SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
redistribution of wealth
When Given a Chance, Voters Choose to Increase Equality and Redistribute Wealth
A recent report on citizen-driven initiatives found that people in red and blue states vote for policies that are egalitarian and economically redistributive.
Apr 29, 2025
On the evening of November 5, 2024, I sat at a gathering of organizers and volunteers from the campaign to pass Proposition 139, a citizen-driven initiative in Arizona seeking to enshrine abortion access in the state constitution.
After an hour or so of waiting with bated breath, the bulk of Arizona’s ballot initiative results had been counted and posted online. Our hard work had paid off! Prop 139 had amassed 66% voter support (a number that would decrease to a still impressive 61% by the final tally.) After a significant round of applause and the shedding of a few tears, the party settled into a pleasant thrum.
At first I expected shouting, screaming, and crying—we had won a massive victory! But I quickly understood that the celebration was more subdued than expected because the results were exactly what the lead organizers of the campaign hadanticipated: a win.
Healthcare Rising and Prop 139 won because they refused to partake in party politics and instead tailored their campaign toward fighting for issues that were resonant and supported in their constituency and across the political spectrum.
Ultimately, it was unsurprising that this initiative to enshrine abortion access passed in Arizona, despite voters in the state supporting anti-abortion candidate and now U.S. President Donald Trump, because reproductive freedom itself as a policy has proven to be overwhelmingly popular when put to a vote by the electorate.
A recent report from our team at the Center for Work and Democracy uses data from citizen-driven initiatives—ballot initiatives that are drafted, petitioned, and voted on by citizens themselves—from the last 15 years to see where patterns in voting emerge. Put very briefly, we found that people vote for policies that are egalitarian and economically redistributive.
Egalitarian measures—which equalize rights, resources, and decision-making power in society—pass at a rate of 65.63% across blue and red states alike. Initiatives supporting reproductive rights, for example, are considered egalitarian and prove to be extremely successful at the polls. Despite a difficult loss in Florida in the 2024 election and a complicated voting stalemate in Nebraska, abortion access has been protected by voters in 14 out of 17 cases since the fall of Roe v. Wade.
Redistributive measures are a subsect of egalitarian initiatives that specifically focus on the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, like raising the minimum wage. With an even greater passage rate than other egalitarian measures, redistributive ballot measures clock in with an impressive win rate of 75%. In red states, this number rises all the way to a whopping 92% compared to 61.29% in blue states. (We found that blue states’ averages are skewed down by California’s initiative results, which are far less progressive than the state’s image.)
When Healthcare Rising Arizona and the other co-organizers of the campaign for Prop 139 set out to get the initiative on the ballot and enshrined in the state constitution, they knew that party politics were not going to help their cause. From day one, the campaign for 139 was clear that their organizing would be strictly nonpartisan because they knew that abortion as a policy was more popular than any individual Democratic candidates, despite those Democrats being vocally pro-choice.
The strategy worked. The Arizona for Abortion Access Act passed with 417,427 more votes than former Vice President Kamala Harris received in Arizona, proving that egalitarian policies like reproductive rights are simply more popular than pro-choice candidates.
Healthcare Rising and Prop 139 won because they refused to partake in party politics and instead tailored their campaign toward fighting for issues that were resonant and supported in their constituency and across the political spectrum.
Our data tells us that egalitarian and redistributive measures are exceedingly popular with red and blue voters alike. So if Republican and Democrat voters both want many of the same things—policies that equalize rights, break down wealth inequality, and support the decision-making power of everyday people—why won’t politicians just give the people what they want?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mega-Billionaires and the Gushing Upward Redistribution of Wealth
So how much is a $100 billion anyway?
Mar 30, 2022
The word "billionaire" didn't even exist until 1844. Fifty years later, we got "multibillionaire." And for the next 127 years, that was enough.
But in 2020, while the working class faced near-record unemployment during the pandemic, the wealthiest Americans faced a different problem. Some of them had gotten so rich, there was no longer a word to describe just how rich they were.
That's why I want to bring you one of the newest additions to the English language: "centibillionaires," people with $100 billion or more.
What's it like being one of history's first centibillionaires? It's hard to even imagine, but let's try it by comparing them to the less fortunate. By which I mean just ... regular ... billionaires.
