----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian O. Sheppard" <bsheppard at bari.iww.org>
>That's no guarantee that they'll be angry, either. (And likewise anger
>isn't any guarantee that the angered will organize or do anything else.)
Some people
>can sit quietly through a class explaining, say, the theory of surplus
>value, and link it to their own job(less) situation, and still not "feel
>exploited" or become outraged.
And they don't have to be angry to think the wealthy should be taxed more. All this bizarre worry about how people see themselves ignores the fact that TODAY there is solid support for taxing the rich to pay for social spending. ---
People consistently support by large margins raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting taxes on the middle and lower-income people. See this poll from a couple of years ago.
Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll. Latest: April 6-7, 1999. As I read off some different groups, please tell me if you think they are paying their fair share in federal taxes, paying too much, or paying too little? How about [see below]?"
Fair Share Too Much Too Little No Opinion
"Lower-income people" 34 51 11 4
"Middle-income people" 35 59 4 2
"Upper-income people" 19 10 66 5
=====
More recently in November 2002, folks recognized overwhelmingly that tax cuts in 2001 went overwhelmingly to the rich, and would have preferred it went to social spending programs.
"From what you have heard so far, who do you think has benefited the most from the tax cuts: rich people, poor people, or middle income people?" Half sample (N=488)
Rich Poor Middle
Income All Three
(vol.) Don't
Know
% % % % %
11/02 62 3 20 3 12
.
"When the tax cuts were passed, there was a budget surplus. Do you think using a significant portion of the budget surplus to cut taxes was the best thing to do, or would it have been better to have spent the money on programs like Social Security and Medicare?"
%
Using for tax cuts was the best thing 23
Better to have spent on Social Security/Medicare 69
Don't know 8