Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

If you’ve been waiting for the right time to support our work—that time is now.

Our mission is simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.

But without the support of our readers, this model does not work and we simply won’t survive. It’s that simple.
We must meet our Mid-Year Campaign goal but we need you now.

Please, support independent journalism today.

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

New research from Berkeley political scientists gave Americans a choice of seven policy options on taxes, with the first three all involving raising taxes on the rich and the last three all involving options that would cut the taxes rich people pay. Americans overwhelmingly chose the first three options. (Photo: Darya Mead/Flickr/cc)

The Peasants Still Have Their Pitchforks

Americans want what 21st century politics has so far not delivered: real options for challenging concentrated wealth.

Sam Pizzigati

 by Inequality.org

What can we expect Congress to do about America’s staggeringly top-heavy concentration of income and wealth over the next two years? Absolutely nothing.

What do Americans want Congress to do about that concentration? A good bit.

We know the first answer from the simple math of last week’s election results. Republicans now hold a chokehold on both chambers of Congress. No legislation that would even slightly inconvenience America’s awesomely affluent has any chance of even coming up for a vote.

The answer to the second question reflects, in part, exit polling that the Washington Post and other major media outlets jointly conducted on election day. That polling included a suggestive question about the nation’s economy.

“Do you think,” the pollsters asked, “that the U.S. economic system generally favors the wealthy or is fair to most Americans.”

A stunning 64 percent said they believe America’s economy “favors the wealthy.”

"A stunning 64 percent of Americans feel the nation’s economy favors the wealthy."

Last Tuesday’s exit polling didn’t probe any deeper than that. The polling didn’t, for instance, ask voters about what they feel elected leaders ought to be doing to tilt the nation in a more equitable direction.

But another important piece of polling, released before last week’s elections, did go deeply into that question.

The researchers behind this little-noticed polling, Berkeley political scientists David Broockman and Douglas Ahler, didn’t set out to explore what Americans want done about inequality. They went looking instead for a better understanding of the “moderate voter.”

Pundits, these two researchers believe, tend to mythologize voter “moderation.” Many Americans, the two posit, support public policy positions more “extreme” than the positions that most Democrats and Republicans in Congress support.

To test that proposition, Broockman and Ahler fashioned a national survey that gave voters seven different policy options in 12 contentious policy areas ranging from guns and abortion to labor rights and immigration.

For each issue, the seven choices included the mainstream Democratic and Republican position, as extracted from public statements made by current U.S. senators in news releases, press reports, and online.

"Americans support tax-the-rich options that go well beyond what their elected leaders are seeking."

Two other options reflect “extreme” Senate positions on each issue, one held by Democratic senators outside the Democratic Party Senate mainstream and the other by Republicans outside the Republican Senate mainstream. Two more options represent “extreme” policy positions — one progressive, one conservative — that have no current Senate advocates.

The final option in the survey list: a “moderate” position to the right of most Senate Democrats and the left of most Senate Republicans.

In their policy options on taxes, Broockman and Ahler defined this “moderate” position as the status quo: maintain current federal tax rates. The mainstream Democratic position: up taxes about 5 percent on those making over $250,000. The mainstream GOP stance: cut taxes, even for high earners.

On the “extreme” conservative end of the seven policy options on taxes, the Broockman and Ahler survey gave two choices. The “extreme” Senate position: move to a “flat” income tax and have everyone, rich and poor alike, pay taxes at the exact same rate. The more “extreme” position: replace the income tax with a tax on consumption.

The most “extreme” progressive option in the Broockman-Ahler poll: establish a maximum annual income by taxing all income over $1 million at a 100 percent rate. The “extreme” progressive option that has some Senate support: raise taxes on those making over $250,000 by more than 5 percent.

And how did the American public react to these seven tax policy options? Just over two-thirds — 67 percent — opted for the three options that involved raising taxes on the rich. Only 22 percent chose any of the conservative tax options.

No prominent elected leader is calling for a 100 percent tax on income over $1 million. Yet this option has a surprising level of public support.

The combined support for the two “extreme” progressive positions — a 100 percent tax on income over $1 million and over a 5 percent tax increase for those making over $250,000 — more than doubled support for the two “extreme” conservative positions, by a 40 to 19 percent margin.

The public support Broockman and Ahler found for what would be, in effect, a “maximum wage” may rate as their survey’s most remarkable finding.

No prominent elected leader in America is currently banging the drums for a 100 percent tax rate on income over $1 million. Yet this option received more support — 13 percent of those surveyed back it — than the “flat tax,” a proposal prominent GOP national figures have been pushing for decades.

Americans overall, this new polling suggests, want a tax system that targets the concentration of income at America’s economic summit. And Americans don’t just make this tax-the-rich preference plain to pollsters. They vote that way, too, whenever they have that opportunity.

Last Tuesday, voters had that opportunity in Illinois. On that state’s ballot: an advisory referendum on the question of whether Illinois should impose a new 3 percent tax on income over $1 million to help improve education funding.

The measure drew overwhelming support, with 63.6 percent voting yes to the notion of a “millionaire’s tax” and only 36.4 percent voting no.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for a millionaire’s tax in Illinois. Political observers see no chance whatsoever that Illinois lawmakers, even with last week’s vote, will seriously consider such a tax in their upcoming session.

And people wonder why so few Americans turn out to vote.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Sam Pizzigati

Sam Pizzigati

Sam Pizzigati, veteran labor journalist and Institute for Policy Studies associate fellow, edits Inequality.org. His recent books include: "The Case for a Maximum Wage" (2018) and "The Rich Don't Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970"(2012).

"I'm sure this will be all over the corporate media, right?"
That’s what one longtime Common Dreams reader said yesterday after the newsroom reported on new research showing how corporate price gouging surged to a nearly 70-year high in 2021. While major broadcasters, newspapers, and other outlets continue to carry water for their corporate advertisers when they report on issues like inflation, economic inequality, and the climate emergency, our independence empowers us to provide you stories and perspectives that powerful interests don’t want you to have. But this independence is only possible because of support from readers like you. You make the difference. If our support dries up, so will we. Our crucial Mid-Year Campaign is now underway and we are in emergency mode to make sure we raise the necessary funds so that every day we can bring you the stories that corporate, for-profit outlets ignore and neglect. Please, if you can, support Common Dreams today.

 

'We WILL Fight Back': Outrage, Resolve as Protests Erupt Against SCOTUS Abortion Ruling

Demonstrators took to the streets Friday to defiantly denounce the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority after it rescinded a constitutional right for the first time in U.S. history.

Brett Wilkins ·


80+ US Prosecutors Vow Not to Be Part of Criminalizing Abortion Care

"Criminalizing and prosecuting individuals who seek or provide abortion care makes a mockery of justice," says a joint statement signed by 84 elected attorneys. "Prosecutors should not be part of that."

Kenny Stancil ·


Progressives Rebuke Dem Leadership as Clyburn Dismisses Death of Roe as 'Anticlimactic'

"The gap between the Democratic leadership, and younger progressives on the question of 'How Bad Is It?' is just enormous."

Julia Conley ·


In 10 Key US Senate Races, Here's How Top Candidates Responded to Roe Ruling

While Republicans unanimously welcomed the Supreme Court's rollback of half a century of reproductive rights, one Democrat said "it's just wrong that my granddaughter will have fewer freedoms than my grandmother did."

Brett Wilkins ·


Sanders Says End Filibuster to Combat 'Outrageous' Supreme Court Assault on Abortion Rights

"If Republicans can end the filibuster to install right-wing judges to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats can and must end the filibuster, codify Roe v. Wade, and make abortion legal and safe," said the Vermont senator.

Jake Johnson ·

Common Dreams Logo