52% of Americans in favor of soaking the rich.

[jimmy olsen]

If 6/10 Americans have thought that wealth distribution is unfair for the last 30 years, why has it had so little political impact on the government? 

Click to look at all the charts.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182987/americans-continue-say-wealth-distribution-unfair.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

Americans Continue to Say U.S. Wealth Distribution Is Unfair
by Frank Newport

Story Highlights
•63% of Americans say money and wealth distribution is unfair
•These attitudes are substantially unchanged over past 30 years
•Slight majority of 52% favor heavy taxes on rich as fix

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Despite the growing focus on inequality in recent years, the 63% of Americans who say that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people is almost the same as the 60% who said this in 1984.

Americans' agreement that money and wealth need to be more evenly distributed reached a high point of 68% in April 2008, in the last year of the George W. Bush administration, and just before the full effects of the Great Recession began to take hold. Americans became slightly less likely to agree with the idea later that year and in surveys conducted in 2009, 2011 and 2013. This year's increase to 63% is close to the average of 62% agreement across the 13 times Gallup has asked the question since 1984. The latest data are from Gallup's April 9-12 Economy and Personal Finance survey.

Americans' views on how money and wealth should be distributed in the country are strongly correlated with their partisanship and ideology. Agreement ranges from 86% among Democrats and 85% among liberals, down to 34% and 42% among Republicans and conservatives, respectively.

Income is also a factor. Those with annual household incomes of at least $75,000 (54%) are considerably less likely than those with incomes below $30,000 (74%) to agree that wealth should be more evenly distributed. Attitudes vary little by age.

The question on the fairness of money and wealth distribution does not include explicit assumptions about the causes of the current unequal distribution of income and wealth, nor does it discuss or imply any particular course of action designed to remedy the situation. Addressing the problem is a moot issue for many Republicans, a majority of whom say the distribution is fair as it is. Most Democrats, on the other hand, presumably endorse some mechanism by which the distribution of wealth and income could be made less unequal.

More than 75 years ago, at the tail end of the Great Depression, the Roper research organization and Fortune magazine asked Americans about "heavy taxes on the rich" as one method of redistributing wealth, and found one-third (35%) agreeing that the government should do this. Gallup began asking this question again in 1998, and found Americans' agreement at 45%. Since then, Americans' support for this idea has fluctuated, but has reached a high point of 52% in Gallup's most recent two surveys, conducted in April 2013 and April of this year.

As was the case with the basic fairness question, agreement that the government should impose heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth is highly related to partisanship and ideology. Additionally, younger Americans and those with lower incomes are above average in their agreement.
About Half of Americans Are Strong Redistributionists

Analyzing how Americans respond to both questions about inequality shows that nearly half of Americans (46%) are strong redistributionists -- in the sense that they believe the distribution of wealth and income is not fair, and endorse heavy taxes on the rich as a way of redistributing wealth. One in four are in essence free-market advocates -- sanguine about the distribution of wealth and income and not supporting heavy taxes on the rich. Another 16% say the income and wealth distribution is not fair, but don't endorse heavy taxes as a remedy. A small percentage have the somewhat contradictory views of believing that the distribution is fair but favoring heavy taxes on the rich.

Implications

Surveys conducted over the past 30 years have consistently shown that about six in 10 Americans fundamentally believe that the way income and wealth are distributed in the U.S. is unfair. Democrats are much more likely to hold this view than Republicans, helping explain why inequality has been a major focus for President Barack Obama, a core part of the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and a primary talking point when Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont recently announced his candidacy.

Although well less than half of Republicans believe that income and wealth distribution in the U.S. is unfair and that wealth needs to be more evenly distributed, GOP presidential candidates have also begun to address the issue, most likely realizing that the issue has currency with independents, Hispanics and other voter groups that could decide the 2016 election. Additionally, the issue has been more of a talking point in discussions of government policy as many news reports have focused on data showing that income and wealth are becoming less equally distributed across the population than was the case in the past.

One way presidential and other political candidates will attempt to differentiate themselves from their competitors concerning inequality will likely be their proposed remedies for it. Democrats have generally been more likely to endorse government policies designed to reduce the wealth at the top end of the socioeconomic spectrum and help increase it at the bottom. Republicans have been more likely to endorse mechanisms that would make it easier for those at the bottom to move up the economic ladder by their own initiative. Still, given that a not insubstantial 29% of Republicans agree with the idea of heavy taxes on the rich, and that a Republican presidential candidate has to assemble some votes from outside of Republican ranks to win a general election, candidates from both parties will most likely consider a wide spectrum of choices or ways of addressing inequality.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted April 9-12, 2015, with a random sample of 1,015 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.

Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

[Monoriu]

I think there are tons of public policy cases that are popular with the majority but are not implemented due to minority interest.  This is merely one of them.  Simply because the minority are very directly affected and will be extremely vocal; while the majority only benefit indirectly and the benefits are spread out and not immediately apparent.  If you tax the rich, they'll feel the axe very clearly.  But the increases in social benefits to the rest of the population may not be felt directly.  It may take years for social programmes to be implemented, not everybody is eligible for them, the money could be spent elsewhere on deficit/debt reduction or military hardware, etc.  Simply put, the linkage between increased taxes for the rich and increased welfare isn't that straightforward.  But the rich will certainly feel the higher taxes immediately and directly, so they'll raise hell. 

[Caliga]

If only 52% of Americans had but a single neck.

[Valmy]

If it got the national debt under control I would be for it.

[citizen k]

If it got the national debt under control I would be for it.

So, no. 

[Admiral Yi]

If it got the national debt under control I would be for it.

I don't see the connection.  Either you give kulak wealth to the proletariat or use it to pay down debt. 

The short answer to Timmy's question is that only a minority of Republican voters think confiscation is a good policy, and because of geographic dispersion Republican lawmakers will either control the legislature or form a blocking minority.

[DGuller]

If 6/10 Americans have thought that wealth distribution is unfair for the last 30 years, why has it had so little political impact on the government? 

Because plutocrats have managed to maintain a very effective alliance with the moralists, and have managed to keep the focus off the wealth distribution by constantly stoking culture war fires.

[jimmy olsen]

If 6/10 Americans have thought that wealth distribution is unfair for the last 30 years, why has it had so little political impact on the government? 

Because plutocrats have managed to maintain a very effective alliance with the moralists, and have managed to keep the focus off the wealth distribution by constantly stoking culture war fires.

So you're saying that we can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few; but we can't have both?

[Valmy]

The short answer to Timmy's question is that only a minority of Republican voters think confiscation is a good policy

Well I think virtually all Republicans think confiscation is a good policy. They have yet to eliminate all taxes in any jurisdiction I know of.

So, no.

Yep. So unless that is the plan we might as well not soak the rich. They may keep some of their money outside of tax havens then.

[Ideologue]

If 6/10 Americans have thought that wealth distribution is unfair for the last 30 years, why has it had so little political impact on the government? 

Because plutocrats have managed to maintain a very effective alliance with the moralists, and have managed to keep the focus off the wealth distribution by constantly stoking culture war fires.

So you're saying that we can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few; but we can't have both?

Until the moralists (and, DG neglects to add, the racists) finally die off.

[Eddie Teach]

Until the moralists (and, DG neglects to add, the racists) finally die off.

DG was trying to make a persuasive argument.

Anyway, moralists aren't dying off. They're just becoming more accepting of gays.

[DGuller]

Until the moralists (and, DG neglects to add, the racists) finally die off.

That's a good point, all social welfare programs are perceived to be transfers from whites to blacks, so even some people nominally supporting the idea will have that image in their minds, and be virulently against it at the end.  I'm also not sure that die-offs would would help.  We sure are doing a good job raising new generations of moralists and racists.

[Monoriu]

I'm also not sure that die-offs would would help.  We sure are doing a good job raising new generations of moralists and racists.

But compared with, say, 2 centuries ago, there are now a lot more welfare programmes and wealth transfer from the rich to the poor. 

[DGuller]

DG was trying to make a persuasive argument.

No, that wasn't it, I just neglected to mention it.  I think that racial relations are the reason why social democracy hasn't made inroads in US anywhere near as effectively as it has in Europe.  Even conservatives are agreeing with it, by using code phrase like "social democracy can work in Europe because their populations are homogeneous".

[DGuller]

I'm also not sure that die-offs would would help.  We sure are doing a good job raising new generations of moralists and racists.

But compared with, say, 2 centuries ago, there are now a lot more welfare programmes and wealth transfer from the rich to the poor.

Yes, but the trend has been going in the other direction for several decades now, at least in US, and shows no sign of changing direction again.