Gallup Poll: Many Americans OK With Increasing Taxes on Rich
PRINCETON, NJ — Slightly over half of Americans believe the government should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich.
The percentage holding this view, similar to that found in Gallup polling last year, is up from 1998 and in particular is higher than was found in a Roper poll conducted for Fortune Magazine back in 1939. Although the methods and sampling of polling done in the 1930s may differ significantly from those of today, the rough comparison suggests that Americans appear to have become even more “redistributionist” in their views than they were at the tail end of the Depression.
Other recent Gallup Poll questions underscore the finding that Americans are generally open to the idea of some type of effort to distribute wealth more evenly.
Asked if the distribution of money and wealth in this country is fair or if they need to be distributed more evenly, about two-thirds of Americans agree with the latter response. This is up slightly from last year and, by two points, is the highest “more evenly distributed” response to this question that Gallup has found over the eight times it has been asked since 1984.
The results of another question Gallup asks each April find 63% of Americans saying upper-income Americans pay “too little” in taxes (although this percentage is down slightly from previous polling).
One reason it may be easy for Americans to readily agree with wealth redistribution and increased taxes on the rich is that most Americans do not perceive themselves to be rich and therefore presumably assume they have nothing to fear — financially — from such new policies.
Analysis of the responses to these two questions by income shows that there are some differences by respondents’ income, but these differences are not large.
One issue here is that the top income category Gallup uses is $75,000 and higher, representing a little more than a quarter of the population. Clearly, results might have been different had it been possible to isolate a sample of those making, for example, $200,000 a year or more.
Implications
The possibility of some type of political policy that would institute higher tax rates on high-income households was discussed in the recent Philadelphia debate between the two Democratic contenders, and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appeared to agree with some variant of this type of policy (although both are multimillionaires, according to their recently released tax statements). The public opinion data reviewed here suggest a majority of Americans would be receptive to such a possibility.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,021 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted April 6-9, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
To provide feedback or suggestions about how to improve Gallup.com, please e-mail feedback@gallup.com.
Let’s just roll it back to what people and corporations had to pay in the 60s. A lot more people could “get ahead” in those days, not just the chosen few.
Well…how else will the national debt be paid if the USA does not tax the wealthy in any significant way. The wealthiest of the wealthy in the USA is becoming rich off oil and the USA instigated Iraq genocide. It is only fair that they wealthy give back via paying back at a minimum the USA national debt. The antithesis of Robin Hood tax policy can not be sustained forever. You want an example? Look at the French and Cuban Revolutions.
It is not as if millionaires and billionaires and CEOs DESERVE that money. Let’s face it, many wealthy people are not kind. Some multi millionaires give to various charities. Most however, want to just sit on their cash. This act is pointless as I seriously doubt they will spend all that money in one lifetime unless said person do tons of cocaine and eat beluga caviar on a daily basis.
PARECON
it seems this poll confirms that “equity” is something most Americans want.
i doubt if there is any opposition to diversity, solidarity and self-management
I have no problem with people who ‘earn’ any amount of wages paying even a lower rate, or a hands-on business owner who manages, but those who ‘make’ an income through interest on inherited wealth should be taxed at a higher rate. They can’t expect to ‘coast’ all their lives on the labors of past relatives, or present workers. I also believe Social Security should be needs based, and completely eliminated above a certain income level. People with multiple retirement incomes shouldn’t expect to buy a new car each year when it plucks food from the mouths of the neediest in our society. It’s shameful & unconscionable. Keep in mind a rising tide might float all boats, but a falling one grounds all boats, and it is not the smaller boats that are pulling the plug on America now.
I wonder if anyone considers the the National debt at 9 trillion dollars that everyone will have to pay, the trillions of taxpayer dollars being allocated for the war in Iraq and the consequences of the war in Iraq. Who will be paying this debt for generations to come? Borrowed money from the banks take every cent of our taxes and we are only paying the interest. I want taxation with representation.
The amount of money a person refers to as ‘earned’ is the amount negotiated.
It is time the excessively wealthy negotiated with the middle class who’s existence as a class is being negotiated away.
We already do. The top 5% of taxpayers pay more than 90% of the taxes.
End income tax on incomes of less than 100k. Make up for it with heavy energy taxes.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Dems to use this.
When push comes to shove, they look out for their contributors and don’t care what people think. See polls on ending the Iraq war, single-payer health care, impeachment for just a few examples.
PaulMagillSmith,
You’re right on the money when you distinquish income that is earned, including small business income, from the passive income that the corporate elite receives. Very little of the elite’s money every shows up on the Gross Adjusted Income (GAI) on their tax return. Most of their income is capital gains, dividends, stock options and money borrowed against their massive investment portfolios. Obama and Hillary have both said they want to increase the marginal tax rates on earned income. This hurts successful small businesses. 80% of new job growth comes from those small businesses. Meanwhile, the corporate elite pays a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the rest of us. How about progressive taxation of capital gains?
That would redistribute passive wealth from the superwealth. They would still have to invest most of their wealth. You can only do two things with money, spend it or save/invest it.
Two words: Flat Tax. QED.
We need to get back to the situation before Reagan. Even though Bush makes Reagan look like a kindly old man, he began the downfall of the middle class. The Reagan “Revolution” must be repudiated.
two words…..FAIR TAX !
My question, that I put to people at parties, and at Happy-Hour, where I will be in a couple hours; on the subject is this.:
What percentage of the National Wealth should the richest 1% be limited to?
Answer are slow in coming, but when I state that they hold controlling interest in 95% of the National Wealth, making in reality this country a plutocracy and making democracy an impossibility consequently, by controlling who holds power and the media. The answers come in at 10% and many times at 1% and they are being serious about it too.
A full debate, facts layed bare, and a National Referendum on the issue would overwhelming be revolutionary, and on an undivided question, the status quo or 1%
That 1% would be lucky to get 20% of vote, for it would give everyone a higher standard of living, better work conditions, and open the question as how bust to make government. Referendums would replace the narrowness of the republic.
Thanks for raising the issue and providing the venue to add thought to.
Reagans baby was “Tax Investment Credit” which allowed one to depreciate all of the Investment over a short term period. Anyone investing a million in their business could depreciate $250,000 (straight line over four years)on their Tax Filing which was, in essence, a quarter of a mil. untaxed. Helped with the recession of the 80’s. But in the 1986 tax reform he took it back in Capital Gains Taxes. When you sold your business you had to pay Capital Gains on the depreciation. Mom and Pop small businesses lost. Having owned the store for twenty (example)years and having depreciated equipment and replacement equipment over the years they now faced Capital Gains for the twenty years of depreciation. Many, Many had to walk away because the value of the store would not be adequate to pay the Capital Gains. He who giveth, taketh away. A percentaqe of ones Gross Wages is the only fair and equitable method. Keep in mind that you have to have an address and a phone to be involved in a poll. In our current economy that does not include a growing mass of people.
Only slightly over half thimk this?
Not good. Economic variant of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Bad thimking.
forbes magazine says the top 400 rich has a NET wealth of 1.6 trillion dollars….. that tax rebate coming to people averages about 500 dollars.. and that is HALF of 1 billion.. so americans NEED to tax this obsene wealth that has come at the expense of WE the people tax it had 50% and mail it to the people..
instead of 500 dollars coming .. it will be 800,000 !!
all americans should get together and demand this NOW.. do not vote for ANYONE unless they make a pledge and if they don’t impeach them…
americans WAKE UP!!!!
jlover,
Yes to the Fair Tax and add progressive taxation of capital gains. A couple of benefits of the Fair Tax, 1) We would be taxing overseas production the same amount as we tax domestic production. Now we only tax domestic production. 2) The driving force behind the “leveraged buyout” craze in the 80’s and 90’s was to use taxable corporate “profits” to fund very high debt levels on american corporations. Almost all the loan money went to deal makers and the business aristocracy, with no meaningful increase in productivity. Meanwhile, the taxpayers and the corporate employees all suffered. Change the corporate tax structure to tax production rather than “profits” and a large part of the problem is solved.
if we tax the rich at half their net wealth and bring it to the people… we would get 800,000 in the rebates instead of the paultry 500 dollars..
the top 400 has a NET wealth of 1.6 trillion.. half that is 800 billion and that rebate that we are getting is half a billion so muliply 800 x 2 =1600 and then 1600x 500 = 800,000
and with this have tarrifs high enough so that americans factories will start humming and great paying jobs….just like henry ford said !!
americans can solve their problem fast.. they have to TAX the rich and bring the money BACK to the people that they robbed !!!
Hey PaulMagillSmith –
I paid into this piece of crap called Social Security .. or rather .. what it should be called, welfare for the old. No one ever said that it was anyone’s RIGHT to retire at 65 (or 72). If someone can’t earn enough to retire, then don’t. My mother worked until she was well into her 70s, and now lives with my brother (who is an independent truck driver). They get along just fine on his income, her social security, and my father’s police pension. I have no sympathy for someone who didn’t plan well and can’t stop working. Go live with your kids.
If you think for one minute that congress is going to increase the tax on the wealthy while decreasing it on the middle class, thing again. That will never happen. If the Demo-jokes are still in power, they will find pet projects to spend it on, just like they always do.
Absolutely peachy keen, thanks Gregr for a reminder, I have electric and gas, Corp sends letter in bill, Dear blah blah..
My gas is going up at least 10%, my small company will pay 13% at the minimum, and the F$$KING Gazillionaires get to have a horribly offensive increase of 2.2%. Again, Murderer in Chief thanks for all you’ve done, no Iran, no Syria, no-no.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If you don’t tax the rich, you have to BORROW from the rich…and that just makes them richer.
This poll is targeted at people and it is not the people who are hoarding the wealth. What about the mining, logging and energy industries that take what was never theirs to begin with but belongs to our children and their children and make obscene profits from it? Tax them!
If a man and his family are wealthy, well good for him but it is the corporations with their legal departments that are bankrupting the world. Since they are the ones benefiting from political decisions make them pay a proportionate amount.
The Income Tax was orginally sold to the people as a tax on the rich in 1913, same year we created the Fed.
The first 5000 dollars in 1913 was not to be taxed at all. 5000 then is the equivelant of 125,000 today. The maximum tax was 5%, on incomes that were the equivelant today of 10 million, if you made 5001 dollars the tax rate was 0.4% and you paid 20 dollars (500 dollars today).
Of course, at the same time, they made sure the super-rich could establish tax free foundations and protect their wealth from taxes, especially the inheritance tax. This allows the super-rich to control essentially every institution with donations, grants, aid, etc.
Much of this countries wealth resides in the tax free foundations of the Rockefellers, Fords, Gates, Carnegies, etc.
The income tax was only needed to make sure the government could pay the interest on the debt they owed to the Fed. We did not have any debt, but they were planning to give us some wars to force us into debt, which also forced the government to raise taxes.
Today, the average person pays up to 40% of his income on taxes in one form or another, another chunk on interest on their debt or insurance of one form or another. Their savings get eaten away inflation, another tax, as government lies about inflation which allows banks to keep interest rates on deposits low, and credit cheap (they only care about the differential).
We all know that the government has some 5.1 trillion in public debt, and almost half is owed by foreigners. About 17,000 for each person.
But why should only individuals be considered in owning the debt. After all, corporations are citizens too, the supreme court says so. That means they are also liable for the debt, or they should be.
It’s also true that the debt does not benefit everyone to the same degree. I mean, our wars in Iraq and elsewhere do not profit anyone but corporations. And big companies use more of the infrastructure than small companies. The super-rich whose money gets protected by tax free foundations also whould own a share of the debt. So what is the most fair way to calculate the share of the debt among us citizens?.
