feel he is setting himself up for a one term go, tax and spend just doesn't work....nor does Bush's cut taxes and spend....

____________________

boskop:

i think obama is not going for a state per se. he's going for a demographic.

if he could find an hispanic/asian he'd jump all over them.

mccain might too.

let's see...nope. changed my mind. last i heard obama himself was a minority, kind a. so he cant go too heavy towards that end. which is why richardson is the guy academically speaking. he reads WHITE cum macho RESUME but sprachs hispanic and now with the beard, he sprachs liberal touchy feely, birkenstocks.

____________________

thoughtful:

@Boskop we agree at least about Obama going after the demographics.

women of course are'n't really a minority, they just`appear to be that way. If obama gets 60% then he negates the 60% of white males that go to McCain.

With regards to states per se: the Obama local organizations on the ground are quite extraordinary. The National campaign whilst overall in charge have got very effective operatives throughout. I think that is one of the resons why the Obama vote has been holding up consistently in the battle ground states.

____________________

Undecided:

Who is MORE polarizing? Although Obama has large numbers of enthusiastic support (25%-30%), he also has almost an equal number of those who dislike him.

____________________

Stillow:

It's inevitible that country is going to swing left. Obama is riding a changing mindset in America that the g'ment has to solve your problems and the g'ment needs to pay your bills....which is completely oppositte from our mindset when reagan took office. We have a debt that exceeds 10 trillion dollars, a project spending deficit of just under 500 billion next year....and this country may very well elect liberals to be in complete control. It scares the hell out of me. If the liberals get that kind of control it will be the final gust of wind that knocks down the house of cards and finally bankrupts this country. Entitlement socieities cannot be sustained, eventually they will crcumble....there is going to be quite a mess to clean up.........with record debts, its time to stop spending, cut entitelments, etc, not increase them....

____________________

Undecided:

So "brambster" now says that my comment about taxing capital gains and dividends is "more FUD." Is that "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" that such taxes will impact the middle class... or do you have your own special definition of FUD.

(Note also that I never stated or implied "that billionaires that already pay lower effective tax rates than the average working man or woman should get even more tax breaks?" You are deflecting with false attributions.)

Of course Obama can only think "family" when he should be thinking also "small business" when he talks about those over $250K... those small businesses who file as sole proprietors. (That is also where brambster has tunnel vision... apparently neither has ever owned a small business or has a clue about such.)

Obama definitively stated he wanted to increase taxes on dividends and capital gains (as opposed to "earned" income). Did he change his mind/words from his original statements? Since June 2008?

From NPR.com (June 11, 2008)-- "Obama's proposal to raise dividend and capital gains taxes would be widely felt. But the vast majority of the increase would be borne by the wealthy. According to the Tax Policy Center in Washington, the richest 5 percent of Americans collect more than half of all dividends and more than 85 percent of all capital gains."

So is it OKAY to increase taxes on just LESS THAN 1/2 of all dividends (not the richest 5% who collect more than half) as well as 15% of capital gains (also those not the richest)?... and then say he is NOT raising the taxes on middle America? This is not raising taxes on small businesses.

This sounds like Obama's spiel about him voting for alternative energy and not the Bush/Cheney energy policy when he voted for that 2005 bill... and then accusing McCain of being against alternative energy and supporting the Bush/Cheney energy policy when McCain voted AGAINST the same bill. Just more lawyer-speak (aka "nuance.")

____________________

Stillow:

Its not rocket science to know that a liberal democrat will raise taxes across the board. The debate is how much will he raise our taxes, not will he raise our taxes....because of course he will....if he takes office you see the definition of who's rich slowly get lower and lower....after all making money is bad...enjoying the fruits of your hard work is horrible...you should be punished for your success and have your money gathered up and sent to people who need it, wheather they are working or not....its the new Americn Dream, why pay for it, when someone else will....!

____________________

player:

The problem with the Obama argument about blaming wealthy people for not paying enough taxes is a phony one. The wealthy who have their money invested in the corporate stuctures pay a double tax. Their investment profits are taxed at the corporate rate of up to 39% before it ever starts to come to them. They then have to pay capital gains tax on their investment earnings of up to 25% or 35% under Clinton rates. Actually, they pay most of the taxes that our government spends. Bush has been trying to get rid of the double taxation but to no avail. Also the inheritence tax also takes a major chunk of anything they leave behind. The liberal democrats play politics on the ignorance of their voters who don't know the facts. The republicans do it with that phony flat tax crap.

