Economic Inequality and Political Representation

[KevinKohler]

So....wait...someone, somewhere, likely being paid by grant money, just discovered that money corrupts politics?










STOP THE PRESSES! SOMEONE CALL THE PULITZER FOUNDATION, WE GOT US A CANDIDATE!!!!!!!

 

[TurtleDude]

Well...in this case they aren't obviously. Ultimately the paper in my view means that Government has been captured by moneyed interest and there are some things you can do to change that.

Inequality which is growing is just magnifying the problem.

shouldn't those of us who pay for most of the government get most of the government benefits

the poor have a rather good deal-the bottom 50% hardly pay any income tax yet they use far more than the 3% of the services they pay for.

The top 5% pay more than half the Income tax and they surely don't use more than half of the services that tax funds

 

[KevinKohler]

shouldn't those of us who pay for most of the government get most of the government benefits

the poor have a rather good deal-the bottom 50% hardly pay any income tax yet they use far more than the 3% of the services they pay for.

The top 5% pay more than half the Income tax and they surely don't use more than half of the services that tax funds

So the moneyed few should hold sway over the masses, eh? Asinine post even for YOU, turtle.

 

[imagep]

...Asinine post even for YOU, turtle.

KevinKohler, you are absolutely wrong again. It's typical of turtles.

 

[KevinKohler]

shouldn't those of us who pay for most of the government get most of the government benefits

the poor have a rather good deal-the bottom 50% hardly pay any income tax yet they use far more than the 3% of the services they pay for.

The top 5% pay more than half the Income tax and they surely don't use more than half of the services that tax funds

Ignoring, for a minute, that this is about the division of political power and influence, and in no way pertaining to public services...

Let's humor this post.

Shouldn't those of us do most of the manual labor get most of the fruits resulting from said labor?

The rich have a rather good deal-the top 1% hardly do any manual labor, yet they retain more than 80% of the resources and wealth resulting from that manual labor.

The bottom 80% or so do more than 90% of the labor, and they surely don't see half, or even an 1/8th of the profits that result.

 

[lizzie]

Because the private sector isn't doing it.

It isn't their job to do it.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I think he is suggesting that government should change. But who else other than the government should we look to in order to reduce income disparity?

Individuals.
Part of the reason income disparity has risen, is because there are less adults per household.
Naturally that means that income will be at least be cut in half.

 

[armor99]

Interesting studdy done by Larry M. Bartels from Princeton University (from 2005).
http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf

His findings? That based on voting patterns Congress clearly favors the wealthiest members of society.

He finds that the poor by foor are least represented. The next most represented is the middle class. Then the highest level of representation (bill favoring) is the upper class.

He then does a comparison of bills that will favor one group to the detriment of another.

Once again the lower income group always loses out.

The middle class of course always loses out to the upper class.

So...based on Senate voting patterns wealth by far determines what stuff you get from government.

Thoughts?

I know for some this is just providing the data that supports what most people already know but the degree in which it takes place is pretty astounding.

I would also wager you.... that vast percentages of the poor do not vote at all, while most wealthy people probably do. You cannot blame the system, if people choose not to exercise their rights....

 

[Neomalthusian]

I think he is suggesting that government should change. But who else other than the government should we look to in order to reduce income disparity?

Ourselves.

 

[iliveonramen]

I would also wager you.... that vast percentages of the poor do not vote at all, while most wealthy people probably do. You cannot blame the system, if people choose not to exercise their rights....

You would be right...most poorer citizens do not vote...but it's not just the poor that get shafted. It's the middle class as well when their needs are weighed against the needs of the rich.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Well the first step in the process is drawing attention to the problem and electing new representatives. So it would not be the same culprits reforming the system.

But you really won't be electing new representatives- at least not new in any real sense. The entire political class is a part of what we call today the 1%, thus you would be voting out one 1%er to put in another 1%er. Even if you vote out Democrats and put in Republicans or vice versa, the situation would still remain the same as both parties have slight differences, but on big issues such as destroying the Constitution, endless war, and the creation of a police state in the US, all political elites agree on.

 

[iliveonramen]

the poor have a rather good deal-the bottom 50% hardly pay any income tax yet they use far more than the 3% of the services they pay for.

I would like to point out it was Republican policies that have done the most to create this situation. Earned Income Tax Credit, Bush Tax cuts etc. It's pretty weird that now it's Republicans that overwhelming point to these figures as a major problem.

The top 5% pay more than half the Income tax and they surely don't use more than half of the services that tax funds

I disagree with this. A monthly check isn't the only way to determine who benefit from government.

Basically you're saying that individuals that are 1,000's of times more wealthier than the poor in this country have a raw deal compared to the poor. I don't see how it's possible to say that government...which overwhelmingly protects our economic system benefits the poor over the wealthy.

 

[armor99]

You would be right...most poorer citizens do not vote...but it's not just the poor that get shafted. It's the middle class as well when their needs are weighed against the needs of the rich.

Well in this perhaps we agree.. I think lobbying in all of it's forms is an abomination. It should be stopped immediately. If there is no lobbying... there is no one to curry political favors with.... rich or poor...