The best way would be the assess the the value of the assets held by US corporations globally, and US citizens globally. It should also value the assets of our government,city,state and federal. It should include our natural resources owned by government, and resources corporations are given permission to extract or utilize.
How much do you think that is? How about 10 times GDP, that sounds reasonable as a ballpark figure. This comes out to be 140 trillion. This is a conservative figure actually, since it does not include our global assets that contribute to ex-USA GDP, but we can easily assume it’s value offsets GDP contribution from foreign companies in the US.
Lets say you have a net worth of 140,000, and owe 5,100 in debt. Not too bad, especially if you are still working. Lets say you had a year where you spent 500 dollars more than you earned, which is the equivalant to our US deficits each year. Not a big deal.
But anyways, lets then pay off the debt, which is about 3.6% of the countries net worth. Solution is simple, just have everyone pay a 3.6% tax on their current net worth. No more debt. To make it less painful, they can pay it in 4 installments, 0.9% per year (140 dollars for you who have a net worth of 140,000)
I believe the government debt crisis is another myth to prevent spending on it’s citizens and infrastructure. After all, no sense in building infrastructure for 300 million people, when at the end of the day, we are going to be only 50 million people. No sense keeping you healthy, when they want you to disappear.
The other issue is the trade imbalance each year. About 800 billion dollars that we import more than we export. So we need to draw from our net worth 5.7%. Do the same, and tax everyone 5.7%, but this is per year.
Ouch you say, 5.7% per year based on net worth as well as an income tax?. The good news is that the income tax would no longer be required if we issued our own money. The bad news is thats a lot of money. But that sucking sound you would hear would be jobs and capital rushing back from overseas to avoid the multinational national corporations from
paying this tax in an attempt to restore the trade balance.
The naysayers will say, but our companies will just leave. But do what JFK wanted to do before he was killed, impose a capital flight tax, every dollar sent out for investment elsewhere gets taxed at 15%, or just nationalize those companies threatening to leave, and pay them with money government creates without debt.
It will never happen though since we are too corrupt. The trade imbalance in fact is not as bad as it sounds, since much of what we import gets marked up by off-shore companies siphoning profits in the tax havens, and vice versa for some of the exporters. There is one building in the Caymans that has the registered address of 1200 corporations. The building ain’t that big. Wink.
For far too long and in far too many circumstances througout the history of our planet the mixture of pride and greed has been one of the major impedients to social harmony. And, in far too many cases, religions have said/done far too little (despite the teachings of their founders)to ameliorate this problem.
Just look at what the greed of speculative investors is doing today to our most vulnerable brother and sister human beings — no conscience — little character.
A couple of sayings from India:
“Politics without principles;
commerce without morality;
wealth without charity;
science without humanity;
education without character;
pleasure without purity (of heart);
are not only useless — they are
positively dangerous.”
“Mankind whould strive for the ideal of human unity by recognizing the Divinity that is present in every human being”
“It is character that is of utmost importance. It is virtues that lend greatness to any person. If everyone develops good character, the whole country will become good.”
Bless
COMarc/ WTF:
right on, the political system is corrupt in that corporations can give what they want ( from their profits that are not taxed) and BUY anyone they want. In Canada there is a cap that any person or corporation is allowed to give and it is watched something the US needs.
Flat tax, sounds good. Same % no matter what you make but will never see it with the 3 people running.
The site:
http://www.inequality.org/
has a lot of data on the skewed distribution of wealth in this country. Click and “By the Numbers” and page down to the pie charts listing wealth distribution and stock ownership. In 2004, 10% of the people in this country had over 70% of the wealth. The other 90% of us had less than 30%. Stock ownership was even worse. That was 2004. I would bet that more has “trickled up” since then.
The site only has information on differences in pay over time.
Yet, we are told that the “death tax” has to be done away with. That is the inheritance tax on estates exceeding two million dollars.
