I assume that the 53% “movement” is actually more of a mockery of the idea that 99% of people with lower incomes are a unified coalition. That 99% (or 1% dilettantes who claim to side with the 99%) OWS types take them seriously is kind of sad.
53% refers to the people who pay federal income taxes, as opposed to those who have income or exemptions that leave them with no tax obligation. That number changes from year to year, but it more than half. Ironically, some liberals give the counter example that the poor actually pay more taxes because of sales tax and withholding taxes like Social Security. Conservatives have considered Social Security a tax for years, while supporters have claimed it was a defined benefit plan. Which is it?
Taxing the rich to pay for the poor is an even-handed idea. It brings to mind the “sin taxes” on cigarettes and alcohol. Tobacco taxes should exist to pay for the results of smoking on the state. Instead, the money is frequently used to augment the general fund. When these activities lessen due to high taxes. the state finds itself at a loss for revenue.
Higher taxes on the highest incomes only relieves the total federal debt. The deficit will still be well above $0, even if the tax rate is 100%. That means any imagined spending from a millionaire tax windfall is not possible. If we spend any more, it will be through the selling of treasuries. It turns out that OWS are a bunch of deficit hawks after all.