The New York Times has a fascinating new poll out today (10/26/11); too bad the paper doesn’t emphasize the most newsworthy findings.
The headline is:
New Poll Finds a Deep Distrust of Government
That’s based on the poll’s finding that the public doesn’t have much faith in government. But paragraph four offers a more striking finding:
With nearly all Americans remaining fearful that the economy is stagnating or deteriorating further, two-thirds of the public said that wealth should be distributed more evenly in the country. Seven in 10 Americans think the policies of congressional Republicans favor the rich. Two-thirds object to tax cuts for corporations and a similar number prefer increasing income taxes on millionaires.
So the public favors–by a substantial margin–greater income redistribution and higher taxes on the super-wealthy. And they oppose cutting taxes on corporations.
Perhaps the unwillingnessof the government to do those things contributes to public distrust of that government.
These points are nice, but one has to dig even deeper — to the 7th paragraph — to get to the real bombshell indicated in the headline: a stunning 9 out of 10 don’t trust the US government. “…[T]he public doesn’t have much faith in government…”? That’s an understatement: lack of faith in government is approaching universal levels. US “democracy” is obviously a big fat lie.
The British government of George III had more support from the original 13 colonies at the time of the US Revolution than the current US government does from its own citizens. It’s Revolution Time again.
If Americans don’t trust the government, why on earth do they want to redistribute wealth?? That just gives the government more control over American property. The taxes may not be proportionally equal (which is a different issue), but I don’t think the government should be able to touch anyone’s private property simply because the rest of America doesn’t tihnk they deserve it anymore. Sure, there are some fat cats out there who shouldn’t benefit from all this–I believe that strongly. However, there are people who have worked hard, and their families have worked hard for generations, and they have amassed wealth because of their innovation, etc. etc. What right does anyone have to their private property? And if the government can take theirs, what is to stop it from moving in deeper…
“Perhaps the unwillingness of the government to do those things contributes to public distrust of that government.”
Peter, that would be a logical deduction.
So what’s that got to do with mainstream media in America?
People don’t trust the government because of the people that control it, ie. the wealthy financiers and corporations that provide most of the campaign contributions that get people elected. It’s simple. Lobbyist A comes in the Rep. B’s office, wants favor C. Rep. B is aware that he is not likely to get reelected if he doesn’t go along with lobbyist A.
We can dispense with the income redistribution until we have reputable Representatives elected on public money. These reps we can trust to be accountable to their actual constituents, both whether tea party or OWS. I’d be happy to see just what the real majority would like them to do. I expect, however, that the polls being taken are accurate within 20% and that would indicate that we in fact do want redistribution. We can trust the government that the people actually elect. One of those reps might be you. Do you trust yourself?
I worked for a company once where the owner met with one of our state’s U.S. Senators. He came in during one of our meetings to crow about it, saying that he was working hard to get more work for us to do. But when I asked him what he talked about, it caught him by surprise, and he couldn’t think of a lie to tell us. Obviously whatever he had discussed with the Senator had more to do with his company’s bottom line than it did with getting us more work.
Just struck me:
If the banks and brokers had to return all the money they stole;
If the CEOs had to turn over all the bonuses they made trashing their own companies and their own employees;
If the corporations had to pay for each and every bit of damage they’ve done to the environment and the health and welfare of all Americans; and
If members of Congress had to hand over all the campaign contributions they accepted from these people in return for voting against their own constituents,
Would we actually need income redistribution?
I would like to see a nation wide poll measuring support for constitutional amendments denying that money is speech, and specifying application of the bill of rights to actual human beings.
I think one of the problems is using the term*** “Redistribute the wealth.”*** Some people make it sound as if anyone who has something will be forced to give it up. That’s not it at all.
If corporations are successful and the CEOs and investors make money, then REINVESTING the wealth would be put back into the companies in terms of newer equipment, or passing on an increase in the form of benefits and wages. Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, had the right idea, that success at the top really did refect on the bottom too. People were all in on the success together and that makes all the difference to the people and the companies profits..
Citizens are upset that when companies make BIG mistakes, and the CEOs still get big raises. I would like to find any business school that teaches that when a CEO fails they should get a raise! What school of thought is that?
However, when companies fail, they seem to think that cutting employees is the answer. How can that fix anything, because really, employees that have a history from being with a company for a while (also known as EXPERIENCE, ) are valuable.
Henry Ford was weird in some ways, but he understood that when he paid employees a decent wage, they could buy their own product. When workers had disposable income, they spent it, and their whole community benefited. Plus, in manufacturing, the PEOPLE that actually DO the job are frequently the first and often the best people to see NEW WAYS of doing something. I think that gets ignored a lot, which is very sad. Good ideas are a terrible thing to waste, and good ideas can come from every where in a company.
When I read about how people came together in WW II to build up the nation’s supplies, it showed me that people started to realize that working together can make life better for everyone. Then, I think Goethe kicks in, “Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.”
You don’t need any wars at all to get this feeling. It starts when a country feels like ‘We’re all in this together. ” Until we actually are acting like a country again, I don’t think much is going to happen. Some officials are working overtime, it seems, to prove that a democratic republic in not workable at all. I think Tahir Square had the best idea**MA’AT*** Truth and Justice. Until we share that, we’re not going any where, and we’re not a nation at all.
Taxes are necessary in a democracy, and that’s that. When I get taxed by the Federal government, that money is redistributed, just like John Depp’s and G.W. Bush’s. Got that, Acacia? The government itself isn’t bad; it’s the money power that’s captured it that’s bad. Malefactors of great wealth are destroying our democracy by buying off politicians and mining the tax system and the governments’ various institutions (think about the US military here for a blatant example) to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us and our democracy. When was the last itme you heard a Republicon or Wall Street titan even mention the word “democracy”? You need to understand that that government you malign is the only one we’ve got, and will ever have. It’s time to take it back from the lunatics who are destroying it.
TimN, I think your response to Acacia illuminates why the left has made so little impact since the end of the New Deal.
FDR was very clever. He recognized that the political power in the US is actually three groups: the ultra-wealthy, the upper middle-class/lower-upper class (doctors, lawyers, small businessmen), and everyone else. If the latter two ally, they are stronger than the first. If the first two ally, they are stronger than the last. Progressive politics has to begin from the standpoint that earned wealth is generally good, but that unearned wealth not so much, and concentrated, unearned wealth is often bad.
So, a proper response to Acacia is to acknowledge that people who work hard for their money deserve to enjoy it, and only then to ask whether a Paris Hilton deserves to have thousands or tens of thousands of times as much purchasing power as a middle class family? Do the Koch Brothers, who inherited their wealth and then, through dubious and even criminal acts multiplied it deserve to have so much wealth at their disposal that they could literally buy a mid-sized city? And, finally, ask this question: suppose there was one person who was so smart and hard-working–and even law-abiding!– that he got all the money, and everyone else was left destitute. Would that be a stable society?
It’s not empty rhetoric to recognize the achievements of that group in between the ultra-wealthy and the rest of us. It’s true, and understanding the truth of it helps to talk to that group. I only wish that people who were poor or middle class had an opportunity to find out what sort of commitment it takes to start and run a small business.
Government is us–rich, poor, and in-between. If rich people want to pay low taxes, they should make sure that everyone else is rich. Until then, the funds to do what is necessary for all of us will have to come from somewhere.
This poll is plain stupid.When those same people were informed that raising taxes on the rich and corporations would actually not solve any of our problems ,their support evaporated like so much smoke(and mirrors).Get is straight.Raising taxes on corporations will just lead those corporations to adjust their balance sheets to pay the tax.They do this with layoffs,higher prices to the consumer,and outsourcing to distant lands(Apples I phone is made in China)Net gain…zero or less
Raising taxes on the so called rich would be miniscule in it’s effect on the treasury with all the same kind of negatives.You on the left should stop with the hyperbole and get down to work fixing this problem.Class warfares only reason for living is the re election of Obama.When you went in I said they have one mantra that in the end effects nothing.TAX THE RICH.And so you have learned nothing in 3 years.Or 30
I will note that the idea that taxing the rich does not work is silly. Take a look at the period of American history when the US taxed the rich instead of pandering to them (1950s-1960s) and it is remembered as the economic golden age. Not everything was perfect, there was a lot of inequality and yet somehow the US was able to afford massive increases in social welfare. The major spending and debt problems came when the US tried to permanently fund the capability for 2 1/2 wars (one in Asia, one in Europe, a minor one elsewhere) at the same time as building up the Cold War and fighting in Vietnam. Michael E suggests that if everything else is held equal, slightly higher taxes on the rich will not obliterate the debt. This is true. That does not mean it is not a fairer start than raising taxes on the poor (his preferred flat tax, and VAT, which lose revenue compared to the current system, but hurt everyone but the very well-off). Businesses will shift their burdens, but that is an argument for giving them incentives to do productive investment with their money instead of playing fast games with easy money. The easy way to do this is a high corporate tax that exempts domestic reinvestment in productive physical infrastructure that is not speculative, while denying the benefits of being an American business to companies that are headquartered abroad.
Tishado even Obama disagrees with you on this.He knows corporate taxes must come down.We simply are not competitive at this rate.And comparing percentages of tax and wealth on GDP 50-60 years ago is a hard point to make in any computation.
Raising taxes on the poor?Well that is a red flag to be sure.I would put it this way……The 50% that today pay nothing -will have to pay “something” to have skin in the game. But before you invoke the coming of the great bogey man…..even a flat tax would have great lee way in what is taxed so as to effect the poor as little as possible.Probably no more than what we see now.The biggest tax the poor pay today is lack of jobs.Anything we do to hamper the re -creation of wealth, and the explosion of business ,is a direct attack on poor ,middle class,and the rich.People say their is no such thing as trickle down economics.Yet there is no other kind.
Hello fine get this fromgoogle nice blog