Daniel

“Putting it all together, we define populism as a political style that sets ‘sacred’ people against two enemies: ‘elites’ and ‘others’. In this special issue, our contributors do not necessarily take up this definition and, in some cases, they may critically depart from it. Even so, our contributors do, in different ways, reflect on the roles of religion in the stylistic inflections of populism. It is worth underlining that the definition of populism that we present here is intentionally broader than cases that involve religion. Furthermore, it points to the quasi-religious connotations of populism. It, therefore, can be used in the analysis of any kind of populism, potentially foregrounding how even the most secular styles of populist politics will inevitably instantiate distinctions between the ‘profane’ and the ‘sacred’.”
― Daniel Nilsson Dehanas, Religion and the Rise of Populism

“One $7 million advertising campaign ran this advertisement: “When you die, the IRS can bury your family in crippling tax bills. It can cost them everything.” The ad was later criticized by FactCheck.org, an independent watchdog run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center for presenting a “misleading picture of who is actually affected by the estate tax since the vast amount of families are not affected by the estate tax.” The media campaign was particularly fierce and misleading when it came to family farms and businesses. According to one ad: “The death tax is killing American businesses.... To pay the death tax, many are forced to sell.”
It is striking that this campaign was so effective considering that it was based on such blatant distortions of the truth. Opponents of the estate tax repeal had written their own reports and op-eds explaining the limited application of the estate tax and the protections—real and potential—for family farms and businesses. These received little attention. To this, Luntz had a theory. As he explained in a New Yorker interview with Nicholas Lemann: “If you introduce a subject using language that will produce a strong opinion, no subsequent information will get people to change their minds. This is particularly the case when the competing claim is based on numbers — like in the estate tax where opponents of reform argued about lost revenue, high exemption amounts and the small percentage of the public likely to be subject to the tax. But discussing numbers is never a winning strategy.” Describing politicians who talk about numbers, Luntz added: “It’s like quicksand; the more you struggle the deeper you sink.”
― Ray D. Madoff, The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy

“A frequent refrain of those defending the status quo is that the income tax system already heavily burdens the rich because the top 1 percent of earners pay 40 percent of all income taxes while 40 percent of Americans pay no income taxes at all. This is partially true: Individuals with the most taxable income do pay the most income tax. However, this statistic is about people who have high incomes, typically from work; it tells us nothing about the tax liability of those with the most wealth. Studies have shown that there is only about a 50 percent overlap between America’s wealthiest people and those who earn the most income. Moreover, as the leaked tax returns of several of the wealthiest Americans reveal, the ability of wealth owners to avoid taxable income means that they are just as likely to be among the 40 percent of nonpayers as they are the top 1 percent of earners.”
― Ray D. Madoff, The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy

“The tax system benefits these wealthy heirs in another way as well: by hiding these tax benefits from the public. Gifts and inheritances are not only received free of income tax; but their receipt is also free of reporting requirements. This lack of reporting helps perpetuate the myth that the tax liability of the wealthy is more burdensome than it is.
To illustrate: a person with a $1 million salary (subject to about $325,000 in income taxes) also receives a $10 million inheritance. Under current reporting rules, only the $1 million salary is reported on the taxpayer’s return, giving the impression—to the taxpayer, the IRS, and the public—that the taxpayer is paying income taxes at a rate of 32.5 percent. On the other hand, if the taxpayer were required to report the $10 million inheritance (even if it weren’t subject to tax!), it would be easier to see that the actual tax burden is less than 4 percent of the income acquired in that year. If we add more zeros to the inheritance, the tax liability shrinks even more.”
― Ray D. Madoff, The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy