Poll: Unlike Americans, Canadians like to pay more taxes to protect welfare

[Tender Branson]

Canadians favor taxes to fight inequality: poll

(AFP) – 9 hours ago

MONTREAL — Many Canadians are willing to pay higher taxes to reduce social inequality, with an overwhelming majority supportive of raising taxes on the wealthy, a new poll has found.

South of the border, the issue of taxes has bitterly divided Americans and emerged as a central issue in the 2012 presidential election, but the Broadbent Institute poll found that in Canada, even top earners favor higher taxes.

Some 64 percent of 2,000 respondents said they were willing to pay "slightly higher" taxes in order to protect state-run health, pension and post-secondary education programs, with 23 percent saying they were "very willing."

An overwhelming majority of 83 percent, including top earners, support increasing income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians, according to the survey released late Tuesday.

Even members of the Conservative Party broadly support paying slightly higher taxes to protect social programs, with 58 percent in favor.

Canada's inheritance tax was scrapped in the 1980s, but the poll found that 69 percent of the public back the introduction of a 35 percent inheritance tax on any estate valued above $5 million.

In the United States, President Barack Obama has made the so-called "Buffett rule" -- a proposal for a minimum tax of 30 percent on those earning $1 million a year -- a key plank of his 2012 reelection bid.

The rule is named for famed investor Warren Buffett, one of the world's wealthiest individuals, who has said the US tax code unfairly favors millionaires and billionaires, who make most of their income from investments.

Obama's Republican rivals have said any tax hike would endanger the economic recovery and that proposals to tax the wealthy amount to "class warfare."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQQYKsG1_fd9jRMj-ERpnt8hWn2w?docId=CNG.a8783a81f161900fc5534b2eacb17806.11

[I left.]

Don't you get relatively good numbers in the U.S., too, if you ask the question the same way?

Americans do tend to want the best of both worlds, of course. Don't cut defense spending! Give me a public option! And obviously, keep the government out of my Medicare. Oh, but don't raise any taxes to pay for all of this. We can solve the problem just by cutting government waste and closing loopholes. And by cutting politicians' salaries.

[white trash heroes]

Don't you get relatively good numbers in the U.S., too, if you ask the question the same way?

Americans do tend to want the best of both worlds, of course. Don't cut defense spending! Give me a public option! And obviously, keep the government out of my Medicare. Oh, but don't raise any taxes to pay for all of this. We can solve the problem just by cutting government waste and closing loopholes. And by cutting politicians' salaries.

I've come to the conclusion that Americans are literally too stupid for democracy, beyond maybe local level.

[Tender Branson]

Don't you get relatively good numbers in the U.S., too, if you ask the question the same way?

I don't think so. If you ask Americans if they favor or oppose raising taxes of middle-class Americans to balance the budget, they are opposed by about 20-70.

[I left.]

Don't you get relatively good numbers in the U.S., too, if you ask the question the same way?

I don't think so. If you ask Americans if they favor or oppose raising taxes of middle-class Americans to balance the budget, they are opposed by about 20-70.

Yeah but the question as asked in this Canadian survey isn't about balancing the budget.

Some 64 percent of 2,000 respondents said they were willing to pay "slightly higher" taxes in order to protect state-run health, pension and post-secondary education programs

You'd have to slightly change the wording in the US because there isn't a comprehensive state-run safety net...but if you worded it "Would you be willing to pay slightly higher taxes in order to fund a public healthcare option/fund universities", etc., I do think you'd get a plurality in favor. (Or am I wrong here?)

Of course, that's not a good thing. It shows that the voters don't understand much about any of these topics if you can get totally different results based on the wording of your question, but this happens in most topics and on most issues....and in most countries too.

[Senator MaxQue]

Well, Canada is used to have balenced budgets, we had some for most of the 00's.

[Hatman]

FTR this poll was sponsored by the Broadbent Institute, which is a year old left wing think tank, that has one employee (or until recently had one employee, Kathleen Monk) However, the poll was conducted by a credible polling firm, Environics.

[Senator MaxQue]

And the purpose of that poll in clear, pressuring Mulcair into talking of tax hikes.

[RogueBeaver]

Water is wet, etc. This is like those healthcare polls: everyone theoretically cares about it but no one gives a tinker's damn in practice so long as the status quo isn't significantly altered.

[Hatman]

And the purpose of that poll in clear, pressuring Mulcair into talking of tax hikes.

Ahhh, I wonder, eh? Ed Broadbent, you sneaky man!

[Senator MaxQue]

And the purpose of that poll in clear, pressuring Mulcair into talking of tax hikes.

Ahhh, I wonder, eh? Ed Broadbent, you sneaky man!

Well, you don't agree with my reading of the situation?

[Hatman]

And the purpose of that poll in clear, pressuring Mulcair into talking of tax hikes.

Ahhh, I wonder, eh? Ed Broadbent, you sneaky man!

Well, you don't agree with my reading of the situation?

Not saying that; I must admit, it didn't cross my mind. When I watched Broadbent's interview with Evan Solomon, I was a little weary of Broadbent's pure glee in stating that "Canadians want higher taxes". What it goes is give the go ahead for implementing an estate tax, and making marginal tax increases on the wealthy, but nothing too radical (I support radical change of course, but I wouldn't advise it, being a recipe for political suicide). I do support Andrea Horwath's plan on increasing taxes on those making over $500000 by 2%, and especially her reasoning: "we all need to make sacrifices, not just the middle (and lower) classes." That's a great line, and I would advise the federal NDP to use it as well. I would also lower that $500,000 threshold down to $100,000 on individual incomes. There's a lot of people who make between 100 and 500 grand, but not as many over that. It would bring in lots of revenue, plus those people don't vote NDP anyways (and those who do dont mind getting taxed).