But at least the American people have an appropriately jaundiced view about what will happen if Obama does prevail.
Though I suppose these numbers don’t necessarily show that people are against higher taxes. Perhaps some of the 57 percent want higher taxes because they want more government.
After all, that’s the most logical interpretation of the election results in California, where voters approved a referendum to rape and pillage upper-income taxpayers.
But I suspect – and definitely hope – that most of the 57 percent understand that making America more like Europe is not a desirable outcome.
By the way, I shared some polling data last week showing that CPAs think that changes in tax rates lead to substantial Laffer Curve effects.
They were also asked their opinion on whether higher taxes will be used for deficit reduction.
As you can see, they were even more skeptical than the general public, with more than 60 percent definitely thinking that more revenue in Washington will lead to more spending.
To be sure, there’s no particular reason to think that CPAs have any special insight on this issue. On the Laffer Curve question, by contrast, they presumably do have insider knowledge of how taxpayers respond when tax policy changes.
But I’m digressing. The point of this post is to explain that higher taxes will lead to bigger government.
And if you don’t believe me, then why did the New York Times unintentionally admit that the only budget deal that actually resulted in a budget surplus was the one that cut taxes instead of raising them?
Today, at 11:20 AM PT: Get the Market Movements in Advance; Williams Edge Webinar for August 21st, 2014 | John Ransom
Today, at 11:20 AM PT: Get the Market Movements in Advance; Williams Edge Webinar for August 20th, 2014 | John Ransom
11:20 AM PT: Get the Market Movements in Advance: William's Edge Webinar for August 19th, 2014 | John Ransom
Today, at 11:20 AM PT: Get the Market Movements in Advance; Williams Edge Webinar for August 18th, 2014 | John Ransom