If you're a regular billionaire, you can afford a private jet. If you're a centibillionaire, you can afford a brand-new Gulfstream jet every single day for more than ten years. (Not sure what you'd do with a new Gulfstream every day -- maybe give one to each of your closest 4,000 friends?)
A regular billionaire would struggle to buy their own professional baseball team. Sad, I know. But a centibillionaire could easily buy every team in the entire major league.
If you're a regular billionaire, you can donate to your alma mater and get your name on a building. If you're a centibillionaire, you could single-handedly give every teacher in America an $8,000 raise for 5 straight years.
Of course, that's not all you could do. $100 billion is enough to wipe out all the medical debt in the United States. Or provide permanent shelter for every homeless person in America. Or buy Covid-19 vaccines for the entire world.
Basically what I'm saying is, $100 billion is a lot of money.
More than two and a half million times what the average American worker makes in a year.
So here's the big question. Are these centibillionaires so rich because they work two and half million times harder than the average American? Are they really 100 times smarter than the typical billionaire?
I don't think so. The reason for the rise of centibillionaires is that for decades, wealth hasn't trickled down, it's gushed up, all the way to the very top.
That's not an accident. As it turns out, the system that the super-rich themselves carefully crafted and lobbied for, benefits... the rich!
And while you may not own more private jets than your average centibillionaire, you probably do pay a higher tax rate. And thanks to legal loopholes and the Trump tax cuts, when the wealthiest Americans die, they get to pass on most of their centibillions to their kids tax-free.
We've got two choices as a country. We can tax the richest Americans fairly, and invest that money in ways that benefit all of us.
Or we can keep doing what we're doing, and watch as centibillionaires get even richer while the rest of us get left behind.
If you think wealth and power are too concentrated in the hands of a privileged few now, just imagine what a few more years of trickle-down nonsense will bring.
Of course, it won't be all bad. At least "trillionaire" is easy to say.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How to Redistribute Wealth--Without the Guillotine
We can't just tax billionaires’ paychecks. We should tax the wealth they've already amassed.
Apr 28, 2016
I stumbled into the crowded bookstore on a cold winter day a few years ago, rushing to catch a glimpse of the author speaking in the back. As is my custom, I was late and his speech was well underway.
The question and answer began and someone in the crowd asked something I hear often at events like this one: "Don't you get tired of banging your head against the wall? Is there any room for hope?" The speaker laughed a bit before responding quite seriously that he was indeed quite hopeful. Things may look hopeless in the very near term, but the change he's talking about takes decades.
The author was Gar Alperovitz, speaking about his most recent book, What Then Must We Do? The line is one he's repeated often--and one that's stuck with me ever since: If you're in the business of social change, you have to think in terms of decades.
It's with this lesson in mind that we should consider taking on one of the most pressing problems of our time: wealth inequality. The problem with wealth inequality, after all, isn't simply that it's been growing steadily over the past 30 years. The problem is that it's showing no signs of stopping in the near or distant future.
And things are going to get worse.
The Long View
Short of an all-out, torches-and-pitchforks revolt, reducing structural inequality means going through the legislative process--most particularly, reforming the tax code. But with an intransigent Republican Congress, a campaign-finance system dominated by wealthy donors, and a dispirited and deeply divided public, it's clear that legislative change isn't going to come soon.
That places us in what Alperovitz calls "pre-history." We have to lay the foundation for change without knowing when it will come.
His heroes, Alperovitz says, are the civil rights workers of the 1930s and '40s. They took on insurmountable odds--as well as serious personal risk--to lay the groundwork for what would become the very successful civil rights movement of the 1960s. They knew they might never see the fruits of their labor--Jim Crow and its supporters in Washington seemed impossibly entrenched--but their efforts made it possible for success in the unknowable future.
With the benefit of this long view, we can look past election cycles to see what solutions would actually solve our serious problems. On wealth inequality, that means a direct tax on concentrated wealth.
We shouldn't just tax billionaires' paychecks, in other words. We need to tax the wealth they've already amassed. That idea isn't going to clear Congress anytime soon. But it's just as serious, reasonable, and likely to become law as any other genuine solution.
A Precarious New Era
To understand why we need to tax wealth, we first need to get sense of what makes modern wealth inequality different from the inequality of previous eras. Just how unequal are we?
