4 ms·

Is this not true everywhere though? The only difference is that in some countries, you have 80% of the population within one tax bracket of each other, so it is

Is this not true everywhere though? The only difference is that in some countries, you have 80% of the population within one tax bracket of each other, so it is really hard to pass legislation that will piss off 80% of the electorate. In more unequal countries, you have more stratified demographics, so you can pass individualized legislation that will only attack one tax bracket at a time, thus ensuring that you do not piss off too much of the electorate in one go.

bmpafa 8y ago
Unless you can short-circuit that system by convincing the lower tax brackets that their success hinges on minimizing the taxation of the top-bracket. Then the whole thing just sort of goes to hell.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  That’s a nice theory. Except that the top tax brackets pay way more in income taxes, both in dollars and as a percentage of income. Also, the viewpoint you advocate is extremely patronizing. It assumes that a large swathe of voters are just rubes who have been taken in by parlor tricks and sleight of hand. Have you considered the possibility that, instead, they have taken the earnest position that the point of democracy is not to use the votes of the many to take from the few, but rather to set up a system that is reasonably fair to all?
  - bmpafa 8y ago
    > Except that the top tax brackets pay way more in income taxes, both in dollars and as a percentage of income. My guess is that once you factor-in payroll taxes & regressive consumption taxes, the poor contribute a larger % of their income than do the rich. > ...the viewpoint you advocate is extremely patronizing. W/ all due respect, spare me the crocodile tears. Using economic chicanery to persuade huge swathes of voters is a storied tradition in electoral politics (as is accusing those who would call it chicanery of having 'no respect for the common man,' or whatever). > ...is not to use the votes of the many to take from the few, but rather to set up a system that is reasonably fair to all? I'd love for democracy to take from the many and give to the few, but for _some MYSTERIOUS reason_, the many don't appear to have much to spare these days. So, until the Gini coefficient starts to tick-back towards this "reasonably fair" system you mention, I'll likely stick to my rube-like habit of suspiciously asking '_cui bono_?'

bmpafa 8y ago

Unless you can short-circuit that system by convincing the lower tax brackets that their success hinges on minimizing the taxation of the top-bracket. Then the whole thing just sort of goes to hell.

toasterlovin 8y ago
That’s a nice theory. Except that the top tax brackets pay way more in income taxes, both in dollars and as a percentage of income. Also, the viewpoint you advocate is extremely patronizing. It assumes that a large swathe of voters are just rubes who have been taken in by parlor tricks and sleight of hand. Have you considered the possibility that, instead, they have taken the earnest position that the point of democracy is not to use the votes of the many to take from the few, but rather to set up a system that is reasonably fair to all?
- bmpafa 8y ago
  > Except that the top tax brackets pay way more in income taxes, both in dollars and as a percentage of income. My guess is that once you factor-in payroll taxes & regressive consumption taxes, the poor contribute a larger % of their income than do the rich. > ...the viewpoint you advocate is extremely patronizing. W/ all due respect, spare me the crocodile tears. Using economic chicanery to persuade huge swathes of voters is a storied tradition in electoral politics (as is accusing those who would call it chicanery of having 'no respect for the common man,' or whatever). > ...is not to use the votes of the many to take from the few, but rather to set up a system that is reasonably fair to all? I'd love for democracy to take from the many and give to the few, but for _some MYSTERIOUS reason_, the many don't appear to have much to spare these days. So, until the Gini coefficient starts to tick-back towards this "reasonably fair" system you mention, I'll likely stick to my rube-like habit of suspiciously asking '_cui bono_?'