Should the U.S. raise taxes on the rich?
In 2022 individuals and families with a combined income of $647K or more pay the top US federal Income tax rate of 37%. Countries with higher top income tax rates include Japan (56%), Denmark (55%) and Israel (50%.)
62% Yes |
36% No |
56% Yes |
28% No |
6% Lower the income tax rate and remove all existing tax loopholes for large corporations |
3% No, but lower taxes for the poor |
1% Yes, and raise taxes on all income brackets |
3% Reform to a flat tax |
1% No, keep the current tax structure |
See how support for each position on “Taxes” has changed over time for 3.8m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Taxes” has changed over time for 3.8m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@8L3YX3B3yrs3Y
Tax according to income. Rich should pay slightly more and adjust for those in lower income.
@Jones4Potus2024Independent 7mos7MO
Yes, and close the tax haven loop hole
@8C5GN894yrs4Y
Remove loopholes for the rich and ensure they are unable to use tax shelters.
@97Z2WVL1yr1Y
Yes, and close tax loopholes that only benefit the rich
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
“The power to tax involves the power to destroy,” observed Chief Justice John Marshall. “The power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create.” He was right – entire civilizations have risen and fallen based on tax rates, and unthinkable economic damage has been wreaked by the wrecking ball called taxation: endless waves of recessions, supply-chain crises, and most notably the Great Depression, the most deadly economic disaster in modern history. This does not apply only in America – the devastating power of taxation has been a constant… Read more
@8J3FG9M4yrs4Y
Simplified tax rates, fewer deductions. Low tax rates overall but the wealthy should not be able to avoid paying a higher percentage than the middle class.
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Taxes” news articles, updated frequently.
@ISIDEWITH22hrs22H
Mayor Muriel Bowser attended the Masters Tournament in Augusta, Ga. over the weekend, and municipal money was used for travel expenses, according to a spokeswoman for the mayor.According to the mayor’s schedule, sent to media outlets Saturday, “Mayor Bowser will travel to Augusta, Georgia, as part of a sports and economic development visit.”In a phone call Monday afternoon, Bowser’s Communications Director Susana Castillo said the mayor attended the Masters, after she was invited by two people spearheading a new city task force, “to revitalize the Gallery Place and Chinatown neighborhood.”Castillo said Bowser accepted an invite to attend the golf tournament by chairs of ‘Task Force to Shape Future of Gallery Place/Chinatown Neighborhood’ Jodie McLean and Deborah Ratner Salzberg.When asked why the mayor needed to travel to Augusta — nearly 500 miles from D.C. as the crow flies — Castillo said “whether it’s here in the city or another city or another country,” the mayor is willing to advance administrative interests no matter the setting.DC News Now asked Castillo how the mayor paid to visit Georgia Saturday, and she said city funds were used for flights but did not specify the cost and that we would have to file a Freedom of Information Act request to find an answer.Former D.C. mayor and current Councilman Vincent Gray told DC News Now Tuesday that he sees “no controversy” with Mayor Bowser attending the Masters after our report was published Monday.“As mayor, I frequently attended meetings and events to foster economic development, strengthen partnerships, and build rapport with people interested in investing in our city. I met with people in countless venues, be they overseas, in downtown DC conference rooms, or sometimes at high-profile gatherings. I see no controversy in travel that is intended to promote the District in furtherance of opportunity that benefits residents and local businesses,” Gray said in a statement.Last November, the mayor’s office announced Bowser would travel to Dubai in the Middle East “as part of the US Conference of Mayors delegation for the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference.”
@ISIDEWITH1wk1W
California has spent $24 billion to combat homelessness over the last five years—and what did it get for its money? More homelessness, according to a new state audit that should embarrass Sacramento and infuriate taxpayers.The Legislature charged state auditor Grant Parks with reviewing the state’s homeless spending as the numbers camping on streets rise. Alas, his report this week concludes that the state “lacks current information on the ongoing costs and outcomes of its homelessness programs.”The agency in charge “has not consistently tracked and evaluated the State’s efforts to prevent and end homelessness,” he adds. Translation: California has been wasting billions of dollars to no good effect.According to the audit, 181,399 people were homeless at some point in 2023, up from 118,552 in 2013 and 151,278 in 2019. “To address this ongoing crisis, nine state agencies have collectively spent billions of dollars in state funding over the past five years administering at least 30 programs dedicated to preventing and ending homelessness,” Mr. Parks writes.Yet he found that only two programs “appear” to be “cost-effective.” Emphasize “appear.” One program converted existing buildings such as hotels into homeless housing at a $144,000 cost per unit. This was less expensive than the $380,000 to $570,000 per unit it cost to build new affordable housing in 2019. But there’s little evidence that the program kept people off the streets.Another program provided financial assistance to people who were deemed at risk of homelessness, which cost about $12,000 to $20,000 per household. The auditor found this was less expensive than the $30,000 to $50,000 a year that each homeless person costs taxpayers, including public safety and healthcare.But getting the mentally ill and drug-addicted homeless into treatment and jobs is surely the most cost-effective solution. Progressives oppose the tough love required of both. They prefer pushing more money into housing that doesn’t address the dysfunction of the homeless.
@SoulfulC0nservat1ve2wks2W
Why are the politicians rushing to have taxpayers pay the full cost of rebuilding the Baltimore bridge when there is a shipping company and insurance companies who should pay. There is a long history of fixing maritime disasters being funded by the responsible parties. Why are Republicans rushing to…
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH3wks3W
In a series of developments that have stirred the political landscape, former President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed the presidential bid of independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., describing it as 'great for MAGA.' Trump's remarks came after Kennedy announced his vice-presidential pick, further intensifying the political discourse. Trump, in his characteristic style, took to social media to express his views, labeling Kennedy as the 'most radical left' candidate in the race and highlighting the liberal credentials of Kennedy's running mate, Nicole Shanahan. Despite his criticism of their political stance, Trump views Kennedy's candidacy as beneficial for his MAGA movement, suggesting it could potentially divide the Democratic vote.Kennedy, a figure who has long been associated with controversial views, particularly on the rule of law and established science, has drawn criticism and concern from various quarters. His decision to run for president and the subsequent endorsement by Trump has sparked a flurry of reactions, with some seeing it as a strategic move that could impact the Democratic Party's chances in the upcoming elections. Allies of President Joe Biden have expressed alarm over Kennedy's bid, fearing it could siphon off crucial votes from the left, thereby posing a significant threat to Biden's reelection efforts.The political dynamics surrounding Kennedy's candidacy and Trump's endorsement underscore the complex and often unpredictable nature of American politics. As the race for the presidency heats up, the strategies employed by candidates and their supporters are coming under increased scrutiny. The potential impact of Kennedy's run on the Democratic vote is a topic of much speculation, with analysts and political observers closely monitoring the situation.Trump's support for Kennedy, despite their ideological differences, highlights the former president's tactical approach to politics. By endorsing a candidate who could potentially weaken his opponents, Trump is playing a strategic game, aiming to maximize his own chances of success. This move has not only added a new dimension to the political landscape but has also raised questions about the future direction of both the Republican and Democratic parties.As the United States gears up for another presidential election, the emergence of candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the reactions they provoke from figures like Donald Trump are indicative of the shifting sands of American politics. With the electorate increasingly polarized, the outcome of the election remains uncertain, and the strategies adopted by candidates will be crucial in determining the path forward.