As you all know, several of the Democratic Candidates—and other younger elected officials—such as AOC—have talked about incorporating a wealth tax into the Federal system. Imo, the case for doing so is getting sharply stronger, both on a political and a policy basis. On a political basis, recent surveys have shown general support for a modest wealth tax.
www.nbcnews.com/...
Data For Progress, a research group that’s been testing opinion on a variety of left-leaning policy proposals, commissioned an online survey of Warren’s plan through pollster YouGov Blue.
The survey of 1,282 registered voters asked “Would you (support or oppose/oppose or support) imposing a 2% tax on the assets of those with a net worth over $50 million and a 3% tax on the assets of those with a net worth over $1 billion?”
Sixty-one percent of respondents said they supported the proposal, with 46 percent “strongly” supporting it. Twenty-one percent opposed the idea, with 15 percent doing so “strongly.” The rest were unsure or neutral...
“We polled Warren’s exact proposal and it’s overwhelmingly popular, even among Republicans,” Data For Progress founder Sean McElwee said in an e-mail. “It’s time for centrists to embrace bipartisan solutions that can unite all Americans, and expropriating the wealth of billionaires is a great place to start.”
It’s not a nonpartisan source, so take it with a grain of salt, and keep an eye out for more polling from independent outlets.
That said, the results don’t appear to be wildly out of line with other recent surveys on taxing the rich, an idea that typically polls well.
The policy case, imo, is getting increasingly strong. A few of the most compelling arguments include.
1) Much of the middle class—and even below that--already pays a significant wealth tax, relative to their income. It’s called a real estate tax, which hits individuals whose main wealth is tied up in their homes pretty hard.
2) Many renters pay that tax as well, since the people and companies they rent from have to pay a property tax, and they pass it on through the level of the rent they charge as a market rate.
3) The massive spike in the Federal deficit is inevitably going to interfere with key expenditures by the Federal government, such as for infrastructure and education.
4) That spike has come in large part from the Trump income tax cuts. Either those cuts need to be reversed, or a wealth tax needs to be substituted.
5) The devastating policy scam implemented by the ultra-wealthy, that tax cuts would lead to more capital formation and distributed wealth, is losing support as the aftermath of the Trump tax cuts doesn’t show evidence that trickle-down works.
6) Clearly, the wealth divide in the US has spiked, as technological change and related forces have driven income and wealth into the hands of a precious few. That pattern is unlikely to change, even as the need to spend in ways that offset the impact of technological change increase sharply.
7) Spending that our economy needs—on infrastructure, and to offset climate change, as examples—isn’t going to happen if there isn’t an offset to the “starve the beast” strategies of the Right that has created a big chunk of the Federal deficit. And, state and local governments are going to be hard pressed to do what they need to in the absence of federal support.
8) Spending for other policy enhancements such as universal health care, has to come from somewhere. A good case can be made that this somewhere includes a wealth tax.
9) A significant number of wealth economists have made a pretty good case for better sharing of the riches of the U.S. Those riches are not merely the result of the sweat of the brow of someone’s ancestors. They are also the result of massive benefits that Americans have inherently, that ought to be better shared.
10) The case that “it was tried before and failed” is eroding, and will erode more as people notice the explosion in wealth differences, and that a property tax is already a wealth tax.
It will be really interesting to see how this policy “experiment” plays out. The massive political benefits that have accrued to the ultra-wealthy may well be eroding in a way that would permit vastly better sharing of American wealth.