Also, tax on investment income is lower than tax on working people. Why is that?
Unless wealth distribution is more equalized, I think that the country as it used to be is done for.
I prefer a simple graduated tax with no deductions. The tax rate for each one thousand dollar increase in wealth would be progressive. As the tax gets toward the high end it would be steeply progressive. It would be simple to administer and guarantee that massive wealth would not accumulate in the hands of the meddling few. Any attempted change in rates for the rich that would be legislated would be easy for people to understand and to resist.
tax’s are unconstitutional,when amendment 16 was put in place,it was ment for the rich and companies making big money,people working,were making pennies a day if that,they were not supposed to be taxed. during ww2 the government asked the worker’s(mostly woman) if they could take money out of there pay to support the solder’s, and when the war was over they would stop. we can’t trust the government to keep it’s word. join we the people and robert schulz to help keep we the people in charge of our country.
I believe that I have mentioned this before on another issue, but it seems appropriate for this one.
Originally, the federal income tax was a tax on “unearned” money, that is money made from money. The income threshold was set high, so that “working people”, wage earners, were not required to pay this tax.
“Abolish plutocracy if you would abolish poverty.”
Rutherford B. Hayes.
“It looks to me like the rich are already paying more than their fair share!”
THAT looks like a whole lotta bushit to me!
With licentious support of the war here is a hidden tax this administration places on all the world’s citizens now, and for future generations:
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=375
Power_slave writes about “rich pigs earning $100,000.” It’s a serious mistake to lump someone earning an uppermiddleclass income of $100,000 with “The Rich.” Most people with a $100,000 income worked for it in some way. It’s earned income. Yes, they have a more comfortable lifestyle than the person making $20,000. But don’t put them in the same catagory as the truely “Rich’, people with a net worth of $100 million or $1 billion or more. It is that kind of concentration of wealth and the power that comes with it that is so damaging to our economy, our society and our country. When the French had their revolution, they not only killed the aristocracy, they also killed the successful small businessmen of their time. In doing so, they plunged their society into violent chaos for about a decade before they started to recreate a functioning society. The fact is that the person earning $100,000 is probably contributing 40-50% of his/her income in federal, state and local taxes. The top 25% income earners pay 99% of federal taxes. Don’t begrudge this guy making $100,000. Save your outrage for the guy making 10’s of millions of dollars a year. Our society needs the guy earning $100,000 just like it needs the guy earning $20,000. It’s the corporate elite that we don’t need.
RoR,
Your figures may be true, but they are misleading. Most americans pay over 30% in federal taxes of various kinds. Add state and local taxes and the figure goes to 40%. Meanwhile, the corporate elite who are a big part of that top 1% you’re talking about are only paying at most, 15% in federal tax. They live off capital gains, dividends, stock options, money borrowed against their investment portfolios and pay much less of that kind of income. In 2004, John Kerry’s campaign bragged about how he and his wife payed $5 million in taxes. What a great guy he was! The trouble was that on a $1 billion net worth, they conservatively had $50 million in true income (5% of $1 billion = $50 million). Their tax rate was only 10% while the rest of us are paying 40%. The wealthiest 1% pay a lot because they own so much of the nation’s wealth, not because they are paying anywhere close to the same percentage of income as the rest of us.
The figures are for Federal Income taxes.
sLiMsHaDy
If you don’t like my numbers, do the math yourself. The data is readily available from the IRS.
drbnp48
“Meanwhile, the corporate elite who are a big part of that top 1% you’re talking about are only paying at most, 15% in federal tax. They live off capital gains, dividends, stock options, money borrowed against their investment portfolios and pay much less of that kind of income.
Where did they get the money they are living off of now? Did they earn it as income? If so, it was taxed at the income tax rate. If they inherited it, they the people they inherited it from probably paid income taxes on it.
The point is; I often hear people say, “the rich aren’t paying their fair share”. The facts just don’t support that assertion.