 

[TurtleDude]

You would be right...most poorer citizens do not vote...but it's not just the poor that get shafted. It's the middle class as well when their needs are weighed against the needs of the rich.

The middle class have a great deal. They use most of the government resources and the POliticians pander to them constantly yet the top 5% pay more of the income taxes than the Middle class does

 

[armor99]

I disagree...that's what government is and what it does. When the Hoover damn was being built it's completely the function of government to build it. That's the purpose...you pool resources and with those pooled resources you can do things that no community on it's own can do. Or if you take government down to the community levels what no individual can do.

Representation in government is the mechanism to decide what government should be doing. The problem is when votes don't matter because politicians are really won over outside of the vote (i.e. in the halls of Congress or while raising money). That's the problem. When representation is based on wealth accumulated not the good of "the people"

Hmmm... carefull on this one. I like to think of govt as fire. Under tightly controlled conditions, they can do good work. When left unchecked.... you can get burned. Public works are on occasion an OK thing for govt to be doing, like in your dam example. In theory, a dam can, has, or will, benefit all sorts of people. Young and old, rich and poor, etc. As in there is no one particular group or another that is excluded, and there is no one group that benefits more than another.

However, when the govt uses it power to hurt some groups, but help others, then I have a problem with that. Taxing wealthy people into oblivion while 47% pay no federal income tax at all.... is a serious problem. I understand that in theory we have a "collective" vote over where our tax dollars go. But when so many contribute NOTHING to the federal income tax "kitty", and continue to be able to vote for where other peoples money is to go, then I claim taxation without representation.

 

[iliveonramen]

However, when the govt uses it power to hurt some groups, but help others, then I have a problem with that. Taxing wealthy people into oblivion while 47% pay no federal income tax at all.... is a serious problem. I understand that in theory we have a "collective" vote over where our tax dollars go. But when so many contribute NOTHING to the federal income tax "kitty", and continue to be able to vote for where other peoples money is to go, then I claim taxation without representation

When all taxes paid to governments are accounted nearly everyone pays and the overall gross rates paid are pretty flat.

Payroll taxes as a % of Federal Government income is about the same as Federal Income taxes.

I just don't agree that there's this large "moocher" class paying nothing and getting of scott free.

 

[iliveonramen]

The middle class have a great deal. They use most of the government resources and the POliticians pander to them constantly yet the top 5% pay more of the income taxes than the Middle class does

I would agree...it's definately one of those "**** rolls down hill" deals. The number one constuent is the top income earners, the next is upper middle class, the next middle class, and last is poor.

The middle class in general do benefit from a lot of policies but it's policies the rich also benefit from. If there is a conflict in policy between the middle class and the most elite income earners...who generally wins out?

The Ryan plan (may) get rid of interest rate deductions and change Medicare into a premium support plan...what exactly is the sacrafice for the rich? Tax cuts.

The Ryan plan to me is an extreme example of this paper. Besides that it basically guts almost all programs for the poor. At the end of the day discretionary spending is capped at 4% of spending...right now we spend just over 4% of our GDP on the military (discretionary spending) and Ryan is now calling for increased military spending.

How does that balance out? What is left of government besides the military and (modified) entitlements? That would virtually wipe out any program for poor individuals.

 

[Federalist]

Personally I think there's an effective upper limit on the size of a republic. Once the population grows too large, "representatives" no longer represent their constituents, but become more concerned with catering to special interests. Consolidating power in Washington moves power away from the people and hands it to special interests.

The solution, to me, is to decentralize and disperse power as much as possible to local political units, giving people effective representation in the workings of their local republics. The federal government should concern itself with issues having to do with the federation, not the daily lives of the people of the several states.

 

[JRog]

Yeah I've got one:

So why look to government to fix wealth inequality problems?

Because the other option is to look to the ones with the most wealth to fix the problem. Keep in mind, these are the people buying the politicians to favor their own self interests. Do you try to get the criminalsl to fix the problem, or do you try to get the failed regulators to fix the problem. I'd rather try to reform the regulator than beg the criminal.

 

[JRog]

The middle class have a great deal. They use most of the government resources and the POliticians pander to them constantly yet the top 5% pay more of the income taxes than the Middle class does

I disagree. I would argue that the very wealthy use the most government resources. They use the court systems more, they use the methods of transportation more (via their businesses), they benefit most from public education of their work force, and so on.

I think the biggest benefit to the wealthy is military, police and fire protection. If these people have a vastly larger amount of wealth, they benefit most from the military, police, fire, FDIC insurance, etc. The more you own, the more you have to lose, and therefore the more you benefit from the protections provided by our government.

 

[sookster]

There is no doubt in my mind that this is going on because of lobbying. And frankly, this means that our Government is not a representative republic.

I suggest reading The Declaration of Independence. And see how strikingly close The Crown is to our present country.

 

[TurtleDude]

I disagree. I would argue that the very wealthy use the most government resources. They use the court systems more, they use the methods of transportation more (via their businesses), they benefit most from public education of their work force, and so on.

I think the biggest benefit to the wealthy is military, police and fire protection. If these people have a vastly larger amount of wealth, they benefit most from the military, police, fire, FDIC insurance, etc. The more you own, the more you have to lose, and therefore the more you benefit from the protections provided by our government.

1) fire and police protection are based mainly on property taxes. Most police calls -at in the several county area where I live and work-are to the poorer areas. Most crime victims are poor or lower middle class.

2) your claim that the rich have more to lose is an assumption that ignores insurance and other means of redress. It also is contradictory to the arguments the left uses in terms of taxation (20% tax rates imposed on the poor "cost them more" than say 18% imposed on the wealthy) based on what someone can "afford" rather than actual value

3) YOur argument is faulty because if you use an argument that the rich should pay more because they benefit more per person when in reality you are comparing the top 5% who pay more than the bottom 95% and you must then argue that the top 5% also derive more benefit than the rest-an untenable argument when it comes to the military and the protection of the lives and freedom (Do you want to argue the life 95 poor people is worth less than 5 rich ones?) of the citizenry.

 

[JRog]

1) fire and police protection are based mainly on property taxes. Most police calls -at in the several county area where I live and work-are to the poorer areas. Most crime victims are poor or lower middle class.

Perhaps most reported crime, but the sad fact is that more poor people find themselves in legal trouble because they are poor since the legal system is skewed against them. What's the phrase again? Steal $1.00, you're a criminal, steal $1,000,000,000, you're a banker? Just because the wealthy steal from others through legal maneuvering, lobbying, fancy investment vehicles, and insider secrets on the down-low. The methods used and extent to which many wealthy people steal is a large part of how they are able to do it without prosecution.
Last time I checked, insider trading was illegal, but I personally know it to be common practice throughout the market. I also thought that selling products under false pretenses was illegal, but how many bankers were imprisoned following the 2008 collapse? If the rich commit large-scale crimes, they just hire lobbyists to change the law or call up their personal senator investment and ask them to not prosecute.

2) your claim that the rich have more to lose is an assumption that ignores insurance and other means of redress. It also is contradictory to the arguments the left uses in terms of taxation (20% tax rates imposed on the poor "cost them more" than say 18% imposed on the wealthy) based on what someone can "afford" rather than actual value

My argument about progressive tax rates has always been a sense of equal suffering. Unfortunately, taxes aren't as progressive as they may seem in the standard rate charts.

3) YOur argument is faulty because if you use an argument that the rich should pay more because they benefit more per person when in reality you are comparing the top 5% who pay more than the bottom 95% and you must then argue that the top 5% also derive more benefit than the rest-an untenable argument when it comes to the military and the protection of the lives and freedom (Do you want to argue the life 95 poor people is worth less than 5 rich ones?) of the citizenry.

The sad truth is, in practice, the military exists to protect property and business interests, not life. Also, I don't believe we are as free as we claim to be. One could argue that a wealthy person has more freedom.

 

[KevinKohler]

1) fire and police protection are based mainly on property taxes. Most police calls -at in the several county area where I live and work-are to the poorer areas. Most crime victims are poor or lower middle class.

2) your claim that the rich have more to lose is an assumption that ignores insurance and other means of redress. It also is contradictory to the arguments the left uses in terms of taxation (20% tax rates imposed on the poor "cost them more" than say 18% imposed on the wealthy) based on what someone can "afford" rather than actual value

3) YOur argument is faulty because if you use an argument that the rich should pay more because they benefit more per person when in reality you are comparing the top 5% who pay more than the bottom 95% and you must then argue that the top 5% also derive more benefit than the rest-an untenable argument when it comes to the military and the protection of the lives and freedom (Do you want to argue the life 95 poor people is worth less than 5 rich ones?) of the citizenry.

The surrender your wealth, if this inequality is bothering you so much. Honestly, Turtle, if you've got it so bad, donate all your assets to one charity or another, and join either the poor or middle class. Then you can be just like them.


Otherwise, it just sounds like class envy, dude.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Because the other option is to look to the ones with the most wealth to fix the problem. Keep in mind, these are the people buying the politicians to favor their own self interests. Do you try to get the criminalsl to fix the problem, or do you try to get the failed regulators to fix the problem. I'd rather try to reform the regulator than beg the criminal.

They're all criminals. The same breed of human. You seem to admit this, but hang on to some hope that some of them (but not others) will change their ways. What makes the bought-and-controlled politician more capable of change than the entity buying and controlling him? Nothing. There is a third option, but it involves eliminating our own need for any of the rich and powerful to solve our problems. Progressives by and large don't seem to be interested in any such solution.

Progressives have Battered-Woman Syndrome when it comes to politicians. Cheated on and abused, over and over and over again, but so fearful of being abandoned by the cheater/abuser, that they never leave. Every four years the abuser comes crawling back, PROMISING to be better this time, and it never happens. And the victim, so afraid of a world without the cheater taking care of her, and always so hopeful things will be different THIS time, lets him back in. Hope and Change were a mirage all along, ladies. It's time to leave the cheaters and go it alone.