5 ms·

You still haven’t provided the reasons that this would be so in representative democracies. You focus only on tax policy and France. The rich can impact plenty

You still haven’t provided the reasons that this would be so in representative democracies. You focus only on tax policy and France. The rich can impact plenty of other policies (minimum wage, healthcare, overtime, unionization, parental leave, etc.) which impact how much income people make which directly impacts the taxes the pay. Put differently, the rich have made sure that they collect so much of the country’s income That there isn’t much else left to tax. This is pretty clear in tables of income distribution.

rayiner 8y ago
Tax policy is a major policy choice, and France is similar to all the countries you listed in putting more of the tax burden on the middle class than in the US. Most of the countries on your list have lower corporate taxes than the US combined with a high VAT. That’s an example of elite preferences winning over mainstream preferences. Incidentally, tax policy (rich should pay higher taxes) is the only category you mention where a clear majority (75%) of Americans supports the view. As to your other example, the view among voters is in fact mixed. When Obama passed ACA for example, polls found public opposition to single payer to outweigh support. (It flipped only since then.) And that’s polls—actual voters notably skew older, richer, and more conservative than the general public sampled by polling. Even today, with 53% of people supporting single payer, it’s not clear whether that would be a majority of actual voters: https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-modestly-strong-but-malleable-support-for-single-payer-health-care https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-mod.... In particular, voters skew heavily older, and older folks are already covered by Medicare. Also consider labor unions: https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-steady-year-high.aspx?version=print https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-ste.... Most Americans would prefer labor unions to have less influence than they do now or to maintain the status quo, by a large margin (see the second chart). Only 40% want expanded labor union influence. (See second chart.) And again, actual voters are more conservative than the general population. As to minimum wage: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij2cP0sP_fAhXHmeAKHShEC-4QzPwBegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2Ffact-tank%2F2017%2F01%2F04%2F5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage%2F&psig=AOvVaw2AQOWHsuY1rOX8J9O_j9wz&ust=1548177541467056 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij.... Most polled support a minimum wage of $15, by a 52-46 margin. But it doesn’t break down along “elites” and “non-elites” but rather at the middle class. Support is very strong among those with household incomes below $30,000, but for those whose household incomes are 30,000-75,000, there is net opposition 52-46. And of course, that’s among people polled. Households with less than $30,000 in income vote at far lower rates than everyone else. So it’s likely that the majority of actual voters oppose a $15 minimum wage. Finally, addressing paid leave. People support paid leave by a large margin: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/03/23/americans-widely-support-paid-family-and-medical-leave-but-differ-over-specific-policies http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/03/23/americans-widely-s.... But the public is basically split on whether the federal government should force employers to provide paid leave. 48% oppose, 51% favor. (Again, the majority of voters probably oppose.) And if you scroll down to what models of government intervention people support, many more supported a carrot method that gives employers choice (offering tax credits to those who offer leave), than support the model European countries use (payroll taxes to pay for leave). So in the US there is only narrow public support, or outright public opposition, to many policies adopted in European countries. On top of that is the double whammy the Northwestern study completely ignored. First, as mentioned above, voters skew older, richer, and more conservative than the public. So a 51-48 majority among those polled in support of government-mandated paid parental leave is probably not a majority at all among actual voters. Second, any legislation has to be approved by the House and Senate, where some voters have much more representation than other voters. But if we want to enact government-mandated paid parental leave, we have to get through the Senate, where Wyoming has two Senators just as California or New York. So even if the policy was supported by a majority of voters, that doesn’t mean a majority of Congress supports the policy, even if each Congressman votes exactly according to voter preferences in her district or state. The study completely ignores that factor, even though it’s a dominant force in American politics. If we just went by polls, we’d never have a Republican President or Congress. But even though Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of the Republican President, Republicans just maintained control of the Senate.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  ==In particular, voters skew heavily older, and older folks are already covered by Medicare.== Which is single-payer healthcare and has 77% favor-ability [1]. ==Most Americans would prefer labor unions to have less influence than they do now or to maintain the status quo== This is complete editorializing. You could just as easily say that more Americans prefer labor unions to have the same or more influence than they do now. The Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest pro-business lobby, has vowed to fight an single-payer initiatives [2]. This is what people typically mean by "elites", the owners of capital. They are typically the one's influencing policy, not high wage earners. ==But it doesn’t break down along “elites” and “non-elites” but rather at the middle class.