RE:
“That is the inheritance tax on estates exceeding two million dollars.”
The mis-named ‘death tax’ (another example of Bush/New Speak) is a crock. Who the hell (or a family even) can’t live very well on a couple million, even for their whole lifetimes, if they aren’t completely frivolous with their spending, or egotistically trying to keep up those imaginary paragons of excess…the Jones’s? Americans, proud of their hard work ethic, are fed up with a wealthy few being able to ‘coast’ through their lives, while most must toil & slave increasingly harder & harder, and hence the results of this poll.
I remember in the fifties reading in the Almanac the tax rate on a million in income was 93%. Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? It was progressive, meaning the people who made the most were expected to pay the most percentagewise. Of course there were numerous deductions no longer in place so that percentage was reduced considerably. If you donated to charity it could even push you into a lower tax bracket, allowing you more net income. The millionare came out ahead, the charities gained (and the people they served), and even the wage earner (minimum wage was $1 per hour at the time) gained because the treasury was sound & the national debt was much lower.
Money was ‘real’, meaning when you threw a dime, quarter, half dollar, or silver dollar on the counter to pay it rang out as real silver, not this crap base metal we have now. Getting rid of silver certificates, and changing to the Federal Reserve ‘Notes’ killed all than. That was all an early neo-CON, Zionist, Republican, FED plan though. Now our money is hardly worth the paper it is printed on, and backed by nothing but a ‘promise to pay’ enforced by a pervertedly expanded military might. Oil is the new currency, and anyone who threatens the hegemony of trading what it is traded in from the dollar to something else is faced with being included in the ‘evil’ nations of the world. Just look at the history, Iraq, Iran, & Venezuela have threatend to make another currency what they would sell their oil with. Where do they stand as far as relationships with the US?
Taxes in the US have now become exceedingly ‘regressive’, meaning they take a greater percentage of the incomes of the people on the lower rungs than those at the top. What does it matter to millionares if the price of a loaf of bread, gallon of milk, gallon of gas, or prescription doubles. Not much, because it’s chump change to them. Now apply that same increase to someone earning minimum wage, or living on Social Security, and what is the percentage of their income given up? This is the reality of income disparity in this country, and the real travesty is the super-wealthy don’t seem to be satisfied until they have EVERYTHING and the people who keep the country running with their toil & sweat are reduced to serfs, slaves, or beggars. All planned, by the way.
The greatest threat now to the US financially is not these countries, but the Federal Reserve, backed by the uber-wealthy, and they are bleeding us dry…and pretty quickly at that.
If you will take about an hour or so to look at this link you will see how we have been played as chumps almost since colonial days (or longer even):
http://iamthewitness.com/doc/RothschildsTimeline-filer/frame.htm
PaulMagillSmith
“Money was ‘real’, meaning when you threw a dime, quarter, half dollar, or silver dollar on the counter to pay it rang out as real silver, not this crap base metal we have now. Getting rid of silver certificates, and changing to the Federal Reserve ‘Notes’ killed all that”
What a load of pap.
Money is a concept! What does it matter if it’s paper or silver or wood or oil or buffalo poop.
Native people in the south pacific used sea shells for god sake!
When I was 17, I got my $40 paycheck and raced to the bank to get some cash dollars, but most of it went into an account. Was there gold or silver in a special box with my name on it?, No. I had to spend some of it to get to the bank and back, then I bought paper checks and stamps to distribute the money to my creditors.
I haven’t seen my paycheck in 30 years (except on a computer screen) it’s all ones and zeros shooting through a phone line. I pay my bills online, (saving trees) and I look at a computer screen to see how much I have in the bank. I travel around the world using a little plastic debit card to purchase things and pay my expenses. I don’t have to worry about pirates and robbers stealing my bags of gold when I travel.
Money has never been ‘real’.
RoR
“What a load of pap.
Money is a concept”
While I completely disagree with your ‘pap’ comment & it’s somewhat offensive tone, I will agree money is a concept, but it must have something rare or of value to back it up or it’s worth is questionable. Numerous countries have gone through the inflationary spiral by thinking they could just ‘create’ money by printing notes with nothing to back them up. This has proven time & again to have disasterous consequences. Look at the Continental notes during the American Revolution (not worth a Continental damn), Confederate notes during the Civil War (worthless as a Confederate dollar), German money during Hitler’s Reich (takes a wheelbarrow of printed money to buy a loaf of bread), and now the American ‘greenback’ in the Bush administration. Why do you think Bushco had the FED stop publishing the M3 money suply numbers in 2005? This was to hide the fact they have been printing money & injecting it into the money supply and hoping no one would notice the money had less value. We are starting to see the ramifications of this lunacy now in rising inflationary pressure & the devaluation of the dollar on world markets. With the backing of a rare commodity (sea shells), or a rare metal valued for other industrial uses (gold, silver, platinum, for electronics applications or even desired for jewelry) the paper money retains most of its value.
If money has never been ‘real’, as you claim, what would you rather possess at the moment, a thousand silver (90% silver) dollars or a thousand one dollar Federal Reserve ‘Notes’(linen/paper/ink)? I’ll take the precious metal, thankyou.
A nation’s money is only as good as the confidence people have in it, and our money is quickly losing credibility around the world.
RE: RoR April 26th, 2008 9:45 am
“Who Makes What and Who Pays What, 2005 (most recent year available)
The tax burdens with numbers obtained from the IRS and The Tax Foundation”
Your vision is myopic, and your numbers are skewed (even if from those paragons of virtue the illegal IRS & suspect Tax Foundation).
Here’s what the numbers represent:
There are ten people in a room, one of them gets $1,000, and the other 9 get $1 each. How equitable of a distribution is this?
Here’s an excellent link that explains how the FED is enslaving us:
http://www.justiceplus.org/bankers.htm
PaulMagillSmith
“There are ten people in a room, one of them gets $1,000, and the other 9 get $1 each. How equitable of a distribution is this?”
Try it this way;
There are ten people in a room, one of them earns $1,000, and the other 9 earn $1 each. How equitable of a distribution is this?
Sounds perfectly equitable to me.
Nobody ‘gets’ anything, we’re talking about peoples earned income.
I despise taxes. The gov wastes most of money the steal from me.
I don’t want anyone being taxed.
If the choice is more taxes or less taxes, I’ll take less taxes, thank you.
I am impressed it is this high with the corporate media constantly harping on how bad taxes are. Imagine if this issue was brought out and debated fairly.
This reminds me of all the polling on Americans support for single payer health insurance. Just more evidence of America’s progressive majority. And like others have said, do not expect either political party to bring this up anytime soon.
RoR,
I guess what is “fair” is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. A regressive tax system where the middleclass and the sucessful small businessman, who creates 80% of the new jobs is forced to pay 30-35% of his/her income in federal taxes while the corporate elite only pay 10-15% just shows up as unfair to me.
Apart from the issue of fairness, there is historical, empirical evidence that when the wealth of a nation is allowed to concentrate too much in the hands of the richest 1%, then the country goes into decline. Kevin Phillips demonstrates this nicely in his 2001 book, WEALTH AND DEMOCRACY. Countries start out with the richest 1% owning about 20% of the nation’s wealth. Over time the wealth concentrates until that richest 1% owns 40% of more of the nation’s wealth. That 40% figure signals the end of that countries dominance. Look at the Spanish Empire, followed by 100 years of Dutch economic dominance, followed by the British Empire. In all 3 cases, the countries fell into decline when the threshold 40% figure was reached. In 2001, when Phillips wrote his book, the USA was at 44%, with the richest 1% also owning 62% of all corporate stock. The value in peoples’ homes was the only thing counterbalencing the wealth of that richest 1%. That source of middleclass wealth has now taken a major hit. If we don’t stop this concentration of wealth, our country is toast.