Glenn
Reynolds goes right to the Willie Sutton explanation, too:
The truth is, in our redistributionist system politicians make their careers mostly by taking money from one group of citizens that won't vote for them and giving it to another that will. If they run short of money from traditional sources, they'll look for new revenue wherever they can find it. And if that's the homes and savings of the middle class, then that's what they'll target.
For the moment, Americans are safe. With both houses of Congress controlled by the GOP, Obama's proposals are DOA. But over the long term, the appetite for government spending is effectively endless, while the sources of revenue are limited. Keep that in mind as you think about where to invest your money ... and your votes.
9 comments:
Reynolds also suggests at InstaPundit that maybe the Republicans should go along with these taxes. Credit for bipartisanship, and it puts a lot more Americans into the camp of people negatively affected by Federal spending habits.
The "immiseration" strategy. I expect to see it start working this year as the Obamacare employer mandate kicks in.
The truth is, in our redistributionist system politicians make their careers mostly by taking money from one group of citizens that won't vote for them and giving it to another that will.
That observation would seem to conflict with his oft-expressed theme that the Democrats are really the party of wealthy elites and conservatives are more middle class :p
If wealthy Dems were actually opposed to raising taxes, our job would be a lot easier.
Very true. The trick is to take the money from people whose vote won't be affected--because they're true-blue supporters or true-red opponents--and give it to the people whose vote is for sale.
...conflict with his oft-expressed theme that the Democrats are really the party of wealthy elites...
Whether there's a conflict depends on whether you and he mean the same thing by "wealthy elites." If you mean Silicone Valley and Seattle technology firms, he's right. If you mean professors of the academy, he's right. If you mean the very top tenths of the top one percent -- the Davos crowd -- he's certainly right.
If you mean "anyone making over $250,000 a year," then Democrats are not the party of 'wealthy elites.' That's plain enough from the poll numbers. But if that isn't also what he means by the term -- if he means one of the above categories -- then there's no conflict with the position.
In 2012 there was only a 6% gap between R and D for people making over 150K (30 D, 36 R) according to one Pew study.
Here's another, where in the top income quintile, there's only a 2% gap between D and R (you'll have to scroll way down to the income section):
http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/
It doesn't really appear to me that there's a terribly clear cut relationship between income and voting against wealth redistribution.
Nationally, the % of households making over 250K is....
*drum roll*
about 3%. Most voters think it's more like 15%! And the only states who actually have anything like over 15% making over 250K are solidly blue:
there are only a few states where a guess of 17% comes close to being right—meaning that 17% is only about twice the actual number. These states are Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia
Link:https://today.yougov.com/news/2010/10/29/know-anybody-making-250000/
Maryland is the nation's wealthiest state. When you look at the top 10 wealthy states, they're almost uniformly blue:
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/09/18/americas-richest-and-poorest-states-2/2/
So I don't really understand the assertion that Democrats take money away from people who won't vote for them. The wealthiest states pretty reliably vote for these policies.
Right, that's true: Democrats also take a lot of money from people who will vote for him.
He's not using the same language in these two assertions, so it could be he's not talking about "wealthy elites" here (however he means the term). Obamacare is a good example of a big, broad tax on the upper parts of the middle class and up, to distribute downward. At that point you're talking about the disproportionately Republican part of the electorate, excepting the very most wealthy parts of it (for whom, I suppose, the taxes aren't a big enough problem in terms of affecting their lifestyle to be a motivating factor).
Right, that's true: Democrats also take a lot of money from people who will vote for him.
That's really all I was trying to say - that a lot of wealthy folks are fine with wealth redistribution. Which makes a statement about Dems taking money away from people who won't vote for them (and giving it to those who will) more than a bit suspect :p
The line struck me as facile - the kind of oversimplification that people like because it's truthy, even if not really true. It neatly explains away certain things while complete ignoring the fact that a lot of wealthy folks are fine with redistribution.
I know a lot of them - they're my neighbors here in Maryland.
Here's what always confuses me. Wealthy Democrats need to vote to require themselves to send money to the government to redistribute? Looks like they could do that on their own, if they can find a checkbook, a pen, and the address of the U.S. Treasury. What their vote accomplishes on top of this is to force all those other bad rich people to do the same--as if the good rich people weren't willing to give unless others had to go along?
If it's about generosity, who needs the taxman? It looks to me like it's about force.
Post a Comment