I'm curious about the inclusion of the word "adult" in the headline and article. Do children hold alternative views on tax policy?

It says "A new survey of adult citizens in 18 of the world’s largest economies", which I interpret as saying the information to answer your question is not available from this survey.

How about closing the loopholes created for the rich which makes it that they end up paying a lower percentage of their income to taxes than many so-called "middle class people" do. Warren Buffett pointed out that his secretary pays higher taxes than he does (I'm assuming he's referring to an executive secretary having a six-figure salary).

It's difficult to have discussions on our profligate government spending when a majority of the people don't believe everybody is pulling their weight.

Lots of things in parallel need to happen.

Consumption culture is not sustainable.

Financialization processes have to be inverted. If banking, markets, insurance, real estate grow faster than any other sector of the economy then debt, prices and monopolies, cross border arbitrage keep growing.

Ambition and its rewards in terms of financial/social status has to rethought. With the current incentives we get what we pay for and celebrate.

People have to organize more and think about these things.

And at the same time, corporate-sponsored nativism is on the rise thanks to coordinated anti-immigrant assaults on social media whipping up hysteria.

People may think it's a good idea, but it's yet another popular notion that will be denied as the lines blur between monied interests and governments in the West.

You've got to get there from here.

What's needed is a transition plan which ends up totally eliminating taxes from anyone that's not rich, while adjusting tax rates accordingly to make up the difference.

IOW moving steadily in that direction without fail, each year designating more and more non-rich citizens for total tax relief in a very predictable way, both socially and financially.

Rinse & repeat until there is a measurable effect on wealth inequality.

Then use that measure of effect to determine next steps.

Next steps if nothing measurable develops within a reasonable number of years, increase the rate of change until the overwhelming majority of citizens are no longer taxed whatsoever.

This is the real promise of increased worker productivity benefiting the workers themselves rather than only making them pay more tax.

If that big a majority could not be reached, then I guess as undesirable as it would be, it becomes necessary to start taxing wealth itself. This really shouldn't be allowed to happen though and there's no fair way to accomplish it, but at least the untaxable citizens would not have to worry, while only people who can actually afford to be squeezed step up to the plate as fairly as can be done. There should be no way that taxing of wealth could ever become permanent at all.

Permanent taxes on wage income would have never been allowed if it weren't for their proposed (then later implied) temporary nature in the years it took to finally approve such a massive transfer of wealth away from those who could afford it least.

Remember in the USA, free enterprise flourished like never before or after, but that was only during the period when no wage income was yet taxed.

The only faintly realistic excuse for taxing wages was to use the funds only to pay down debt and reduce ongoing costs forever so that the levy could be lifted as soon as humanly possible.

I do think real honest billionaires are among those who may not want anybody to be able to ascertain what their actual wealth is at any one time. That's fair too.

That confidentiality could be maintained perhaps by an alternative minimum wealth tax, which only the very wealthy could easily pay, for those who do not want to disclose detailed wealth standings at their own option.

After all the dust from such a seismic shift would settle, then the fixed value of the alternative minimum could be focused on to balance the books without any non-rich people having to suffer due to wastefulness and inequality, no matter how long those undesirable financial factors continue to linger. For the very rich, a fixed minimum (rather than a regulated percentage) might still be far less onerous compared to the barely-rich. That's OK, as long as the books are balanced they can still compete among themselves for dominance and stuff, as long as none of the non-rich citizens can get caught in the crossfire any more. There is no other non-revolting choice once tax rates have risen far enough beyond insignificant. The longer that unbearable taxes have been allowed to stand, the more it can be like a dam breaking when sympathies change.

But taxation of wealth itself should really be avoided "at all costs", as the increasing number of non-rich are almost permanently relieved of levies in a systematic way.

Rich people should be able to keep their money as long as none of the non-rich citizens are suffering because of it.

This is in line with people who are already getting so worried about a possible tax on wealth, that UBI looks more urgent to them as years of increasing inequality go by.