____________________

Undecided:

I am going to repeat my previous post here:

Obama wants to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends. FYI... that significantly impacts people making under $250K/year with any kind of investment.

All economic experts conclude that BOTH Obama's and McCain's tax plans will ADD to the deficit and the debt. Neither one is "paid for."

And here I agree with Stillow... about record debts and time to stop spending. Before Congress/President puts forth new programs, they need to get control over the debt. Any increased taxes should be to reduce the federal debt and budget deficits and NOT create new programs. Most importantly, the Alternative Minimum Tax (ATM) needs to be reformed because it now applies to millions of middle class taxpayers (not the handful of rich as originally intended). McCain plans to deal with the AMT and is a major part of his tax reform. Obama barely mentions AMT because he depends on it to help balance his tax policies... just like Bush did/does. It makes the budget deficit disappear sooner, even though with temporary AMT fixes that money is not necessarily collected.

____________________

brambster:

Undecided/Nicolee

I have run a small business for 12 years, and my effective tax rate on every last dollar I make is about 40%. For every extra dollar I make, I pay over 50% in taxes, Federal, State, Social Security, Self-Employment, Medicate, Medicare, Unemployment.

I would love to be one of those people that just simply made money from money, and then only paid 15% on that, but this is real life, and those people are few.

The bottom 80% of people in the US only hold 8.8% of all financial wealth. Who do you think deserves the larger tax break?

____________________

carl29:

Dear Undecided: What part of "DO NO HARM" don't you understand? If Obama is already polarizing, as you argue, what make you think that he is going to bring another such person on the ticket? LOL!!!!!

P.S: By the way, I don't think that Obama is as polarizing as Hillary, which doesn't mean that he doesn't have his enemies, starting with "some" Hillary supporters, sore losers of course.

____________________

Stillow:

@brambster

The top 10% of income earners pay 90% of the current tax burden....what do you suggest raising that oo, I am just curious.
My wife is an accountant and each year around tax time her favorites stories are about people who paid zero dollars in federal tax, yet somewhow get refunds of thousands of dollars....ahhhhh yes, the dream is alive!

____________________

player:

@Stillow:
You're right that people will lean more to experience where war is concerned. I know that I would. Obama's pick shouldn't help him in the contest. He has already shown that his campaign is all about him. Hes the star. So it makes sense not to pick Hillary, and Richardson is definitely out. Byah is a mystery. Why would Obama pick someone who voted for the Iraq war and who also voted to extend the patriot act. Thats against everything that his liberal left base believes in. It could deminish their energy somewhat. Without their energy in this contest, he has no chance. Seems iffy to me.

____________________

brambster:

Stillow,

That's a made up number that you provided. In 2006, the top 10% in Adjusted Gross Income paid 70.79% of the taxes. The top 10% hold more than that percentage of financial wealth.

Also note that Adjusted Gross Income means what is taxable after adjustments, so this discounts what isn't taxable income.

Also, income tax is such a small part of total taxation, and virtually all other taxation is regressive. In fact, the Center for Tax Justice regularly finds that states without an income tax are the most regressive due to their consumption-based taxes applying disproportionaly to the incomes of lower wage workers.

Here's a very nice set of reports covering the effect of the capital gains tax cuts. This shows that the top 1% regularly received 70% to 80% of the total capital gains and dividend tax cut. Not 10%...1%.

http://www.ctj.org/html/cgdiv0508.htm

I just don't understand why people actually buy this stuff about Republican tax cuts being better for the common man. This is wealth distribution to the wealthiest. This is why super-rich vote Republican, and extra-educated vote Democratic. Both of those groups know exactly what is going on, but apparently you don't.

____________________

Stillow:

@brambster

I saw the stat in the WSJ....and it was talking about all tax, the entire tax burden when you add in sales tax, etc....WSJ showed the top 10% of wage earners paid about 90% of all tax ollected. But for the sake of argument I will use your # of 70....my question still stands, how much should say hte top 10 percent pay? Give me a #, 75, 85, 95, 99, what shuld the top 10 percent pay in terms of percentage of total tax collected? What woudl be fair to you....I am still curious.

____________________

Undecided:

So I take it that as a small businessperson brambster does not have any "capital assets" that may be sold or traded later that may in fact may reap "capital gains" for his business. I consider myself a typical small business owner and I happen to have such assets... most do.

____________________

eugene:

John Mccain has no chance of winning this election unless he gets 61% of the white vote,that hasnt happen since 1984,the demographics has changed tremendously,everytime the minority vote goes up the gop has to get more white voters,this year they have to get 61%,in 2012 its going to be 65%,in by 2016 the gop have to get 68% of the white vote which will be impossible.Go in check the demographics of the presidential elections from 1976 to 2004,the proof is in the pudding,i wish the media would talk more about this serious issue,but they wont, because they dont want people to know about this.

____________________

brambster:

@Undecided\Nicki

Every penny that comes out of a small business (proprietorship, s-corp, LLC) to it's shareholders is taxed as income regardless of whether or not that income was the result of a capital gain. Such entities do not typically, or cannot pay taxes (outside of a minimum required tax) as the burden is completely distributed to it's shareholders as taxable income.

There is absolutely no benefit for a small business owner to have a capital gains tax cut outside of selling the actual business. I suppose it could happen if you set it up as a C-corp and paid corporate taxes and then distributed the profits in the form of a dividend, but that makes no sense for a small business as the total tax paid would be higher and if the profits were distributed straight to the owners as income.

The Center for Tax Justice found that the bottom 60% of earners received only 2.1% of the dividend and capital gains tax cut. The bottom 80% in total received 6.1% of the tax cut. The bottom 95% in total received 15.1% of the tax cut. But the top 1% income earners, those earning over $1.6 million a year, received 70.4% of the capital gains and dividend tax cut. Now if our economy was run on the production of 80 foot yachts that might be considered a stimulus package, but in reality this was a giveaway to people that didn't need it while your gas tank costs 3 times more to fill, your health insurance is twice as expensive, and if you made more than 80% of people in America, you got a whopping $88 in dividend and capital gains tax break on average, while the people making $1.6 million took home over 30,000 extra.

I hope that you use an accountant.

____________________

Stillow:

@eugene

Its not really a secret....

____________________

player:

@undecided/nicky
I see you have your liberal democrat talking points in order. Why do you people always refer back to Warren Buffet? Didn't you know that he made his money in real estate? What kind of crisis are we in now? Anyway, you make no sense of your analysis because you are a typical Obama supporter who always tries to shift the focus of any question concerning Obama and or his policies. Bush and Congress have lowered the capital gains tax. This is for people who make money off stock margins and dividends. People that have their money in 401k's are also included through vaious funds. It makes no sense to raise taxes when we should be cutting government spending. Congress is just going to have to buckle up and do the dirty work. Do you think that Obama is going to cut government spending? Get out!

____________________

brambster:

@player

You chose the wrong person in your response.

FYI, 401k's are not taxable, so there is no benefit to any dividend or capital gains cut given to individuals. If you want to mock someone, at least get your facts straight.

____________________

brambster:

@Stillow

Since you asked about what would be fair. I think it is actually responsible to be both fair and also smart about how much you tax whom.

In a nutshell, fair means not taxing people for what would would be a basic standard of living. Smart would be to put as much money in the hands of those that would spend the vast majority of it instead of saving it (the bottom 80% of earners) because this is what fuels our economy.

Our tax code is quite simple on the surface, and all of the extra stuff that wouldn't easily fit onto one page are the special circumstance deductions which overwhelmingly apply to the well off, and this is why their effective tax rate is so low. At a point, the more you make, the more likely you are to pay a lower and lower total rate.

So why should we give someone making over $1 million per year off of investments a bigger percentage tax break than a family of 4 with two children in college have to pay taxes on the money spent on their children's education. What makes more sense? Doesn't the family need it more? Don't they pay more on average in taxes than an investor does on their capital gains even before the tax cut? Doesn't it make sense to encourage education? Hasn't a college education doubled in cost in the last decade or so?

This is really a simple premise and it is an old and tired one. Our economy run by the middle and lower class, and this is over 80% of the population. Giving these people more money strengthens our economy.

The idea that giving the very well off extra money will benefit the economy (when they already pay lower effective tax rates) was called Voodoo Economics by G.H. Bush when he ran against Regan, and others have called this Trickle Down Economics. I do hope you don't believe that if you give $1,000 to a middle class family and $1,000 to an upper-class family that you believe there is a better chance of that $1,000 going back into the economy with the upper-class family.

I also take an issue with the fact that Social Security taxes are taken on only the first $97,000 or so of income, and while this is supposed to go to pay benefits, the entire surplus has always been spent as general revenues with a worthless IOU put in it's place. That's somewhere around $300 billion a year in SS surpluses that are taxed evenly from the very first dollar earned and then stopped before it reaches $100,000. That's the biggest sham in our entire tax system, and the most regressive tax of all when you fail to set aside the surplus exclusively for use as SS benefits. If they can't keep their hands off of this, they should reduce the Social Security tax rate to the point where they don't generate a surplus from SS and raise other taxes to make up for the loss of this money.

