Americans are socialists...they just don't know it yet

Polls show that US voters want a more equal society, but that they are not willing to achieve one th

"In America, the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." John Steinbeck's quote is as relevant today as it was in the first half of the twentieth century. Nowhere was this comment more appropriate than during the 2008 election, when Barack Obama met a plumber called Joe.

Joe the Plumber was an imaginary millionaire. Joe worried that Barack Obama's proposed tax increases for those earning over $250,000 would make him poorer, and discourage him from expanding his business. Except Joe didn't earn over $250,000. Under Obama's proposals, Joe was in line for a tax cut. In his head, Joe was being squeezed until his pips squeaked; in reality, he was getting a fillip from the government.

It's now 2011 and, on the face of it, the imaginary millionaires are still in the ascendance.

According to a poll by Gallup, below, 49 per cent of US voters think that the government should not redistribute wealth via higher taxes on the rich, while 47 per cent think that the government should do so.

Redistributing wealth

A majority of Americans, however, think that the current distribution of wealth is unfair, by 57 per cent to 35 per cent.

Hosted by imgur.com

In other words, US voters want a more equal society, but do not want the rich to pay for it - directly. A majority of US voters are, however, more than happy for the rich to fork out extra for social welfare. As social welfare is increasingly the largest burden for the US government, US voters are implicitly calling on the government for the rich to pay more to help the less well off. That sounds to me like redistribution of wealth. Barack Obama was briefly on the ropes in 2008 when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth around". In the next election, a statement like that might not go down as badly. Perhaps Steinbeck was wrong. Americans are a bunch of socialists - they just don't know it yet.

Getty
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496