Poll: Most say redistribute wealth

[eridani]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/redistribution-of-wealth-poll-90265.html?hp=r7

Nearly 6 in 10 Americans say wealth is distributed unfairly in the United States, and a majority want the federal government to play Robin Hood to fix the problem, according to a poll released Thursday.

Only 33 percent of Americans think the current distribution of wealth in this country is fair, according to the Gallup Poll, while 59 percent say it is not. Fifty-two percent said the United States should redistribute wealth through heavy taxes on the rich, while 45 percent disagreed.

While the percent of Americans who said the current distribution of wealth is unfair is down from 68 percent in 2008, the number of Americans who favor federal redistribution is at an all-time high.

[Capt13]

1. They already have.

[Cal Carpenter]

2. Yeah it's all going upward

to fewer and fewer hands...

[UnrepentantLiberal]

4. They redistributed your wealth?

[Recursion]

5. They sure as hell did mine, upwards. I should be making about $100k a year, based on 1970s trends

That missing several dozen thousand dollars has gone up, up, up.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

6. They're over taxing you?

[Recursion]

9. Underpaying me

Though I grant the result is the same. Except with over tax I get better services

[UnrepentantLiberal]

11. Yep.

And that's where we are. Corporations pay less taxes, we pay more payroll tax and make less.

My favorite is when libertarians and Republicans say the union is stealing from me by charging me dues. The reality is that when I work for a union company I take home more money every week, plus a dollar an hour vacation pay, plus medical and dental, plus retirement benefits. How am I being ripped off?

[HiPointDem]

13. yes.

[Greybnk48]

7. +1000

Many people don't realize that that's exactly what was done by the wealthy.

[woo me with science]

28. Yes. The SYSTEM must be changed.

Even if it were redistributed, the system we have now would simply create the theft all over again.

[pampango]

3. Unfortunately, though it is important tha 52% want "heavy taxes on the rich", it pales in comparison

to the 90% that want background checks on gun purchases. The big money could defeat background checks despite 90% support from the public. It should have not trouble preventing "heavy taxes on the rich".

[SoCalDem]

8. The people with all the money say...NO WAY...n/t

[slackmaster]

10. Yes, it's perfectly normal to be envious and want other peoples' stuff.

[eridani]

12. Also to think that the financial bigwigs are useless parasites

--who should be put away for life for treason and stripped of all their assets.

[HiPointDem]

14. yes, it's simply envy when we see gangsters and criminals making bank and controlling politics.

paying off legislators to enact laws favorable to criminals.

any more brilliant insights from the courtier section?

[Sirveri]

20. It is when that stuff is bought with YOUR paycheck.

How do the rich make money, they own a business typically. And how does that business make money, they make it by selling goods for more than it costs to manufacture them.

Or to think of it another way, they pay the workers less than what they sell the products for. In other words, the worker is producing value, but is being paid for less than the value they produce, which means that the boss is picking your pocket every time you do your job. At some level this is an acceptable loss, as the lights must be kept on, raw materials must be purchased, and other coworkers who produce non-visible labor must be compensated for their time. However when you've got a person making 500 times the amount of the average worker in his company, it's time to ask why they deserve to make that much, because their labor simply isn't worth that, not just to shuffle money around and sit on their butts all day.

[foo_bar]

23. free at last.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=124430&sub=trans

[Starry Messenger]

27. So fucking glad you are gone at last, poor-hating smug creep.

[hughee99]

15. The only thing I can be sure of is if the government gets to decide what's "fair"

the people asking for further redistribution won't be happy with the result. If the problem is that the government is rigging the system against the 99%, why would giving them more power make things better?

[HiPointDem]

16. government already decides what's fair. who said anything about giving them more power?

[hughee99]

17. Asking for further redistribution of wealth would require giving them more power.

Until we're able to trust that our government's decisions aren't being made based on the 1% that funds their campaigns, giving them more power is not going to have the desired result.

[Sirveri]

19. no they wouldn't require more power, since they already have the power to tax

Restoring the tax rates of the 1950's with a zero rate indexed to the current zero rate would restore income rate disparity.

They could then levy a 'wealth' tax to tax all stored wealth in excess of a set number at whatever percent they desired.

That said, that will never happen because of who is currently pulling the levers of government, and it ain't the poor or the middle class.

[hughee99]

24. I'm not sure that such a tax would prove constitutional,

though I've been wrong on this sort of thing before.

[Sirveri]

25. All taxes are constitutional, because the federal government has the power to tax.

This was actually clarified in response to court cases originating from the 16th amendment, which clarified that the the expansion to include the power to tax incomes was not actually needed, but that the only thing that the amendment did was to allow the federal government to spend that money without regards to census or enumeration (in other words, it didn't have to spend it between the states equally).

In the case of a 'wealth tax', or a tax on bank balances in excess of a specified amount, it would likely be considered to be a 'property' tax, and thus be required to be proportioned according to the states according to their populations.

[hughee99]

29. If your talking about a tax based on net worth,

You're not just talking about a tax on bank balances, you're talking about forcing people to sell property. I don't think taking money or property from people because they "have too much" would be able to avoid a supreme court hearing and I doubt that the government would be able to win such a case based on "fairness".

[Sirveri]

30. The thing about laws is the devil is in the details. How we write them would matter.

I was thinking more about total cash on hand rather than real property. Such a tax would likely be considered to be akin to a property tax due to its nature.

The thing about a court case is that the state would have to show that it is in the national interests to enact such a tax, the argument being that it would promote social stability and cohesion to reduce wealth disparity. Is it fair... I find such a statement hilarious. Is it fair when the rich decide to underpay all of their workers so that they can take a bigger share of the pie? What we're doing is simply insuring that those who labor to produce the wealth are back paid from the wealth they created.

But, this is all pipe dreams, the rich became so rich that they bought the government, and they'll never give it back.

[hughee99]

31. That last part was my general point.

Since the rich own the government, how can you trust the government to redistribute the wealth fairly anyway. And since you can't trust them, why would you want to encourage them to try to do it. Some of their redistribution efforts recently have involved getting the people to pay for corporate losses to protect the wealthy from personal losses.

[Sirveri]

32. I wouldn't, I was approaching the discussion from a 'non-reality based' standpoint.

Historically, it was overcome by a high upper tier income tax.

Three things need to happen:
1. Break up the media.
2. Insure that the voting systems are valid.
3. Get the money out of politics.

Where do we start? We can't, because they don't want the status quo to change.

Reagan deregulated the media, and now it's garbage, the result is plain as day. The people who own the media don't want the system to change, and they'll tell everyone not to change it.
We've seen voting irregularities since 2000 at least, with ZERO serious attempts to change it. We've heard them mention that they want to fix, but nothing ever happens.
Money, good luck while we've got this supreme court.

[1-Old-Man]

18. Which is more important for society, dynastic wealth or something like economic equality?

The only way to stop dynastic wealth is through inheritance taxes.

[Sirveri]

21. You could also tax large net worths.

If your total cash on hand > 10Million, we levy a tax of 10%.

Though that would likely lead to a mass capital flight, so we'd have to make that illegal first, then do the tax as a follow up.

[socialist_n_TN]

26. And the penalty for capital flight would be confiscation of ALL of the wealth......

that was flying. Plus a jail sentence.

[limpyhobbler]

22. Most people who think the current distribution is fair, don't know what it is.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph