Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Popular Budget

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: The Popular Budget
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/incl/printable_version.php?pnt=677

Taking a good measure of how people want to fix the budget, not only can you come up with a fair amount of general agreement, but you can significantly out perform anything that's been suggested by our elected representative.

Posts: 9523 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Respondents were presented 31 of the major line items of the discretionary federal budget with a description of each one, the amount budgeted for 2015, and the projected deficit. They were then given a chance to increase or decrease each item as they saw fit and to try to reduce the deficit.

On average respondents made net spending cuts of $145.7 billion. The largest cuts included those to defense ($109.4 billion), intelligence ($13.1 billion), military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq ($12.8 billion) and the federal highway system ($4.6 billion)--all of which were cut by majorities.

On average respondents increased revenues by $291.6 billion. The largest portion was from income taxes which were raised by an average of $154.8 billion above the levels currently in place. Majorities increased taxes on incomes over $100,000 by 5% or more and increased them by 10% or more for incomes over $500,000.


Posts: 9523 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would like to see the same research/polling done with likely voters vs the general population. This would increase the signal to noise ratio.

Also, deliberately excluding increasing the tax rates on those below $30,000 seems to add an unnecessary bias to the results.

quote:
The lowest income bracket presented was $30-40,000, because (as respondents were told), while those with less income pay payroll taxes, they typically pay little or no income tax and are not a significant factor from a revenue standpoint.
It might be appropriate to point this out in the poll, but it's not appropriate to then leave out the option.

Furthermore, the entire Poll clearly exhibits a pro-Tax bias. In cutting spending, it doesn't present any actual tax cutting plans, but instead allows the participants to throw some numbers at various line items from the Discretionary budget.

And calling the Discretionary budget the "Main Budget is also misleading. People aren't stupid. They can handle some big words.

By contrast, they propose 9 distinct forms of taxation. And 5 of those are taxes that don't currently exist and are generally only promoted by Progressive groups.

In particular I'm referring to the:
Carbon Tax
Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee
Taxing carried interest
VAT
Sugary Drinks

It's an interesting document, but a less biased approach, polling likely voters would produce more useful information.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
I would like to see the same research/polling done with likely voters vs the general population. This would increase the signal to noise ratio.


What added value does that bring? Likely voters are relevant for attempts to predict election outcomes, not for gauging actual public sentiment.

quote:
Also, deliberately excluding increasing the tax rates on those below $30,000 seems to add an unnecessary bias to the results.
]How? Given that the effective consensus was already to not or barely touch taxes for the next three categories above that, and that any changes there would not lead to any significant differences in revenues, what bias are you referring to?

quote:
It might be appropriate to point this out in the poll, but it's not appropriate to then leave out the option.
An option that would have zero effect other than a slight increase in the work needed to count the responses.

quote:
Furthermore, the entire Poll clearly exhibits a pro-Tax bias. In cutting spending, it doesn't present any actual tax cutting plans, but instead allows the participants to throw some numbers at various line items from the Discretionary budget.
And at entitlement and defense spending as well they covered all the major budget areas.

quote:
By contrast, they propose 9 distinct forms of taxation. And 5 of those are taxes that don't currently exist and are generally only promoted by Progressive groups.
As opposed to offering the possibility of cuts in about 30 budget areas? How do you get 9 tax questions as being more there?

quote:
In particular I'm referring to the:
Carbon Tax
Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee
Taxing carried interest
VAT
Sugary Drinks/[qb]

That would seem to be a natural result of the fact that those on the more liberal end of the spectrum are more likely to propose any kinds of taxes at all, so there aren't many, if any "conservative" tax suggestions to list.

quote:
[qb]It's an interesting document, but a less biased approach, polling likely voters would produce more useful information.

This is about as unbiased as you can get in terms of general presentation within the limits of still remaining comprehensible- clear facts without any political weighting were given on each issue. I think it would have been interesting to see the projected effects on employment, GDP and compounded future revenues/spending, but that would be difficult to meaningfully represent on a static survey, never mind the additional confusion.

But, as above, likely voters are completely irrelevant to this, filtering data that way would only serve to bias the results in meaningless ways instead of accurately representing popular interests across all categories.

