The Middle Class Blames every one but themselves

I just met with a grad student at UChicago Public Policy who told me about some interesting new data.

At the national level, it turns out that there is no correlation between what people outside the top 10% of income cite as their policy concerns and what legislation gets passed. There is, however, a positive correlation between what those in the top 10% cite as concerns and what gets passed.

Also, when you control for other factors, African-American concerns have a negative correlation. If the African-American population wants something, that legislation is less likely to be passed than if African-Americans did not care about it.

 

So you're saying we just need to get blacks to want tax reductions and the budget deficit is solved because they'll be put up?

 

Oh, I have no doubt that they could get tax rates on the poor raised, but not I think on the wealthy, so no budget deficit solved. Sorry about that.

The Wall Street Journal today had a big story (in the news section, not Op-Ed) about how the top 1% might be topped out on taxes because they are an ever-increasing share of the national tax revenue. Except for one guy who was quoted, the story did not mention that tax revenues on the top 1% are rising not because of higher rates over the past several decades, but because of higher incomes.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/04/is-america-an-oligarchy.html

 

???

You get that America is supposed to be a democracy, right?

I mean, it's not meant to be an issue what the top earners want and the laws that gets passed. I mean, you know that.... right?

 

At the risk of summoning someone this thread doesn't need, it's not. There are a host of safeguards specifically to avoid 50% + 1 from lording it over 50% - 1.

 

We are supposed to be a Federal Representative democracy.

There is a difference.

 

The problem is that politicians became too expensive, hence only billionaires can afford one now a days.

 

...wonder why that is?

 

Some dude in Chicago got cut taking a 7 thousand dollar bribe, I am pretty sure depending on what you want, you can still find some politicians on the cheap out there.

 

Chicago boys are cheap than NY boys. But you are right, there are some bargains out there if you look hard enough.

 

because now almost all Congresspeople are millionaires themselves (probably from bribes they've collected on their way up the ladder )
And there are way more lawyers, who are really good at justifying things ... like being paid by someone other than the taxpayer. Something lawyers are not good at? Compromising.

 

Well that is what you get when you let Rich landowners write your constitution.

Talk about the 1% having a say on how to run a country.

 

And the cause of the millionaire Congresscritters...?

 

Millionaires are lazy bums who want do-nothing jobs that hook them up with even more money? Because then it's perfectly legal to do insider trading, and other otherwise reprehensible things like stealing from the poor to give to the rich (who will then give you even more money and/or another cushy do-nothing job)?

There are lots of them, which one are you fishing for?

 

Power and access that they can sell. Lawmakers have power as agents of the government. Bureaucrats have power as agents of the government. There are lots of them, and they've been bestowed with lots of power over the decades, have they not?

 

over the decades since 1775? Or just since 1980?

 

If those are my only two choices, I'll go with the former while noting that the power available to wield as a government functionary has grown immensely

 

Cool chart in Krugman today. It neatly demonstrates U.S. exceptionalism, and it also explains why the Tea Party doesn't have European equivalents. Finally, it explains why the U.S. is more prone to class warfare than is Europe (although oddly, not so prone to violence/strikes).

 

This chart does not seem right.

I will assume that this is when they talk about specific cuts and not just an overall question on "do you want to cut government spending".

I remember seeing polls where when asked the generic question support for spending cuts is high, but when they start asking for specific things to cut, the support for cuts falls.

 

You're probably right. There is a lot of devil in those details.