People are tough on groups of millionaires but sweet on one millionaire

Increasing wealth inequality has been a problem in recent years, with the wealthiest 1% of people in the United States earning

100 times faster than the bottom 50% and the world's wealth. Studies have also reported that only 10% of people own more than three-quarters. It has been argued to increase taxation on the wealthy to solve these disparities, but 'people are tough on'groups of millionaires', but on'one millionaire'. 'It tends to be sweet,' the research team at Cornell University and The Ohio State University in the United States reported.

People are more tolerant of inequality when it is expressed in terms of individuals rather than groups at the top | PNAS

Lavish wealth tolerated more for individuals than groups | Cornell Chronicle

Study Finds a Strange Paradox When It Comes to How We Feel About Taxing Billionaires

In order to close the economic disparities that exist in the world, it is important to strengthen taxation on the ultra-rich and redistribute it in the form of public services and public subsidies. So, research teams at Cornell University and The Ohio State University investigated their thoughts on 'ultra-rich people' and 'specific millionaire individuals' in eight studies of a total of 2,800 people.

In the first study, more than 200 people were divided into two groups, one of which said, 'The salary of a person who is CEO of 350 large companies in the United States is average as of 1995. It was 42 times more than workers, but at the time of the survey it increased 372 times. ' The other group was asked if the CEO's compensation was appropriate, citing 'CEO individuals whose salaries have risen on average as CEOs of large companies.'

In this survey, all respondents believed that 'the average CEO makes too much money compared to his employees.' However, comparing the group asked about the CEO of the average large company to the group asked about the individual CEO of a particular company, the latter was relatively tolerant of CEOs getting more compensation than their employees. matter. 'If you think an individual CEO will be rewarded, he seems to be a little more tolerant of the luxury rewards,' said Assistant Professor Jesse Walker, who studies consumer behavior at The Ohio State University.

In another study, 400 people were divided in half, one showing the cover of Forbes, an American economic magazine with 'seven unfamiliar millionaires,' and the other '. I showed the cover of Forbes with 'One Millionaire Unfamiliar'. After that, both groups were shown a brief explanation of the millionaire on the cover and asked to answer their thoughts on themselves and the wealth they own.

As a result, participants who saw Forbes, where the seven millionaires were listed together, tended to be dissatisfied with the millionaires and attribute their success to an unequal economic system. .. On the other hand, those who saw Forbes, where the millionaire was listed alone, found that the assets they had were more fair and more likely to be the result of talent and diligence. I did. Also, groups that saw Forbes with seven millionaires were more likely to support inheritance tax than those who didn't, that is, they were more likely to think that the wealth passed down from parent to child should be redistributed. It seems to be.

'People who participated in our study were clearly more dissatisfied with the seven millionaires than the millionaires on the cover alone,' said Thomas Guillovich, a professor of psychology at Cornell University. 'The millionaire used in the experiment was a person most of the participants would not know. Nevertheless, people tax millionaires individually rather than groups of millionaires. I'm particularly negative. '

In yet another study, 'a group that talked about the privileged backbone that actors were born to families with industry ties' and 'privileged' about the amount of money they think should be taxed on a successful actor. We compared between the groups that didn't talk about the backbone. Analysis showed that subjects favored more taxation if they learned of the backbone that led to the actor's success. 'People don't hesitate to tax a rich man if he decides that the success of the rich man is situational,' said Girovic.

The research team argues from the results of this study that it is more effective to use terms such as 'ultra-rich' and 'top 1%' when appealing to people for taxation, rather than specific millionaires. increase. 'If a group of millionaires is at the top, we think it's unfair and wonder if luck or the economic system helped them make money,' Walker said. When you look at an individual, you tend to think that he is talented, diligent, and worthy of all the wealth he has created. '

in Note, Posted by log1h_ik