____________________

Undecided:

Tax credits/deductions are given for college tuition and educational loan interest so I think the education analogy is not quite on target.

Re: Social Security surplus--Since Reagan that surplus is invested in treasury bonds that finance the federal debt and which earns interest that is returned to the social security fund. When the funds are needed for benefits then the bonds will be cashed in. These are not worthless IOU's and in fact is an investment which increases the social security fund amount.

____________________

player:

@Bambster:
What do you think the wealthy does with their money? Do you think that they stick it in their mattresses? They re-invest it.They lend it to corporations and the Governments who need it. You are totally missing the point. Our government borrows billions of dollars from these people every year. These people also buy municipal bonds to support city infrastructures. Without the re-investment funds that these people provide, we would really be up the creek. They could just invest in other countries rather than ours. As a matter of fact,a lot of them were doing this because of the high rate of taxes here. Recently, the government offered these off shore account holders a one time tax rate of just over 5% to bring their money back into the country. So far, the government has collected almost 400 billion dollars in taxes from the takers. You can verify this through the WSJ or any other source that you want. That is almost the cost of the Iraq war brought in in revenue. Low taxes work.

____________________

cinnamonape:

I think that the shift from RV to LV...in addition to shifts in the demographic weights (and party affiliation numbers) explain the shifts from earlier SUSA polls showing Obama with a more substantial lead.

Given that I find implausible such a shift in voter registration to Republicans in the last two months when all data show that new registrants are overwhelmingly registering as Democrats makes me wonder about the veracity of this survey.

____________________

Stillow:

@brambster

This is a fundamental difference between the right and the left. I have never been employed by a poor person, have you? Being rich is not a crime. You're taking about taxing job creators more and more, that can only equal fewer jobs. The answer is no to find new tax revenues to the g'ment, or whom to tax more and less, the answer is to tax everybody less....No one in this country should be be paying more than 20% in total tax to the g'ment....g'ment spending needs to be slashed heavily, entitlements done away with. I do not want a country of hand outs, hand ups yes, but not hand outs. You cut taxes on everyone and job growth goes up, everyone gets richer and society is better off....I am open to creating a floor to taxation...example no one is taxed on the first 50k or whatever # everyone agrees on, after that you should be taxed fairly. People, rich, middle class and poor are always better off having more money in their own pockets. I don't want the g'ment taxing the rich more so that money can be dished out in some g'ment program designed to give people just enough scraps to survive on. I am a classic conservative, I am opposed to g'ment spending beyond the necessry items, military, etc...taxes to be cut on "everyone" across the board. Poor people do not create jobs, neihter do over taxed rich people, because there's a point at which the investment and risk is not worth it to a rich guy, he's better off just sitting on his cash.
Its a core differnece in the thinking between the right and left, the left thinking the g'ment is better off with the money and knows how to spend it more wisely, where the right feels the people in all income classes are better off with the money. Don't we all stirve to be wealthier and wealthier? Its part of the dream....the left is making it a nigthmare, punishing success, punishing investment, punishing risk. Taxation is out of control in this country and so is spending. Spending needs to be lsashed by the g'ment....more jobs created...and the debt paid down.....that will not happen with the tax the rich mentallity.

____________________

brambster:

@Stillow

Tell me the last time that Republicans cut taxes while also cut spending in order to pay for their tax cuts?

I'm all for tax cuts, but borrowing from our children isn't the way to do it.

As a small business owner virtually all of my money goes back into the economy, and yet my tax burden as a percentage of income is as high as it gets. There's no justifiable reason for someone that makes $100,000,000 per year to pay a lower rate than I do, but that is almost universally the case.

You should really stop drinking the kool-aid. You will be hard pressed to find a Democrat in office that wants to raise your taxes without somehow offsetting an equal or greater amount of your expenses. This is all Republican talking points FUD, and no doubt it works quite well on the uninformed.

____________________

twb0392:

This actually looks good for Obama to me. They underpolled blacks; and their sample has Mccain getting way to high a percentage of the AA vote to be realistic.

