Monday, October 20, 2008

What the folks say about redistribution

John McCain is attacking Barak Obama for favoring higher taxes on the wealthy. He seems to believe that progressive taxation is sociliastic.

Well, what to the American people think? Ed Kilgore has an answer on Democratic Strategist.


.. i

f you check out the Gallup site, the most abundant source of polling on the broad outlines of tax policy, it becomes clear that the McCain-Palin campaign is really barking up the wrong tree.

As of April of this year--long before the Wall Street scandal roused particularly intense populist feelings--63% of respondents told Gallup that "upper-income people" paid too little in taxes. 9% said such people paid too much in taxes. While the term "upper-income" wasn't defined in the poll, Obama's definition--the top 5% of earners--couldn't be too far off the mark. And for the record, the "too little" figure was actually a bit higher back in the Clinton years, when the top rate was very similar to where Obama would try to put it.

Another common conservative talking point on taxes, echoed by John McCain in the final presidential debate, was that corporate taxes in the United States are too high. According to Gallup in the same April 2008 poll, 6% of Americans think corporations pay too much in taxes, while 73% think they pay too little.

But let's take this to another level. Suppose Republicans can convince people that Obama really does want to pursue a Robin Hood tax policy. Would that represent a political death sentence for the Democrat?

Here's another question posed by Gallup: Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich? In April of 2008, 51% of Americans answered that question "yes," while 43% said "no." Those who think of the New Deal Era as the high tide of American "socialism" might want to note that Roper asked the identical question in 1939; 35% said "yes" while 54% said "no."

So the bottom line is that under the most abrasive (and inaccurate) characterization of what Obama meant by "spreading the wealth around," he would still be reflecting a majority sentiment. Once again, the McCain-Palin campaign probably ought to be talking about something else.

No comments: