The Revolt's Deeper Roots

California's celebrated Proposition 13 has become a puzzler for the rest of the nation. Some observers see it as part of a conservative backlash against the welfare state. President Carter says it vindicates his populist view that ordinary folks are rising in wrath against the well-to-do and their three-martini lunches. At the Time Inc. tax conference, Public Opinion Analyst Daniel Yankelovich, who conducts regular surveys for TIME, offered his findings.

The tax rebellion is clearly not confined to California, says Yankelovich. People elsewhere feel at least as strongly about taxes. But, he adds, the revolt is not an unqualified conservative backlash or a mindless desire to dismantle government. It is also not a code word for racial prejudice. Nor is it a soak-the-rich movement. Quite the contrary, Yankelovich has found that most poorer Americans still believe that they have a chance to achieve wealth and they do not want the opportunity removed. Nor do they feel excessively jealous of those who have already made it, since they believe luck, to a large degree, determines who has good fortune and their turn may come next. Indeed, a 66% majority favors cutting the capital gains tax.

What then is the tax rebellion? Yankelovich finds three meanings. First, it reflects a personal crunch. Last year more people felt their income would grow in the following year or two than believed it would decline. This year the proportions are the reverse. So part of the revolt is a perception by the typical citizen that "my taxes and living costs are rising faster than my income."

Second, says Yankelovich, the revolt is a protest against government waste, inefficiency and power. Though people have felt keenly about waste for a long time, the breadth of this feeling is new. Back in 1958, 42% agreed with the statement, "Government wastes a lot of money we pay in taxes." In 1968, 60% agreed and this year the figure is 78%. Fully 80% interpret Proposition 13 as a call to trim excessive spending.

The third, and most important, aspect of the revolt is that it is aimed at what people see as forms of unfairness in American life. This is where the rebellion's real power lies. Says Yankelovich: "When people begin to resent what they regard as unfair, it generates the kind of emotion that gets some people elected and others thrown out of office."

A lot of this emotion is being generated now by the unfair effects of inflation, which include automatic tax increases without a vote or political discussion. One example: automatic increases in the tax assessment of houses in California, the development that led to Proposition 13. A nationwide grievance is the way inflation pushes people into higher tax brackets even though their real income may be slipping.

An even more potent factor bugging the taxpayer, says Yankelovich, involves the raging debate over two competing conceptions of fairness. One is the concept of a need as a right, a notion that is built into much of federal legislation. As Yankelovich puts it: "If I need food or education or health care, I have a right to it." From that standpoint, it is fairness when government guarantees that the need will be met. But this reasoning collides with the other concept of fairness based on an older proposition, which in Yankelovich's words runs, "I get what I deserve. I worked hard for my pension and so I deserve it. I have been here longer than anybody else so I have earned my seniority. He is smarter than Joe so he deserves to go to college."

These two views sometimes clash dramatically. Yankelovich cites an example: two families, each with a child who qualifies for a student grant and each in the same income bracket. But one family has skimped and has saved some money and the other has not. Which gets more grant money? It is the family that has not saved.

There is no ambiguity about where the majority stands, says Yankelovich. It backs the concept of fairness based on getting what you deserve and opposes the notion that need constitutes a right. In Yankelovich's surveys, 84% say that people who live by the rules are getting shortchanged and those who flout the rules are doing just fine. More than 80% are against affirmative action when it is carried to the point of reverse discrimination. Eighty-seven percent back the notion that those who are able to work, but choose not to, have no right to expect society to assist them financially.

From Proposition 13, says Yankelovich, voters have drawn a powerful lesson. By mass action at the polls, government can be forced to pursue a tax policy that is less wasteful, less distorted by inflation, and closer to the majority's concept of fairness. Yankelovich concludes: "Tax policy may be the first major issue of the 1980 campaign."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.