For starters, the United States leads the planet in billionaires. In fact, we have more billionaires than the next five countries combined. According to numbers my colleague Chuck Collins and I crunched, the 400 wealthiest Americans now own more wealth than the entire GDP of India, a nation of nearly 1.3 billion people. And the 20 wealthiest Americans alone--a group small enough to fit on a private jet--are richer than the bottom half of Americans combined.
Wealth concentration is commonly encapsulated by the duality of the 99 percent vs. the 1 percent, the now famous framing advanced by Occupy Wall Street. But a more accurate distinction is between the 99.9 percent and 0.1 percent. This tiny group--the top one-tenth of 1 percent--now owns about as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent of the country combined. That's a bigger share than at any time since the Gilded Age of the 1920s.
On the other end of the economic spectrum, a survey late last year found that most Americans have less than $1,000 in their checking and savings accounts combined. If they slip on the sidewalk or their car engine light comes on, they can literally be left penniless.
When you factor in race, things look even worse. Across nearly every household economic indicator--from home ownership to retirement savings to income, wealth, and debt--black and Latino families lag behind white families. White families control 10 times more wealth than Latino families and 13 times more wealth than black families.
Wealth is the safety net that enables families to live without fear of a bump in the road--a missed paycheck, a reduced schedule at work, a busted water heater--sending them into destitution. Wealth is security. And without it, millions of families lead perilous and precarious lives.
The Promised Land
A small number of Americans are unfathomably secure, while more and more of us are slipping into permanent precariousness. But it's worse than just that.
Research across several disciplines has shown that extreme inequality undermines democracy, social cohesion, and economic stability. A recent New York Times study revealed that just 158 families contributed half of the early contributions to the candidates in this presidential election cycle. Do we really live in a democracy when such a small group is able to wield so much influence?
Inequality is also destroying our health. According to public health researcher Richard Wilkinson, you're better off living in a community with greater equality, even when the overall standard of living is lower than in a more unequal community. That's because inequality has been linked to a host of negative health outcomes--including heart disease, asthma, mental illness, and cancer--for everyone in unequal societies, not just those at the bottom. Infant mortality, for instance, in the United States is double the rate seen in Japan or Sweden, significantly less unequal countries, for everyone--not just those at the bottom.
Make no mistake, the negative impact of inequality still impacts the poor more than the rich. A recent study showed low-income men live 15 years less than wealthy men. The disparity for women is 10 years. As Wilkinson points out, "greater equality makes most the difference at the bottom, but has some benefits even at the top."
Beneath this theft of our health and democratic ideals is a more fundamental pathology: Inequality demolishes our basic idea of fairness. Many of us like to associate wealth with hard work--that's the American Dream, right? But it's a lie.
Today, the strongest indicator that you'll amass lot of wealth in your lifetime is being born into a family with a lot of wealth. In fact, soaring inequality has made the United States among the least socially mobile developed countries in the world. Children born to a typical middle-income family today are less likely to earn more money than their parents did.
If you're not wealthy but aspire to the American Dream--saving money, building a home, paying for college, retiring before you die--you're better off living in Canada.
This is a grim new reality for white Americans who grew up during the vast expansion of the middle class after World War II. It's not so new for millions of people of color, who continue to be systematically blocked from rising into the ranks of the middle class.
An Alternative to the Guillotine
OK, so inequality is a problem. How do we solve it?
Not by poking around the margins. Slight adjustments to tax rates or child-care tax credits might ease the pain, but they won't cure the disease.
Throughout history, as Thomas Piketty discovered from digging through centuries of tax data in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, serious wealth stockpiles have only ever been shaken loose in times of intense catastrophe--like wars and reconstruction. While it's true that inequality has been reduced in the past, it's never been done without a massive war and subsequent economic disruption.
Piketty points to a tax on wealth--not just the money people make, but the money they already have--as the least disruptive way to bring down spiraling inequality.
I, for one, am not eager to see the return of the guillotine. Fortunately, there's a more peaceful option. Piketty points to a tax on wealth--not just the money people make, but the money they already have--as the least disruptive way to bring down spiraling inequality.
In fact, Piketty's idea isn't new. Veteran wealth tracker and economist Edward Wolff penned an article in 1996 calling for a direct tax on concentrated wealth. Other proposals are older still. Yet the idea was met with bemused scorn by the Very Serious People who guard mainstream political thought in policymaking circles.
This reaction appears incredibly shortsighted--and it wouldn't be the first time conventional ideology turned out to be wrong in the long run of history.
The Rumblings of History
Consider a flat, 1 percent wealth tax levied exclusively on the wealthiest 1 percent of households.
The top 1 percent controls 42 percent of the nation's household wealth, about $26 trillion in total. In its simplest form, a 1 percent tax would raise $260 billion annually--more than the federal government now spends on education and environmental protection combined.
Because most money managers are able to deliver investment returns greater than 1 percent, the impact on those taxed would be negligible. Of course, implementing a progressive wealth tax with even higher rates on the 0.1 percent could yield more revenue still.
Taxing wealth directly strikes at the heart of the problem Piketty describes using his mountain of historical tax data: Capital, left unchecked, will inevitably concentrate at the very top. That's why other solutions won't solve the problem, and why the push for a significant tax on wealth is worth digging into for the long haul.
The seeds of this movement are already beginning to sprout, not least in the surprising success of Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign.
Even if the Vermont senator ultimately comes up short against Hillary Clinton, he's mobilized millions of supporters who view taxing the wealthy as a means to fund programs that could greatly improve their lives--like debt-free college and early child care. Those ideas are popular even among Clinton supporters, and Sanders's overwhelming support from younger voters--GOP consultant Frank Luntz calls millennials "frighteningly liberal"--means they're not going away anytime soon.
There's a tectonic shift underway on the politics of inequality. Even if the wealthy interests that control Congress haven't fallen yet, they're surely starting to feel the rumblings--and, if we start putting more cracks in the political fortress they've built for themselves, we may yet shake history loose in our lifetimes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Robin Hood in Reverse: Climate Change Takes from Poor, Gives to Rich
A new study finds that climate change is triggering a massive reallocation of resources to the world's wealthiest countries
Feb 24, 2016
A warming climate is exacerbating global inequality by pushing critical natural resources, such as fish stocks, away from impoverished equatorial regions and making them more exploitable by the wealthy, according to a study released on Wednesday.
While the gap between the rich and poor in the U.S. and worldwide has expanded at a mind-boggling pace in recent decades, the new study, designed by scientists at Princeton, Rutgers, Yale, and Arizona State, shows that the frightening speed with which the globe is warming will only compound the economic trend.
The study looked specifically at fish to better understand the phenomenon.
"We tend to think of climate change as just a problem of physics and biology," Malin Pinsky, professor of ecology and evolution at Rutgers, explained to Rutgers Today. "But people react to climate change as well, and at the moment, we don't understand the impacts of human behavior on natural resources affected by climate change."
To examine those impacts, Pinsky told the newspaper that "[w]hat we find is that natural resources like fish are being pushed around by climate change and that changes who gets access to them."
The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, looked at what the authors call "inclusive wealth," or the "sum of a community's capital assets."
Rutgers Today reports that the researchers examined natural resources such as fish and forests, a community's infrastructure—buildings, roads, factories—and its population's education level and health.
The newspaper wrote:
Pinsky reports that the stronger and more conservation-oriented a community's natural resource management, the higher the value it places on its natural resources, whether those resources are increasing or diminishing. If wealthier communities and countries are more likely to have strong resource management, these wealthy groups are more likely to benefit, thus exacerbating inequality.
The study used data collected by Pinsky in his studies of fish migration and applied a mathematical formula created by Yale University economist Eli Fenichel to illustrate the connection between the migration of natural resources and the migration of wealth. The scientists created two fictitious fishery-dependent communities, Northport and Southport, and used Fenichel's formula to examine future interactions between them and their fish stocks.
The findings also echo the changes and depletion reported by commercial and Indigenous fisheries worldwide.
The researchers observed that "a changing climate can reallocate natural capital, change the value of all forms of capital, and lead to mass redistribution of wealth."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders' Socialist Message Translating to Fresh Gains in Key States
New early-state polling in New Hampshire and Iowa shows populist message is gaining on Clinton's name recognition
Jun 25, 2015
New simultaneous polling conducted in Iowa and New Hampshire shows that Sen. Bernie Sanders's message is having a positive impact on his presidential run. Voters express increased support for the self-described democratic socialist as he challenges frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
"You can make the case that a certain amount of Bernie Sanders's support is a protest vote, but there's more to it than that. People like him. They like what he stands for. They like showing up at his events and hearing him say things they believe in."
-- J. Ann Selzer, Selzer & Co.
Released by Bloomberg Politics on Thursday, the results of the new surveys--conducted between June 19-22--are the most recent to show Sanders closing the substantial lead once held by the former secretary of state. The polling in Iowa was conducted by the West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., and in New Hampshire, the work was performed by Washington-area Purple Strategies in cooperation with Saint Anselm College. The results, reports Bloomberg, indicate a "substantive and symbolic support for the socialist, as well as a craving among some Democrats for a Clinton rival to rise."
Though Clinton's overall lead remains substantial, survey details show his message is making a positive impression on those exposed to it. Namely, Sanders appears to be enjoying a much more significant portion of genuine support, with people giving him higher points for being "authentic." This is borne out on the ground, where there appears to be a real difference in the enthusiasm surrounding Sanders. As Common Dreams has reported, people attend his rallies in large numbers and respond positively once they hear from him on specific policies.
According to Bloomberg:
In Iowa, Clinton leads Sanders 50 percent to 24 percent, and in New Hampshire, 56 percent to 24 percent. That's a six- to eight-point increase in his support since those states were polled by Bloomberg Politics and partners in May.
With nearly identical support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the polls suggest Sanders' rise isn't just because he enjoys New England neighbor-state status. In both states, he gets higher marks than Clinton on authenticity and willingness to take on Wall Street and financial elites.
Along the campaign trail, Sanders appears to be changing some minds: His unfavorable rating in Iowa is just 4 percent, down 8 percentage points since May. At the same time, 57 percent now view him positively, up 10 points from the last poll.
"You can make the case that a certain amount of Bernie Sanders's support is a protest vote, but there's more to it than that," said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co. "People like him. They like what he stands for. They like showing up at his events and hearing him say things they believe in."
Previous polling in New Hampshire showed Clinton with a much narrower lead, but the overall trend has consistently favored Sanders gaining ground.
Responding to the campaign's continued rise in the polls, Sanders' chief political strategist Tad Devine told Bloomberg the latest numbers fit with what he's sensing on the campaign trail. "It's tremendous progress that he is making with voters in the first two states," he said. "It's something we felt on the ground."
Meanwhile, for those who think U.S voters would never send an avowed socialist to the White House, new numbers from Gallup are dispelling those myths--showing increased support for the "S-word" among those likely to cast a ballot. As Marc Daalden reports for In These Times on Wednesday:
A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.
When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans. Overall, socialism charted the lowest of all the backgrounds referenced in the poll. Atheist and Muslim candidates ranked second- and third-lowest among the American populace, at 58 and 60 percent respectively.
This poll comes less than two months after Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy, becoming the first self-described socialist (with at least a decent chance of winning) to do so in more than a decade.
Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example--the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Part of the reason for this dissonance is confusion among the America population as to what the word "socialism" even means. Many often associate it with the authoritarian Communism of the Soviet Union instead of the social democracies of modern-day Scandinavian countries, which Sanders strongly backs.
Even though the number of voters who say they would consider voting for a socialist candidate is below an outright majority, the fact that the number of Americans who would consider voting for a socialist is at 47 percent, in a country with a long history of vicious red-baiting, seems to suggest that Americans aren't as afraid of the word "socialist" as many on the Right would like them to be.
What continues to appear as Sanders' most vital characteristic is his ability to deliver that "authentic" populist message to voters who are eager to discuss issues like low wages, economic inequality, global climate change, the troubling and outsized role of money in politics, and the continued dominance of Wall Street over Main Street. As an op-ed by Sanders on Wednesday argued, "It is time to say loudly and clearly that corporate greed and the war against the American middle class must end. Enough is enough!"
In addition to polls proving that Sanders is resonating with voters in places where he has been steadily campaigning, popular culture also gave Sanders a vote of confidence this week when the online comedy website Funny or Die posted this video, which offered a light-hearted look at how Sanders' message of economic disparity and Wall Street greed was being received by the ever-important "youth vote."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy