Home | About | Donate

Even the 1% Know They Aren't Paying Their Fair Share: New Poll Shows 60% of Millionaires Support Warren's Ultra-Wealth Tax

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/12/even-1-know-they-arent-paying-their-fair-share-new-poll-shows-60-millionaires

Who cares let’s do it anyway.


People had those “Billionaires can’t buy Bernie” stickers in 2016. Now this story is about millionaires supporting WARREN’s billionaire tax? Is this a strictly partisan article or what?

The only possible way for the millionaires to elect a Hubert Humphrey-style conservative Democrat (and to give any seriously nutty Republican a fighting chance) is to split the progressive vote badly. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren would have to split right down the middle. On top of that, Pete Buttigieg would have to corrall every last LGBTQAI+ vote into a special holding pen, and then Sen. Kamala Harris would have to round up all of the loose African-American votes and stick them safely into the corral for neutering bulls.

Maybe some Millionaire care, but not the Billionaires. They could care less about us or using their resources to help make the planet a better place. Let them enjoy Space… Thats where they’re heading anyway.


yea really, screw the 1% who gives a rats ass what they want?!
Don’t bother to ask them. Do it anyway.


It worries me that millionaires support someone.

1 Like

Isn’t there something in the IRS rules saying you can pay more taxes if you want?

1 Like

I believe Sanders was talking about making the wealthy pay their fair share way back in 2016 while Liz was pretty quiet. Seems she sees which way the wind is blowing and CD is happy to credit her, as always. I think Warren would probably be good at getting the things done that the oligarchs are OK with.

1 Like

This article doesn’t ease my growing feeling that Warren is supported by a significant number of “power people”. failedevoutionblogspot has an article about Assange and argues that politicians can hide their true positions in many issues (remember Obama?) but how they feel about Assange will tell you a great deal. Here’s what Warren said: “ Assange is a bad actor who has harmed U.S. national security — and he should be held accountable, ” Warren said in a statement. “ But Trump should not be using this case as a pretext to wage war on the First Amendment and go after the free press who hold the powerful accountable everyday. ”

taxing means zero if you don’t spend that revenue on the right things. if all you buy is more bombs…


My question would be how many of those with wealth over $50M US support it? One is a “millionaire” with assets from $1M to $49,999,999.99, yes?

I imagine the percentage drops significantly.

1 Like

Exactly right. We could build 100 new Trump Universities and actually lower the national IQ.


please don’t give them any ideas, k? :slightly_smiling_face:


I think a number of her policies are good, although I think many candidates running are just as policy focused. Bernie, even Yang (regardless as to what you think of him). On many keys issues and moments, she simply isn’t or wasn’t there. She is not great on single payer, and that for me is huge. Her foreign policy positions are atrocious. Bernie isn’t great on that, from my perspective, but he runs circles around her. I think that many of her policies are good (many were good before she supported them), and given that her party has no policy coherence, it isn’t a bad thing to put those policies out. Having said that, none of the structural changes she proposes with her policies are more likely to happen than single payer. I find it ironic too that so many people that just a few years ago that were talking about ponies and rainbows (some on this blog) because of the things Bernie supported are now fully supportive of her coming up with policies that aren’t going to happen in the short term. Yes, single payer will be a difficult fight, but so will many other things she supports, and social movements will be needed to push it all through. With single payer, the movement is there, right now, and she goes back and forth. Why? Why go back and forth on an issue like that when it is at least far more likely in the medium term than any other structural change she is proposing? In 2012 she was asked if she supported single payer, she said no, only recently signed on, then backed away. Big problem for me, should be a big problem with anyone on the left. It is just a fact that it is much easier to come up with policies that are years out, but when a fight like single payer is right now, she is not good. Any logical person should think critically about that. And I do think her not coming out for Bernie in 2016 is an issue. I understand the complexities involved back then, but the fact of the matter is that her endorsement could have meant something at least in her own state, which Sanders narrowly lost and it would have shown that she was a true fighter when it mattered. She didn’t do it. Her work on the CFPB is great, but it was within academia and the halls of power. The stuff she is proposing will not be won there, it will be won on the streets, and she has no more experience in actual movement building than Clinton did. Bernie has bathed in that for decades.