== You are completely missing the point here. Corporations are fighting increased minimum wages across the country [3]. ==So it’s likely that the majority of actual voters oppose a $15 minimum wage.== Here, you rely on the question asking specifically about $15/hr minimum wage. In reality, the minimum wage is $7.25 and there is a lot of daylight between that and $15/hr. If you ask about a different number, like $10/hr, you get a different result. "the poll found that 71 percent of people surveyed support raising the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour." [4] ==But even though Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of the Republican President, Republicans just maintained control of the Senate.== Only 35 of the 100 seats were up for election in 2018, so it doesn't stand to reason that the results would match public perception directly. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/medicare-medicaid-popularity-high-ahead-of-birthday.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/medicare-medicaid-popularity... [2] https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/chamber-of-commerce-ceo-vows-to-fight-single-payer-healthcare.html https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-ad... [3] https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2018/09/04/corporate-interests-sue-to-kill-minimum-wage-increase https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2018/09/04/co... [4] https://theintercept.com/2018/04/17/the-restaurant-industry-ran-a-private-poll-on-the-minimum-wage-it-did-not-go-well-for-them/ https://theintercept.com/2018/04/17/the-restaurant-industry-...
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > Which is single-payer healthcare and has 77% favor-ability [1]. Medicare has broad public support (and has for decades) and there are no serious proposals for getting rid of it, notwithstanding the elites. That is why, when we talk about "single-payer" as a policy proposal, or as a point of comparison with other countries, we are talking about extending single-payer to everyone. And that does not have the same broad support that Medicare does. At the time the ACA was enacted, a slight majority of those polled opposed single-payer healthcare for everyone: https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer.... That has flipped in the last 10 years, with a significant majority now supporting single-payer (59-39). Again, let's circle back to the question at hand: why does the U.S. lack single payer healthcare when many other developed countries have it? Is it because of "elites" overriding the public will? Or is it because the public itself only came to support it by a significant margin in the last few years, after the last major change in healthcare law? > This is complete editorializing. You could just as easily say that more Americans prefer labor unions to have the same or more influence than they do now. That would be answering the wrong question. We are comparing the U.S. to "other representative democracies" like "France, Canada, Norway, Sweden, [and] Australia" (these are your words). Why does the U.S. have weak labor unions, when many developed countries have stronger ones? Is it because of "elites" overriding the majority? Or is it because a large majority prefer the current, weak labor unions, or would weaken labor unions even further? > The Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest pro-business lobby, has vowed to fight an single-payer initiatives [2]. This is what people typically mean by "elites", the owners of capital. They are typically the one's influencing policy, not high wage earners. The Northwestern study we are talking about here--which is what people are citing for the premise that "elites" influence policy--didn't define "elites" as "capital owners." It defined them as the top 10% of income earners. > Here, you rely on the question asking specifically about $15/hr minimum wage. In reality, the minimum wage is $7.25 and there is a lot of daylight between that and $15/hr. If you ask about a different number, like $10/hr, you get a different result. Again, what are we trying to prove? Why are U.S. minimum wages lower than in say Canada (scheduled to rise to $15 in the next couple of years) or Australia ($18) or France (about $12, but in a country where wages overall are much less than the U.S.)? Is it "elites" or because public support for a minimum wage that high is borderline? Yes, there is public support for a $10+ minimum wage, which is why states across the country are in the process of raising their minimum wages to $10+. That is so, notwithstanding the presence of "elites" in New York, California, Maryland, etc. > Only 35 of the 100 seats were up for election in 2018, so it doesn't stand to reason that the results would match public perception directly. Various statistics I've seen show that a Republican majority vote in the Senate (51 votes) can represent as little as 42-43% of the total population. That's really a huge margin when you think about it. Say polls show that a policy is supported by 58% of the population, and opposed by 42% of the population. If you adjust for the fact that voters are more conservative than the overall public, that might turn into say 54-46%. And those 46% of voters, in turn, might be represented by 51 Senators, who can kill any bill implementing that policy. You don't need "elites" to explain how that works, and the Northwestern study (astoundingly) doesn't account for that phenomenon at all.

