Why are the poor in the US not submitting propositions about taxing the bank accounts of the wealthy?

Question

Just a little explanation: I was raised in the former Soviet system, then I lived through the systemic change, and now I live in the US. I understand that the US is a semi-democratic country. I understand that capitalism in some ways suppresses democracy; in legal ways (people have no equal ways of buying legal help). But I always thought that the US has equal rights for the masses of people (being the poor) to somehow submit propositions, and try to tax the bank accounts of the wealth, and thus create a little more financial equilibrium. I also understand that in the US there is no mandatory free education, so maybe the masses of people just don't know they have a change to submit something.

But now I live here and I am stunned that there are no propositions about that (or anything that would equalize in a big way)? Maybe I do not know enough about the proposition system or the political system. All I know is that in Europe, even in the post-Soviet countries, you can create an idea, then collect enough signatures from people(who have the right to vote), then submit the idea as proposition (they call it a petition) to the house (may that be called parliament, house, senate, congress etc), and then they will organize an election for it, and the people will vote and decide. Isn't that the same in the US? Please somebody explain to me.

Answer 1

In the United States, there's no formal way for citizens to petition the government directly with legislative proposals. They can do it indirectly via voting for their representatives or lobbying their representatives.

About half the states in the US, however, do allow for some form of citizen petitioning. These can be (state) tax related.

Answer 2

They do. The rich do pay most of the taxes.

I'll address the question literally for a moment. It's easy to move your bank account to a jurisdiction that the IRS can't touch, or to move it into other assets. Most wealthy people don't hold much of their wealth in bank accounts. So taxes fall on income and property, which can of course include bank assets.

Tax transfers form a major part of the income of the poorer citizens of the USA, in the form of various subsidies, welfare, medicaid and medicare, and free education. Some 49% (or 47%) of Americans receive at least some income from the government - generally from the taxes of the better-off. The USA is not greatly different to other OECD countries in wealth transfers to the poorer citizens. (See here.) Of course, very many of the country's wealthy people, like Buffet, Gates and so on, are perfectly content with this. Others, less so.

It's a fair question as to why the Russians, Brazilians, or South Africans don't vote for higher taxes.

• World bank, GINI index
• Map of income inequality, GINI index

Answer 3

In addition to what others have said about there being no such petition process at the national level, you need to realize that "the poor" are a pretty small part of the population, and that the permanently poor* are an even smaller part. So if such a petition could be organized, it would almost certainly lack majority support.

Now as to organizing that petition, many of the permanently poor are in that situation because they lack the education & skills needed to do better. Often they have e.g. substance use problems or mental health issues as well. So how are they going to organize such petitions themselves? Indeed, when we find similar things advanced, they are organized by liberal elites (e.g. Bernie Sanders supporters) thinking to use the poor as a power base**. Which of course alienates a majority of the non-poor, and the proposal gets voted down.

*That is, many of us go through a stage of (relative) poverty after leaving home/school, but eventually attain prosperity or even wealth. Thus for instance most college-age Bernie Sanders supporters will find their views changing in a decade or two :-)

**We have, after all, seen similar measures tried elsewhere - e.g. the USSR and its satellites. They notably failed to enrich anyone but the party elites. I assume, rightly or wrongly, that a person does not get into liberal politics without some knowledge of history. (Conservative politics, alas, are a different matter :-() Since they can see that extreme redistributionist ideas like the one under discussion didn't actually help the poor, why would they try to enact them, if not to increase their political power?