[ February 22, 2011, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 9523 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder how many respondants actually think balancing the budget is a goal or priority? The biggest bias is by presenting people with a problem solving task, and then inferring political will.

Then there's the web-based methodology:

quote:
Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. More technical information is available at " target="_blank">http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.[/quote]

I rather wonder if this isn't selecting a technically savvy subset of the American population that is more likely to agree on spending cuts and revenue increases.

Posts: 7595 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
I would like to see the same research/polling done with likely voters vs the general population. This would increase the signal to noise ratio.

What added value does that bring? Likely voters are relevant for attempts to predict election outcomes, not for gauging actual public sentiment.

Likely voters will elect the representatives that decide these issues. Non-voters will not. Clearly likely voters have a higher influence on political issues than non-voters.


quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
It might be appropriate to point this out in the poll, but it's not appropriate to then leave out the option.
An option that would have zero effect other than a slight increase in the work needed to count the responses.
[Roll Eyes] Well since you imply that you know what the results are without actually asking the questions, I'd guess the entire poll is sort of wasted on you. But I'd actually be interested in what people would choose given the choice. Just adding a cap at the bottom seems arbitrary.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Furthermore, the entire Poll clearly exhibits a pro-Tax bias.

That would seem to be a natural result of the fact that those on the more liberal end of the spectrum are more likely to propose any kinds of taxes at all, so there aren't many, if any "conservative" tax suggestions to list.

Perhaps some variant of the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax could have been considered as a Conservative version. But since no Conservative idea was even brought into the discussion, but numerous Liberal ideas were it indicates a bias.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Likely voters will elect the representatives that decide these issues. Non-voters will not. Clearly likely voters have a higher influence on political issues than non-voters.
What does that have to do with what people want in general? The point wasn't to provide a guide to reelection or to say "this is what will happen once people vote on it" the point was to figure out where actual sentiment lays.

quote:
Well since you imply that you know what the results are without actually asking the questions
That's how math works. If we're talking about how to divide up a dollar and not going to start shaving pennies to do it, then a single option that has a maximum swing of .1 cents isn't worth trying to figure out.

quote:
Perhaps some variant of the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax could have been considered as a Conservative version
The entire survey was done in context of the current system- those are options that involve completely replacing the current system, which is a bit of a different context. I could note, by the same token, that they didn't list negative income taxes or guaranteed minimum income as options to factor in.
Posts: 9523 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Likely voters will elect the representatives that decide these issues. Non-voters will not. Clearly likely voters have a higher influence on political issues than non-voters.

Did you mean to say likely donors?!! [Cool]
Posts: 7595 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Well since you imply that you know what the results are without actually asking the questions
That's how math works.
No, that is not how math works. Shudders.


quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Perhaps some variant of the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax could have been considered as a Conservative version
The entire survey was done in context of the current system..
VAT is not in the current system in any forms. Nor is there a Carbon system in place. The VAT would be a large change to the current US tax system. So, the entire survey was not done in the context of the current system. Do you think about these responses before you post them?

quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Likely voters will elect the representatives that decide these issues. Non-voters will not. Clearly likely voters have a higher influence on political issues than non-voters.

Did you mean to say likely donors?!! [Cool]
Well, they are somewhat more difficult to poll. [Wink]
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Well since you imply that you know what the results are without actually asking the questions
That's how math works.
No, that is not how math works. Shudders.

IF the largest possible change is insignificant, then yes, it is how math works. It doesn't matter how much you increase a multiplier on zero, you still get zero, so there's not much point in asking what the multiplier should be.


quote:
VAT is not in the current system in any forms. Nor is there a Carbon system in place. The VAT would be a large change to the current US tax system. So, the entire survey was not done in the context of the current system. Do you think about these responses before you post them?
A VAT or a carbon tax would not involve completely scrapping the current income tax system. They are completely separate items and not mutually exclusive to the current system. The fair tax or a flat tax would involve completely replacing the income tax system; they're not just adjunct taxes or tweaks to current rates.
Posts: 9523 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1