____________________

Stillow:

@brambster

Its not koolaid my freind, its common sense. Did you notice I said I am a Conservative and not a Republican? The Republican party as a whole has been becoming more liek the Dems, spend spend spend.....while tax and spend liberals are just crazy, so are tax cutting big spending repubs. This country better stop engaging in class warfare, cut taxes on everyone, let the rich do what they do, invest, take risk and create jobs, so that we can have a thriving middle class. Poor people do not create jobs, entitlements do not create jobs, they create dependency. Taxing and spending gives you a welfare state that isn't competitive and isn't inventive. A healthy economy requires a upper income group and a strong middle class, taxing them doesn't work. Why on Earth you think its logical to tax a rich person at super high rates is beyond me, who else is goign to create businesses and jobs? The g'ment? theg'ment can't run the post office, let along a multi trillion dollar economy....and left wing entitlements like social security are goign broeke and the only way to pay for them will be to raise taxes.....on everyone.....and that is what you get in a tax and spend world, you get dependency, a welfare state and a weak middle class....
When this country began to hate people who are successful escapes me...since we all strive to be successful, save and invest our money wisely.....the left has been very successful in there class warefare campaign. Its a shame too, America use to stand for success, now it stands of dependency....after all, the people are stupid mindless sheep who can't put there pants on without the help of the almighty all knowing federal g'ment.

____________________

brambster:

@Stillow

You are living in the 70's. The Dem's are not a party of "tax and spend", that is merely some bogus campaign line that the Republican's introduced decades ago.

Check out this chart showing increases in the national debt according to president:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/ig/Political-Economic-Measures/Debt-GDP-by-President.htm

The trend is very clear. Cut-and-Spend Republican administrations since 1980 are responsible for all of the growth of the debt when adjusted for GDP. ALL OF IT.

Our national debt is now $10 Trillion, and annual interest payments on that debt amounts to over $500 Billion per year and accounts for almost 20% of every tax dollar outside of Social Security (which is an entitlement).

If you want lower taxes, you shouldn't have been voting for Republicans all those years.

So while Democrats get all this bogus grief about being "tax-and-spend liberals", in reality it is the cut-and-spend supply-side Republicans that are almost entirely responsible for your taxes being what they are.

Now while the top tax rates have fallen from 70% in 1980 to 35% in 2008, consumption taxes which are disporporationally a much higher percentage of income for the low- and middle-class have soared.

Also, to claim that taxing the super-rich at higher rates is detrimental to the economy is absolutely debunked by history. From 1932 through 1980, the lowest top tax rate was 63%, and it peaked at 91% during the 1950's which so happened to be the best economy during the entire century.

Taxing non-disposable income disproportionally is bad policy. Period.

____________________

Stillow:

WW2 lead to the great economy of the 50's....not taxation policy....if you think it was tax policy, we cannot continue the conversation.

Again, taxing and spending doesn't work. Reagan had a left wing congress and made the decision to go along with hteir spending if they went along with his tax cuts and military build up, which of course bankrupted hte soviets ...in the 90's Clinton had a GOP congress who for the msot part controlled spending, especially in the early years after the GOP revolution of 94. Bush and the GOP went crazy in 2000 and later, they tried to out liberal the liberals and spend like drunken sailors.
Obama has proposed a trillion dollars in new spending, and the solution is to tax the rich...unbeleivable that you guy into that. Its a scheme....if you start taxing the successful this country is doomed. And what happens when you at 90% tax bracket again and need more money because entitlement programs require it? Guess what, the definition of whose rich begins to lower and lower...pretty soon people making 10k a year will be considered rich.
Think, ya gotta think...tax and spend, entitlements left and right, hands outs....those are not what America was built on.
...and I assure you again, poor people create no jobs....and the g'ment is the most incompetant entity ever to exist in the world. Its so riddled with corruption, it cannot be trusted to handle a tax and spend policy....
Waitand see, when libs like Pelosi control Congress and Obama in the white house, this country will raise taxes like you've never seen and spending will skyrocket...entitlements and dependency will be the new american dream.

____________________

brambster:

That's quite the dose of revisionist history.

The economy is best fed on the side of demand, not the side of supply. Putting more money into the hands of the lower- and middle-class increases demand and grows the economy. The tax burden on the lower and middle-class is at a record high due to the policies of offsetting income tax cuts with consumption tax increases and reductions or removal of government programs which are now covered by state, sales and property taxes.

____________________

Stillow:

You bet its at record levels....which is why i say again, all taxes should be slashed across the board...all of them....along with massive reductions in g'ment spending and the elimination of entitlements.......

I respect your opinion as wrong as it may be, but we will never agree on this issue....its been going on for decades and it won't end with the two of us....I wish you luck in your business and hope your prospure....!

____________________

Clint Cooper:

It's another BS poll from the terminally unreliable Survey USA. 23% of their sample comes from Shenandoah. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR