According to Gallup, in the US, 67% are unhappy with the wealth distribution.
Well, the most realistic way to attack that problem (short of bloody revolution) is through the estate tax.
You concede in the final paragraph that you are “construct[ing]” your poll questions to get the desired result. If I ask, “Do you think income earned from outlays of money which involve risk should be taxed at the same level as income which involves no risk?” then I win.
On the estate tax, you admit that you must “educate” people to come around to your point of view.
Regardless of the answer to poll questions, in order to win you need centrist voters to vote for your side instead of the other. You’ve already won the far left on those questions and you have lost the far right. What about those positions makes middle of the road voters say “Hell, yeah! I 'm voting Dem this election!”?
You need stuff that voters at a base level not only agree with, but makes them want to actively support you. What posters in this thread have given are the same old liberal philosophies that have been around for years but have failed to make the center turn to the Dems in mass.
In 1994, you had things like “If you vote for us, we will make Congress live with the same laws we make you live by. We will have to balance our budget, just like you do!”
Those things connect with voters on an emotional level. Those are the kind of things you need to do a proper “contract” with the voters. A laundry list of leftist policies that have already been before the public is not that.
Oh, it wouldn’t take much of a “push poll” on estate taxes:
Are you satisfied with wealth distribution in the US?
Would you be in favor of a steep tax on very large estates as a way of reducing unequal wealth distribution in the US?
Pretty sure asking those questions in that order would get us to 60%.
Back to income taxes:
You are still missing my point. Abstract questions like that will get super-majority support. Who are “the rich”? If the average voter imagines the Monopoly guy with his monocle smoking a cigar and sipping brandy, then yes, they generally believe that he should pay more taxes.
When it comes to specific proposals like a person who makes over $X per year needs to pay $Y more in taxes, people who make $X+1 do not particularly think that they are rich and oppose the specific tax.
Then, the right rephrases the question to something like, “Do you support raising taxes or cutting waste in the system?” people support cutting waste (whatever that is). Or even better, “Do you support raising taxes or cutting benefits to those who are able to work but choose not?” the cutting benefits (whichever those are) wins.
For whatever support there is for raising taxes on the rich, there is not an untapped sources of voters out there waiting to run to your side. It’s one of those “soft” beliefs.
I had a political science professor who told me that throughout the 1940s and 1950s polls indicated that over 90% of people supported making Hawaii a state. But neither party exploited that to their advantage because nobody (except those from Hawaii) actually gave a damn one way or the other. Nobody woke up in the morning and bemoaned living in a country without Hawaii as a state, regardless of their answer to popular opinion polls. Nobody voted on candidates based upon their position on the Hawaii question.
The position has to connect with voters on an emotional level. Those who care about raising taxes on the rich on an emotional level already support the Dems.
if I was on the Dem committee drafting this contract, here would be one of my points: I would propose something like “The End of Obstruction in Government.” I would pledge that any proposal by the President or one that passes one house of Congress automatically gets a full and fair up or down vote after sufficient time for debate. No more will good proposals not become law because of the delaying tactics of a few.
That’s something that would get 80% support and you could blame the GOP for obstructionism.
This is a bare assertion on your part, unsupported by, well, anything.
Look, as I said earlier:
And:
And pushing the second is the only way the Democrats can prove they’re really serious about the first.
Wow. While there is lot I disagree with in your post, this is fucking gold. Of course, the devil’s in the details, but in terms of a campaign marketing piece, this dog hunts.
I agree on the estate tax. The problem is that only suckers pay the estate tax. When the Kennedys estate gets broken up and sent to the government, I’ll believe that we can actually have a real estate tax.
Delay is good. There is not a single law that has to be passed right the hell now. But yes, eventually every bill that the President submits or that passes the House should see an up or down vote in the Senate. And vice versa. As much as I disagree with the Senate immigration bill, the House should have held a vote on it. It would have passed. The Hastert rule has to go. The minority shouldn’t just have the power to obstruct, the minority should actually be able to govern in certain situations where the majority is divided.
I’m all for breaking up the Kennedy estate. Where do I sign?
You aren’t the problem. The other 500 Congressmen with large estates they want to leave to their kids are. See, the estate tax is supposed to apply to Paris Hilton, not the good men and women of Washington DC. Taxes are always for other people.
Which is why we have to put it in a contract, to pin them down, to make them beholden for their office to their promise to impose the heavy estate tax. Might not work, but it will work better than doing nothing.
Our friends at Daily Kos had a link to this “Contract For Americans”, which I guess kind of serves as a starting point/baseline for what a Democratic Contract For Americans would look like.
Copyright 2014, so it was around before this thread was started (I swear I searched the thread first to no avail).
To prevent moderator grumpiness, I’ll just post the high-level summary from Kos
THat’s not nearly as good as Markos’. Some of it is really just bullshit, actually. “A celebration of our accomplishments”, with unspecified improvements to make them better(that would never get 60% support, or even 50% support)? That line right there sums up the lack of ideas on the left.
#3 is especially galling since you know it’s only going to be used to lessen the kind of “corruption” that elects Republicans. The kind that elects Democrats and helps pass Democratic legislation, like earmarks, those will be reinstated on day 1 I’d bet.
Yes, all the proposals have been discussed. None of them are new, and none of them are going to get even 50%, which is why they didn’t get passed the last few times the Democrats pushed them.
It’s hard to read the justifications with a straight face. I mean, really - one of the reasons they give that the very rich should support this is so that they won’t be kidnapped by gangs or hire armored cars to carry their money.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, please bring us more of those fantastic ideas from the right, then. I look forward to the newest, most crafty ways to lower taxes on the wealthy.
We had a Contract. That’s kinda why some Democrats want to imitate it.
I’m going to agree that some of the choices in that Contract For Americans are questionable, but I’d say a number would get 60% - IMO, the following:
From category I: Basic Fairness Issues:
- Minimum wage of $12.50 or $15 per hour. No one working full time should be in poverty. It is also important to encourage employers to offer full-time jobs.
(Not sure about 15.00 per hour - however, I would support the Min wage being linked to the CPI)
… - Treat all Veterans fairly, keep our promises to them, and help them rebuild their lives. No veteran should be hungry or homeless.
… - Internet neutrality
–This shows the CFA was written in 2014
II: Tax Reform:
-
Do NOT Increase Taxes for Anyone Making Less Than $500,000 Dollars per Year, but people making more than that should pay their fair share.
–I think you could get 60% for this -
Eliminate Corporate (and Ultra-Wealthy Individual) Tax Loopholes and Subsidies.
–Popular with the electorate, but I’d like to see some solid plan
III: Fairer Elections and Less Corruption in Government:
2) Transparency. Make names of all major donors public
–This would be over 60% popular, and almost past in 2010 (Disclose Act), with a 59-39 Yes vote for cloture (this was after the election of Scott Brown, so that was that)
- Anti-corruption Measures: Even the Supreme Court acknowledges that “corruption or the appearance of corruption” is not a good thing.
60% easily, but way too vague
… - Stop the “revolving door” between those in government and industry. Government officials should be banned at least 5 years from lobbying the government.
This would get 60%, no question.
IV: Celebrate and Build on Our Accomplishments:
– Well, since the ACA and Climate Change are still too polarized to get 60%, so the question is why they didn’t go for the easy 60%-able necessary infrastructure repair
No one working full time should be in poverty? No one is. Unless they have too many kids. I’m sure they don’t mean raise minimum wage to the point where one person can support ten other people. I’m pretty sure the standard is “family of four”. So you get two kids. If you have three, you will still be in poverty if you don’t have skills.