rayiner 8y ago

Tax policy is a major policy choice, and France is similar to all the countries you listed in putting more of the tax burden on the middle class than in the US. Most of the countries on your list have lower corporate taxes than the US combined with a high VAT. That’s an example of elite preferences winning over mainstream preferences. Incidentally, tax policy (rich should pay higher taxes) is the only category you mention where a clear majority (75%) of Americans supports the view. As to your other example, the view among voters is in fact mixed. When Obama passed ACA for example, polls found public opposition to single payer to outweigh support. (It flipped only since then.) And that’s polls—actual voters notably skew older, richer, and more conservative than the general public sampled by polling. Even today, with 53% of people supporting single payer, it’s not clear whether that would be a majority of actual voters: https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-modestly-strong-but-malleable-support-for-single-payer-health-care https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-mod.... In particular, voters skew heavily older, and older folks are already covered by Medicare. Also consider labor unions: https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-steady-year-high.aspx?version=print https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-ste.... Most Americans would prefer labor unions to have less influence than they do now or to maintain the status quo, by a large margin (see the second chart). Only 40% want expanded labor union influence. (See second chart.) And again, actual voters are more conservative than the general population. As to minimum wage: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij2cP0sP_fAhXHmeAKHShEC-4QzPwBegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2Ffact-tank%2F2017%2F01%2F04%2F5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage%2F&psig=AOvVaw2AQOWHsuY1rOX8J9O_j9wz&ust=1548177541467056 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij.... Most polled support a minimum wage of $15, by a 52-46 margin. But it doesn’t break down along “elites” and “non-elites” but rather at the middle class. Support is very strong among those with household incomes below $30,000, but for those whose household incomes are 30,000-75,000, there is net opposition 52-46. And of course, that’s among people polled. Households with less than $30,000 in income vote at far lower rates than everyone else. So it’s likely that the majority of actual voters oppose a $15 minimum wage. Finally, addressing paid leave. People support paid leave by a large margin: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/03/23/americans-widely-support-paid-family-and-medical-leave-but-differ-over-specific-policies http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/03/23/americans-widely-s.... But the public is basically split on whether the federal government should force employers to provide paid leave. 48% oppose, 51% favor. (Again, the majority of voters probably oppose.) And if you scroll down to what models of government intervention people support, many more supported a carrot method that gives employers choice (offering tax credits to those who offer leave), than support the model European countries use (payroll taxes to pay for leave). So in the US there is only narrow public support, or outright public opposition, to many policies adopted in European countries. On top of that is the double whammy the Northwestern study completely ignored. First, as mentioned above, voters skew older, richer, and more conservative than the public. So a 51-48 majority among those polled in support of government-mandated paid parental leave is probably not a majority at all among actual voters. Second, any legislation has to be approved by the House and Senate, where some voters have much more representation than other voters. But if we want to enact government-mandated paid parental leave, we have to get through the Senate, where Wyoming has two Senators just as California or New York. So even if the policy was supported by a majority of voters, that doesn’t mean a majority of Congress supports the policy, even if each Congressman votes exactly according to voter preferences in her district or state. The study completely ignores that factor, even though it’s a dominant force in American politics. If we just went by polls, we’d never have a Republican President or Congress. But even though Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of the Republican President, Republicans just maintained control of the Senate.

