“Tax the Rich Is Actually a Popular Bipartisan Stance,” Bloomberg Claims

Plus, an Israeli general’s “alarming and disturbing” State Department meeting.

James Madison, as painted by Chester Harding. National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution. Madison co-authored the Federalist Papers, which include a warning of the danger that a majority might unite against the rights of a minority.

A Bloomberg headline declares “Tax the Rich Is Actually a Popular Bipartisan Stance, a  Poll Shows.” The subheadline is “Swing-state voters also like tax-hikes on those earning $400,000 and more.”

This is such a gem of an example of so many things all wrapped up in one—media bias, hypocrisy, ignorance, lack of context.

Bloomberg, based on a single poll, claims that “The preference for taxing billionaires, which Senator Elizabeth Warren helped popularize during her 2020 presidential campaign, has grown in recent years from a fringe, left-wing wish-list item to a centerpiece of Biden’s economic policy.” Yet a look at the longer term trends in the Gallup poll shows that support for the idea that upper-income people pay too little tax actually declined to 62 percent in 2019 from 77 percent in 1992, and that the share of respondents who say their own taxes are too high hit a peak in 2023, at 60 percent, a share not seen since 2001.

The same Bloomberg poll that generated the headline also found 66 percent of respondents favored cutting tax rates across the board. That’s statistically almost identical to the 69 percent who favored tax increases on the rich, but there’s no Bloomberg headline, or even a sentence in the news article, reporting, “Cut Taxes for Everyone Is Actually a Popular Stance.”

If voters were informed by the pollster about how much the rich already pay in taxes, and about how many trillions of dollars the government already collects in taxes, the research firm might have found lower levels of support. Michael Bloomberg ran for president in part because he found Donald Trump too divisive, yet polling tax policy by pitting billionaires against non-billionaires, or people who earn less than $400,000 a year against people who earn more, is its own kind of divisive.

Those high-income or high-asset people are an unpopular minority, and the proposals to tax them largely involve taking their money and redistributing it to other people. Mike Bloomberg is a fan of Esther Forbes’ book Johnny Tremain about Massachusetts on the eve of the American Revolution; to put it in that context, it’d be like polling the population of London about whether they think raising taxes on the North American colonies is a good idea. They don’t think they are the ones who would pay the tax, so for them, it’s effectively free money.

Or, to reach back again into the founding era, look to the Federalist Papers. Federalist 51, attributed to James Madison, says, “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

A snapshot poll doesn’t really capture the full texture of the political landscape, because we haven’t really heard from a politician who says, “you know what, instead of pitting Americans against each other by income or assets, let’s try to start with the idea that we’re all in this together, and that Americans overall are taxed enough already.” Add to that the idea that when politicians say they are just going to tax “the rich,” most voters are savvy enough not to believe that the increases will be so narrowly targeted.

General Avivi visits the State Department: One of the things keeping me informed post-October 7 has been a daily series of zoom-based briefings by a group called the Israel Defense and Security Forum. The IDSF’s founder and chairman, Brigadier General (reserve) Amir Avivi, was in Washington last week and yesterday offered a public account of what he called a “very alarming and disturbing” meeting he had at the State Department.

“At a certain point in the meeting, they accused Israel of abusing sexually, Palestinian women as a revenge, because of the 7^th of October. I was shocked, speechless,” Avivi said. “I felt that a very clear red line has been crossed, and I cannot accept a formal official in the State Department accusing us of such things.”

“Of course, the State Department is very upset that this became public and on the media, but you know, they cannot go around accusing us of abusing sexually Palestinian women and portraying it as a governmental policy,” General Avivi said. He said it was a “terrible thing to say.”

That wasn’t the only disturbing thing in the meeting. Avivi said he found “a big disconnect” between Israel and the State Department over the issue of humanitarian aid to Gaza. “They said they have no proof that Hamas is stealing Palestinians food and therefore they are blaming us for starving the Palestinian population. When I said, ‘but, you know that Hamas is stealing all the humanitarian aid or most of it,’ they said, ‘no, we have no proof.’ I said what do you mean, the IDF is constantly showing videos. They said, yes, they are showing it on the media. Nobody talked to us. Nobody came and showed us proof.”

What people are saying about The Editors: “it’s objective & uncompromising” “Your writing is thought provoking, and what more could one expect or hope for?” “I always learn something new” “Because Ira Stoll’s reporting concerns highly significant but generally under reported events--and his analyses are elegant despite a sharp edge” “Reading your articles is a highlight of my day.” Thanks to every one of you for being a reader. Please consider helping us grow by forwarding this email to a friend with a suggestion that they subscribe.