You can cross out the "less than $30.000" group because most of those don't pay any taxes. They(most) actually get a larger amount back as a refund than they paid in to begin with.
A good many of the lower levels of the "$30,000 to $74,999" will fall into the above catagory.
It is easy to be satisfied with your Income tax rate if you get more back than you pay in making the answers, and thus the conclusion, misleading.
As has been pointed out, you'd have to eliminate the bottom half of wage earners because they're not paying anything. So yeah, if I was in that group I'd say that "zero" is about right.
I love how Gallup tries to spin this to credit the numbers to Obama's PROMISE of a tax cut vs Bush's tax policy. That's just plain irresponsible, considering that there's a big increase in satisfaction coinciding with Bush's tenure, and three months isn't enough time to generate data about Obama -- especially since he has increased spending by trillions and has yet to cut a single tax.
Liberals are so predictable...always throwing a poll out there to try to convince people that the whole world thinks differently.
Let's look at that 80 percent. For the sake of argument, let's say the sample size is 10,000 respondents. Of those 10,000 people, half of them pay no income tax. In fact, the top 1% -- 100 people -- pay 40 percent of the tax.
Overall, only around 13 percent of the tax is paid by the bottom 75 percent of the sample size.
The sleight of hand you're trying to pull off here is the fallacious assumption that the poll's results are based on a homogenous demographic. They're not. The results are skewed because the deck is statistically stacked in favor of lower income brackets that dominate the sample size. Of course people who pay little are going to say it's about right -- and of course they're going to say someone other than them should pay more.
That in no way constitutes a valid argument upon which to base tax policy. Such policy should be based on what generates the most reveue with the least impact to the economy -- not class envy.
There are still some who insist a scope is not needed for the type hunting they do, ignoring the advances of the last 150 years in optical sights. (Even the ultra-conservative US Army has adopted optical sights.) The idea that in some special circumstances open iron sights or aperture (peep) sights might be more useful is not lost on me, but with the inevitable advance of age comes the reduction in visual acuity needed for using iron sights.
I believe that many who completely resist the idea of...