moorhosj 8y ago
==In particular, voters skew heavily older, and older folks are already covered by Medicare.== Which is single-payer healthcare and has 77% favor-ability [1]. ==Most Americans would prefer labor unions to have less influence than they do now or to maintain the status quo== This is complete editorializing. You could just as easily say that more Americans prefer labor unions to have the same or more influence than they do now. The Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest pro-business lobby, has vowed to fight an single-payer initiatives [2]. This is what people typically mean by "elites", the owners of capital. They are typically the one's influencing policy, not high wage earners. ==But it doesn’t break down along “elites” and “non-elites” but rather at the middle class.== You are completely missing the point here. Corporations are fighting increased minimum wages across the country [3]. ==So it’s likely that the majority of actual voters oppose a $15 minimum wage.== Here, you rely on the question asking specifically about $15/hr minimum wage. In reality, the minimum wage is $7.25 and there is a lot of daylight between that and $15/hr. If you ask about a different number, like $10/hr, you get a different result. "the poll found that 71 percent of people surveyed support raising the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour." [4] ==But even though Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of the Republican President, Republicans just maintained control of the Senate.== Only 35 of the 100 seats were up for election in 2018, so it doesn't stand to reason that the results would match public perception directly. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/medicare-medicaid-popularity-high-ahead-of-birthday.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/medicare-medicaid-popularity... [2] https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/chamber-of-commerce-ceo-vows-to-fight-single-payer-healthcare.html https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-ad... [3] https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2018/09/04/corporate-interests-sue-to-kill-minimum-wage-increase https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2018/09/04/co... [4] https://theintercept.com/2018/04/17/the-restaurant-industry-ran-a-private-poll-on-the-minimum-wage-it-did-not-go-well-for-them/ https://theintercept.com/2018/04/17/the-restaurant-industry-...
- rayiner 8y ago
  > Which is single-payer healthcare and has 77% favor-ability [1]. Medicare has broad public support (and has for decades) and there are no serious proposals for getting rid of it, notwithstanding the elites. That is why, when we talk about "single-payer" as a policy proposal, or as a point of comparison with other countries, we are talking about extending single-payer to everyone. And that does not have the same broad support that Medicare does. At the time the ACA was enacted, a slight majority of those polled opposed single-payer healthcare for everyone: https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer.... That has flipped in the last 10 years, with a significant majority now supporting single-payer (59-39). Again, let's circle back to the question at hand: why does the U.S. lack single payer healthcare when many other developed countries have it? Is it because of "elites" overriding the public will? Or is it because the public itself only came to support it by a significant margin in the last few years, after the last major change in healthcare law? > This is complete editorializing. You could just as easily say that more Americans prefer labor unions to have the same or more influence than they do now. That would be answering the wrong question. We are comparing the U.S. to "other representative democracies" like "France, Canada, Norway, Sweden, [and] Australia" (these are your words). Why does the U.S. have weak labor unions, when many developed countries have stronger ones? Is it because of "elites" overriding the majority? Or is it because a large majority prefer the current, weak labor unions, or would weaken labor unions even further? > The Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest pro-business lobby, has vowed to fight an single-payer initiatives [2]. This is what people typically mean by "elites", the owners of capital. They are typically the one's influencing policy, not high wage earners. The Northwestern study we are talking about here--which is what people are citing for the premise that "elites" influence policy--didn't define "elites" as "capital owners." It defined them as the top 10% of income earners. > Here, you rely on the question asking specifically about $15/hr minimum wage. In reality, the minimum wage is $7.25 and there is a lot of daylight between that and $15/hr. If you ask about a different number, like $10/hr, you get a different result. Again, what are we trying to prove? Why are U.S. minimum wages lower than in say Canada (scheduled to rise to $15 in the next couple of years) or Australia ($18) or France (about $12, but in a country where wages overall are much less than the U.S.)? Is it "elites" or because public support for a minimum wage that high is borderline? Yes, there is public support for a $10+ minimum wage, which is why states across the country are in the process of raising their minimum wages to $10+. That is so, notwithstanding the presence of "elites" in New York, California, Maryland, etc. > Only 35 of the 100 seats were up for election in 2018, so it doesn't stand to reason that the results would match public perception directly. Various statistics I've seen show that a Republican majority vote in the Senate (51 votes) can represent as little as 42-43% of the total population. That's really a huge margin when you think about it. Say polls show that a policy is supported by 58% of the population, and opposed by 42% of the population. If you adjust for the fact that voters are more conservative than the overall public, that might turn into say 54-46%. And those 46% of voters, in turn, might be represented by 51 Senators, who can kill any bill implementing that policy. You don't need "elites" to explain how that works, and the Northwestern study (astoundingly) doesn't account for that phenomenon at all.