John McCain has been using the phrase “spread the wealth” – uttered by Barack Obama in his now-famous conversation with Joe the Plumber – to claim Obama is an advocate of socialism. This is, of course, a ridiculous way to describe Obama’s proposals to make the tax code more progressive, especially coming on the heels of the Bush years. It does show, however, just how far rightward the debate in America has lurched over the past forty years, and just how gestural the populism practiced by both parties really is. (Yes, this is a case of “they both do it.” In economic policy terms, the U.S. political debate still takes place within a very narrow band in which actual wealth redistribution is always constrained. GOP populism, such as it is, is cultural; Democratic populism is economic, but incremental.)
As a corrective, I went back and read some of Huey Long’s speeches, in which he urges people to join his “Share the Wealth Society,” whose purpose is to tax and cap the fortunes of the rich and use the money for massive public support programs:
1. The fortunes of the multimillionaires and billionaires shall be reduced so that no one persons shall own more than a few million dollars to the person. We would do this by a capital levy tax. On the first million that a man was worth, we would not impose any tax. We would say, “All right for your first million dollars, but after you get that rich you will have to start helping the balance of us.” So we would not levy and capital levy tax on the first million one owned. But on the second million a man owns, we would tax that 1 percent, so that every year the man owned the second million dollars he would be taxed $10,000. On the third million we would impose a tax of 2 percent. On the fourth million we would impose a tax of 4 percent. On the fifth million we would impose a tax of 16 percent. On the seventh million we would impose a tax of 32 percent. On the eighth million we would impose a tax of 64 percent ; and on all over the eight million we would impose a tax of 100 percent.
What this would mean is tat the annual tax would bring the biggest fortune down to $3 or $4 million to the person because no one could pay taxes very long in the higher brackets. But $3 or $4 million is enough for any one person and his children and his children’s children. We cannot allow one to have more than that because it would not leave enough for the balance to have something.
2. We propose to limit the amount any one man can earn in one year or inherit to $1 million to the person.
3. Now, by limiting the size of the fortunes and incomes of the big men, we will throw into the government Treasury the money and property from which we will care for the millions of people who have nothing; and with this money we ill provide a home and the comforts of home, with such common conveniences as radio and automobile, for every family in America, free of debt.
Now that’s populism. But it’s worth noting that this is not socialism, precisely, either. Exactly what the government does besides playing Robin Hood is not clear. In any case, if it didn’t catch on in 1935, it’s not going to catch on now (though the top marginal tax rate went from 24 percent in 1929 to 63 percent by 1935, then to 94 percent during World War II).
