Tax comment has been increasingly sidelined by something akin to 'what about the children?!?!", with a focus on the poor ole middle classes and how the poor blighters are being hammered by Mister Government and his cha-cha-cha with the elite and the corporate cigar smokers. Now we could look at marginal tax rates and use that to stamp our feet and crow 'tax cuts for little Sebastian before its too late'. But hang on there! The 'help the Chelsea tractor drivers' is problematic on two counts. First, we have the median voter model and how, the middle classes (being the determinants of politician success) will be in central place to impact on policy. Second, we're sidetracking problems inherent in the tax system; namely, the middle classes actually encourage underprovision of public goods and therefore coerce an inferior result for us all. Don't kick a kitten; don't drown a dog; tut at the middle class!
Granny says rich folks got dem politicians votin' `em some more tax cuts... Tax cut bill passes House, goes to Senate WASHINGTON, April 19 (UPI) -- The U.S. House, voting mostly along party lines Thursday, approved a small business tax cut the White House has already said it will veto.
Actually false! The essence of supply side economics is to ignore economic rationality whilst imposing a dogmatic result that coerces high effective marginal rates of tax on the low income
Please gives references or links on how supply side economics coerces high marginal tax rates on the poor. Thanks
Is it news to you? Golly! Consider Thatcherism. A classic case of supply side economics. What did we see? We saw a rapid increase in child poverty and working poverty. Part of that was generated by removing benefits whilst eliminating progression in the tax system. This supposedly induces a work incentive on the feckless whilst encouraging entrepreneurial behaviour amongst the rich. End result? A significant increase in effective marginal rates of tax, by definition (Note at the same time the supply side belief that taxes and benefits could be integrated within an acceptable ideological result was rejected)
I'm not going to converse with you over Thatcher as your knowledge of that era is pathetic, as you use dogma instead of economic reality to bore me with drivel. This is proved with certainty by your failure to make any relevant comment to the quote provided
Americans think the middle class is the working class. I don't know if they understand the British equivalent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUNssEtAwr8
"Middle Class" these days is little more than political jargon meant to be as inclusive as possible. Most of the folks in this country who actually fall below the poverty line believe themselves to be a part of the "middle class", same with those on the low end of the upper class. It's a voter block, like every other one, that's quick to jump on the coat tails of whatever candidate offers the most them the most stuff. The result may be the middle class demanding the under provision of public goods, but the fact of the matter is, most of them have no idea what a public good is. You list two problems: 1. The "middle class" because it's a highly inclusive group is the primary electorate for any politicians and as a result drives policy decisions. These seems less like a problem and more like a description of what they are and the consequences of democracy. Nothing all that interesting really. Does the largest voting block in the country drive policy decisions? Duh! 2. They demand an under-provision of public goods. Of course they do, because they believe (whether correctly or not) that they're saddled with the burden to pay for it disproportionate to the rich/poor depending on which side of the aisle your on.
Will you also provide a translation which ends with a question mark or two , and relates the several preceding sentences to the question marks ? Rambling Tosh is a phrase we use.
Its the linkage which is interesting. The median voter wants to call his firstborn Sebastian and he will vote against the interests of the poor little mite's interests. Rotten Adult Theorem, without the good news from the Kid variant
That the majority of voters demand policies with negative economic outcomes? Welcome to democracy! It's truly rational ignorance though, what's the incentive to learn that your long held beliefs along with the beliefs of your favorite talking head are utter crap? So here's the money question! How do we align the incentives of the median voter and the well being of this country? If the voter can't see the gains made by investments in public goods, and has virtually no incentive to educate himself on the topic, why on Earth should be be in favor of spending more of his dollars on it?
I suppose you could contemplate making the vote compulsory. That will at least shift the median voter towards sense. Its not something I'm comfortable with though
How does forcing someone to cast a ballot encourage them to educate themselves on the candidates or the issues? They're impact on the outcome is still virtually non-existent, so long as that fact exists rational ignorance is the expectation.
Its about the median voter, not ignorance/stupidity (a different issue in itself). Shifting away from the middle class voter increases the likelihood of public good provision (a family of 4 is more likely to desire investment in public education then our Henry just looking out for privately educated Sebastian)
Sounds like a recipe for disaster. The incentives in that scenario are horrible, so long as a significant portion of those being forced to vote have a negative tax burden there's no reason to be prudent.
And because they're the median voter and because they vicariously control policy it'll never happen. We'll get the provision without a way to pay for it and thus deficit. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic.
Its the marginal shift that's useful. There's no way of solving the under-utilisation (unless we get all utopian over education), but the shift away from the middle classes can improve matters. Only marginally mind you!
The median voter has very little impact on policy. Gerrymandering has assured most political parties maintain their seat, no matter what the voter does. That is why we have red states and blue states. Bush was unpopular, McCain equally so. Obama was an unknown, hyped by the media, with many Independants, and even some Republicans, voting in his favor, yet 22 states voted for McCain. http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html The only the way the voter has any impact is when they have power to change things, that requires: 1. The 80/20 districts are redrawn to 50/50. 2. It requires re-writing campaign contribution law, so special interests don't overwhelm the voter with political ads. 3. It requires separating special interests from the media, so they go back to being the watch dog that tracks campaign promises to to results, and follow up on the results of policy, not it's intent.
That's terribly naive. We even see trade policy impacted by the median voter (e.g. we'd expect less protectionism in a country with a more aged population)
WHAT? Do you not know what median means? That you're going to try and sit here and say that the average voter has "very little" impact on policy is just remarkable, and no in the good way. US House districts are perhaps the most manipulated and yet, they have extremely high turn over rates compared to senators, this assertion is clearly not based in reality. HUH???? So now your saying the way state lines are drawn is gerrymandering? That's a stretch... .. well that's not even fair to stretches, that comment is utterly outrageous and unsupportable. The big lie about voting is that your vote matters. It doesn't. Statistically any single vote is completely insignificant and has no affect whatsoever on the outcome and frankly virtually everyone could use their time better by just staying home and doing virtually anything else. Hence my comments earlier in this thread about rational ignorance.
Average, or median? What percent of those polled wanted Obamacare to fail? Did that impact policy at all? Even after Nov 2010, where the voters made it clear, the Democrats pushed that legislation through. High turn over rate? Even with the venom toward the Republicans in 2008, 21 seats changed hands, out of 435, 5%, and the Democrats in 2010, 63 lost seat, 14.5%. How many seats change hands in your state elections? In CA in 2010 - 0.
You say it is naive, yet your supporting statement demonstrates that the voters wishes aren't part of policy.