In regards to the media as well, you do have to think a bit about that. The media is owned by giant corporations. The on air “talent” is rich, has their own ideological biases. The people that pay most of the advertising revenue to those media companies are for profit corporations. The corporations in question might be in the media business, and to them it is a business, but they have a legal responsibility to do what is in their own economic interest. Supporting a candidate that was serious about pushing for structural changes that would that would harm them economically would not be in their interest. So, it should be asked why these for profit entities, which spend so much time attacking Bernie, write such glowing articles about her left and right, and are doing so much propaganda on her part now. I don’t know the exact motivation, outside of the obvious (to undermine Bernie), but they would not be doing so if they thought she was serious about structural changes and if they thought she could win. So, why is the coverage of her so favorable relative to Sanders? Instead of someone attacking me, give me the logic, cause it is ridiculous to say it is some objective balls and strikes thing. Her saying she should would take corporate cash in the general election is telling, and maybe a signal to those interests.

I don’t like that leftist sites and personalities are letting her get away with her stance on single payer or her horrible foreign policy stances, among other things. I can understand a nuanced analysis of her candidacy, realizing that she is better than many others running on a number of issues, but she is also putting out all of these policies now when she decided to run for president, and started to back other progressive policies only recently. She said nothing, for example, about universally publicly funded higher education until a few years ago, when she backed Bernie’s measure. Bernie came out in favor of postal banking back in 2016, she did recently. Can she be trusted, if given power, to push for these policies? And if she was forced to prioritize, would she prioritize things other than single payer? If so, how many Americans would die in the meantime, how many would go bankrupt, suffer with job lock and how much more would we spend on this horribly inefficient system? Her saying she backs capitalism, in any form matters. It matters on policy, worldview and the extent of the structural changes she herself is likely to support.

Keep in mind, the same thing happened with Beto when he ran against Cruz. Warren is much better than he is on policy, but the coverage of her and looking past some of her faults (at least from a leftist perspective) is similar with some on the left. He too supported single payer for a minute, then backed away.


Such statements from the wealthy matter only if enough of the 99% take appropriate action.

Despite Warren Buffett telling the media 15 years ago that “there is a class war and my class is winning”, too many of the 99% continue to act like the widening wealth gap doesn’t exist or that they will somehow benefit from it.


Lets start off simply. REMOVE the cap on Social Security involvement


Warren took many of Bernie’s ideas and adopted them as her own. She’s good at doing that. So far she has not much of a track record about finishing a plan or slogan she comes up with. We shall see what progresses with her campaign. She may be more of a fit with main stream people as she’s not using the word Socialist, which many still don’t understand and is hurting Bernie.

Hurting him with some people, mainly older people. Capitalism is hurting Warren with some people, and as I told you, Frank Luntz himself is telling Republicans to not use the word capitalism or to defend the system. Its monstrously stupid to vote against someone because of that word, especially if he defines it to mean social democracy and every single issue he supports, the Democratic base overwhelmingly supports. Who the hell inspired DSA members to run and win? Did Warren do that? Who has done more to push single payer and the entire Overton window to the left than Bernie? Warren only recently supported single payer, thanks to Bernie, and did another about face shortly thereafter. And people are going to not vote for him because of a word, one he defines as being basic social democracy? What sense does it make, doubly when people in fact say they want more socialism? Maybe, instead of running from socialism, something he has supported his entire life, maybe we should demand people use some critical thinking skills, to evolve, to acknowledge that they themselves support lots of socialism, and to actually support candidates because of the real world impact of their policies.

By the way, if those (largely older) voters want to really protect capitalism, maybe they should explain how capitalism deals with the environmental crisis. Wishing that so wont make it so. Again, people have to start thinking with a little depth, be willing to rethink their own prejudices and be willing to question the propaganda they have been fed.


Any millionaire who believes they are undertaxed is always at liberty to send more to the Treasury. In MA, we have a voluntary higher state tax rate that people can pay if they wish.

Of course, Liz Warren has chosen NOT to pay the higher tax rate. Fewer than 2,000 do.

Well, Jeff Bozos can voluntarily pay his workers higher wages and he doesnt. So, fuck him. Exxon can voluntarily turn away all the government money we give it, it can take into account the massive non market impact its poison is creating and voluntary fold its tents for humanity. The drug companies can voluntarily refuse the state paying for most of their R & D and could voluntarily prioritize public health and not lobby for protectionist patent laws, and profit seeking, but they don’t. When the crash hit and the banks ran to the state, they could have proven their commitment to free market nonsense, but they didn’t. In the real world, it’s all about power dynamics and they dont really believe in any of the fairy tale free market fantasies you do. You dont even seem to know the difference between a voluntary action and structural changes. The Kochs shouldn’t volunteer anything, we should just tax the fuckers, and do so realizing that taxes and “borrowing” money dont pay for social programs, the federal state does when it decides to pay for things.