election 2012

[BluePriest]

First and foremost, What would be the fair share?

Ill keep quoting it until someone answers it.

[OldTrees]

Perhaps I am ignorant. What political incentive is strong enough to offset the systematic political advantage of bribing ones constituents? It fear the amount of debt will fluctuate but will not disappear in the long run.

Tell me more about "the systematic political advantage of bribing ones constituents." Consistently Republican states are poorer than consistently Democratic states. The red states on average also get more federal dollars per capita.

"Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In"

Red states were more likely to get a bigger cut of federal spending. Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. In contrast, 55 percent of the states that went to Obama received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16.

So why do they vote for Republicans? Obviously there is a lot more going on than wealthy people voting for Republicans and poor people voting for Democrats. Non-economic wedge issues are part of it. There is also propaganda, which can get people to vote against their economic interests. (See this article for examples.)

Let's start with the theory: When given a choice between candidates in their party, would a voter prefer the candidate that wanted to increase funding for their issues over one that did not want to increase funding? I think the answer is yes. This results in an incentive to promise to increase support for the party's issues. When given a choice between candidates in their party, would a voter prefer the candidate that succeed in increasing funding for their issues over one that did not succeed to increase funding? Again I think the answer is yes.

If this is true then we would suspect to see an increase in spending (after inflation)

http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_budget_over_time.html

Now it should be noted that this is not proof of the theory. It is merely failing to disprove which is soft Bayesian evidence.

PS: Why do you keep comparing the relative difference between the debt caused by the 2 parties when we are discussing a characteristic common to politics.

First and foremost, What would be the fair share?

Ill keep quoting it until someone answers it.

I'll start by excluding some answers
Obviously regressive taxation (wealthy pay a lower rate) and extremely progressive taxation (wealthy pay almost all of their wealth) are silly and to be avoided.

[Belthus]

Let's start with the theory: When given a choice between candidates in their party, would a voter prefer the candidate that wanted to increase funding for their issues over one that did not want to increase funding? I think the answer is yes. This results in an incentive to promise to increase support for the party's issues. When given a choice between candidates in their party, would a voter prefer the candidate that succeed in increasing funding for their issues over one that did not succeed to increase funding? Again I think the answer is yes.

If this is true then we would suspect to see an increase in spending (after inflation)

http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_budget_over_time.html

Now it should be noted that this is not proof of the theory. It is merely failing to disprove which is soft Bayesian evidence.

You're right, in that increasing debt can be explained in any number of ways. It's not evidence of the underlying causes, merely that debt is indeed increasing. That was never in contention. What you need to do is find a relationship between voters' characteristics and the promises made by the candidates they elect. Thus, on the basis of narrow fiscal self-interest, you would expect the poor to vote for candidates that promised them more benefits. Instead, what we see is that the voters in the poorest states elect candidates who promised to cut government spending (i.e., mostly Republicans). Thus, you have the conservatives in the linked NYT article who admit that they can't get by without government aid, but they want that aid cut. And then you have the liberals like Barbara Nelson, who is not dependent on government aid, but still feels that the government should help those who need it. Sometimes ideology can trump material self-interest.

PS: Why do you keep comparing the relative difference between the debt caused by the 2 parties when we are discussing a characteristic common to politics.

Because party politics explains observed reality much better than your "rational self-interest" theory.

[OldTrees]

Let's start with the theory: When given a choice between candidates in their party, would a voter prefer the candidate that wanted to increase funding for their issues over one that did not want to increase funding? I think the answer is yes. This results in an incentive to promise to increase support for the party's issues. When given a choice between candidates in their party, would a voter prefer the candidate that succeed in increasing funding for their issues over one that did not succeed to increase funding? Again I think the answer is yes.

If this is true then we would suspect to see an increase in spending (after inflation)

http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_budget_over_time.html

Now it should be noted that this is not proof of the theory. It is merely failing to disprove which is soft Bayesian evidence.

You're right, in that increasing debt can be explained in any number of ways. It's not evidence of the underlying causes, merely that debt is indeed increasing. That was never in contention. What you need to do is find a relationship between voters' characteristics and the promises made by the candidates they elect. Thus, on the basis of narrow fiscal self-interest, you would expect the poor to vote for candidates that promised them more benefits. Instead, what we see is that the voters in the poorest states elect candidates who promised to cut government spending (i.e., mostly Republicans). Thus, you have the conservatives in the linked NYT article who admit that they can't get by without government aid, but they want that aid cut. And then you have the liberals like Barbara Nelson, who is not dependent on government aid, but still feels that the government should help those who need it. Sometimes ideology can trump material self-interest.

PS: Why do you keep comparing the relative difference between the debt caused by the 2 parties when we are discussing a characteristic common to politics.

Because party politics explains observed reality much better than your "rational self-interest" theory.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your theory. It appears your explanation for the steady increase in debt is that liberals want to increase spending and conservatives want to decrease spending. I do not see how that is an explanation for the increase unless you also are assuming that Democrats are more proficient at increasing spending than Republicans are at reducing it.

My theory explains why it is harder for politicians to reduce spending than it is for them to increase spending.

[Belthus]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your theory. It appears your explanation for the steady increase in debt is that liberals want to increase spending and conservatives want to decrease spending. I do not see how that is an explanation for the increase unless you also are assuming that Democrats are more proficient at increasing spending than Republicans are at reducing it.

My theory explains why it is harder for politicians to reduce spending than it is for them to increase spending.

I don't deny that self-interest can play a role. I say is that it isn't the only thing. Party identification and ideology are other factors. The Republican Party has been very successful in promoting an ideology that denigrates the usefulness of many government activities. But then there is the obvious fact that if they abolished Social Security and Medicare (as many Republican politicians want to do, given that they opposed them from Day 1), voters would be hit hard; heads would roll, maybe even literally. So they must come up with schemes that undermine SS and Medicare in less obvious ways, such as privatization.

The Democrats are split. Progressives defend programs that help the poor and middle class. Centrists reflect more corporate concerns, such as deficit/debt. That's why we saw a centrist Democrat, Bill Clinton, balance the budget.

The Republicans have shown very different behavior, depending on who occupies the White House. When a Republican is President, Republicans say deficits don't matter, nothing wrong with stimulus, etc. When a Democrat is President, that's when they rant about deficits and the need to cut spending. This pattern won't necessarily continue forever. For example, with the election of more Tea Party people, who are more ideologically inspired and less politically astute, the Republicans may indeed become more consistent in their efforts to cut spending.

Also, you have to take into account that most voters do not devote a lot of time to following politics. They aren't reading papers put out by think tanks. They mostly go by party identification. They agree with one party's rhetoric more than the other, as a package deal, and then vote accordingly. Or sometimes a policy affects them directly, and they vote to throw the bums out (or support them, but anger is more motivating than satisfaction).

[russianspy1234]

First and foremost, What would be the fair share?

Ill keep quoting it until someone answers it.

seeing as how many not only dont pay anything right now, but get huge tax returns, as well as huge subsidies, $0 would be an improvement.   but ok, heres one for you.  they have 90% of the wealth, they should be paying 90% of the taxes.

[neuroleptics]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your theory. It appears your explanation for the steady increase in debt is that liberals want to increase spending and conservatives want to decrease spending. I do not see how that is an explanation for the increase unless you also are assuming that Democrats are more proficient at increasing spending than Republicans are at reducing it.

My theory explains why it is harder for politicians to reduce spending than it is for them to increase spending.

I don't deny that self-interest can play a role. I say is that it isn't the only thing. Party identification and ideology are other factors. The Republican Party has been very successful in promoting an ideology that denigrates the usefulness of many government activities. But then there is the obvious fact that if they abolished Social Security and Medicare (as many Republican politicians want to do, given that they opposed them from Day 1), voters would be hit hard; heads would roll, maybe even literally. So they must come up with schemes that undermine SS and Medicare in less obvious ways, such as privatization.

The Democrats are split. Progressives defend programs that help the poor and middle class. Centrists reflect more corporate concerns, such as deficit/debt. That's why we saw a centrist Democrat, Bill Clinton, balance the budget.

The Republicans have shown very different behavior, depending on who occupies the White House. When a Republican is President, Republicans say deficits don't matter, nothing wrong with stimulus, etc. When a Democrat is President, that's when they rant about deficits and the need to cut spending. This pattern won't necessarily continue forever. For example, with the election of more Tea Party people, who are more ideologically inspired and less politically astute, the Republicans may indeed become more consistent in their efforts to cut spending.

Also, you have to take into account that most voters do not devote a lot of time to following politics. They aren't reading papers put out by think tanks. They mostly go by party identification. They agree with one party's rhetoric more than the other, as a package deal, and then vote accordingly. Or sometimes a policy affects them directly, and they vote to throw the bums out (or support them, but anger is more motivating than satisfaction).

Ah yes, my country too.....similar cases, 2 parties. Even did something like a dialogue, what people can see is they dig their own graves, criticizing one another, which unknowingly let the cat out of the bag, things that are meant to be known to politicians have only become clear to the people. Through their speech, we know the emphasis of each party. Both aim at at different aspect which i snormal for politicians. However, i'm fet-up with their attitudes. Near-election, we enjoy all sorts of benefits, otherwise, requests ignored.

[BluePriest]

@ Everyone but russian spy

First and foremost, What would be the fair share?

@Russian spy

First and foremost, What would be the fair share?

Ill keep quoting it until someone answers it.

seeing as how many not only dont pay anything right now, but get huge tax returns, as well as huge subsidies, $0 would be an improvement.   but ok, heres one for you.  they have 90% of the wealth, they should be paying 90% of the taxes.

So in other words, everyone should make the same net income is what you are suggesting. Sp, why should i ever do anything that makes any money?

[russianspy1234]

@ Everyone but russian spy

First and foremost, What would be the fair share?

@Russian spy

First and foremost, What would be the fair share?

Ill keep quoting it until someone answers it.

seeing as how many not only dont pay anything right now, but get huge tax returns, as well as huge subsidies, $0 would be an improvement.   but ok, heres one for you.  they have 90% of the wealth, they should be paying 90% of the taxes.

So in other words, everyone should make the same net income is what you are suggesting. Sp, why should i ever do anything that makes any money?

no, that isnt what i am saying.  lets say the country needs a certain amount of money to run.  thats a bit of an oversimplification, what whatever, but it will work.  a person should contribute to that amount based on how much they have.  for a completely over simplified case, lets say we have a population of two, where one person has $100 and the other has $900.  the "country" these two people live in needs to collect $100 per year to function.  so, the person who has $100 (10% of the wealth) contributes 10% of the needed $100 ($10) and the person who has $900 (90%) contributes $90.  this collected $100 will now go to helping the country, which for the purposes of the post i will simplify to equal redistribution.  as such, the person that started withh $100 will now have $140 and the person that started with $900 now has $860, still far more than the former.

[OldTrees]

@ Everyone but russian spy

First and foremost, What would be the fair share?

@Russian spy

First and foremost, What would be the fair share?

Ill keep quoting it until someone answers it.

seeing as how many not only dont pay anything right now, but get huge tax returns, as well as huge subsidies, $0 would be an improvement.   but ok, heres one for you.  they have 90% of the wealth, they should be paying 90% of the taxes.

So in other words, everyone should make the same net income is what you are suggesting. Sp, why should i ever do anything that makes any money?

no, that isnt what i am saying.  lets say the country needs a certain amount of money to run.  thats a bit of an oversimplification, what whatever, but it will work.  a person should contribute to that amount based on how much they have.  for a completely over simplified case, lets say we have a population of two, where one person has $100 and the other has $900.  the "country" these two people live in needs to collect $100 per year to function.  so, the person who has $100 (10% of the wealth) contributes 10% of the needed $100 ($10) and the person who has $900 (90%) contributes $90.  this collected $100 will now go to helping the country, which for the purposes of the post i will simplify to equal redistribution.  as such, the person that started withh $100 will now have $140 and the person that started with $900 now has $860, still far more than the former.

So both people paid a 10% (Total taxes/Total wealth) wealth tax?

[BluePriest]

no, that isnt what i am saying.  lets say the country needs a certain amount of money to run.  thats a bit of an oversimplification, what whatever, but it will work.  a person should contribute to that amount based on how much they have.  for a completely over simplified case, lets say we have a population of two, where one person has $100 and the other has $900.  the "country" these two people live in needs to collect $100 per year to function.  so, the person who has $100 (10% of the wealth) contributes 10% of the needed $100 ($10) and the person who has $900 (90%) contributes $90.  this collected $100 will now go to helping the country, which for the purposes of the post i will simplify to equal redistribution.  as such, the person that started withh $100 will now have $140 and the person that started with $900 now has $860, still far more than the former.

Im a little confused. Person 1 has 100$, so he pays 10% which is 10 dollars.
Person 2 has 90% so out of his 900$ he needs to pay 810$ which is 90%. Perhaps im reading it wrong, but thats what it looked like the post was saying.
Wait, after looking again, I think im sort of understanding. Its a % of the debt that they are responsible for, not a % of their income that they are paying.
So if you won 90% of the income you are responisible for 90% of the debt, is that correct?

[russianspy1234]

no, that isnt what i am saying.  lets say the country needs a certain amount of money to run.  thats a bit of an oversimplification, what whatever, but it will work.  a person should contribute to that amount based on how much they have.  for a completely over simplified case, lets say we have a population of two, where one person has $100 and the other has $900.  the "country" these two people live in needs to collect $100 per year to function.  so, the person who has $100 (10% of the wealth) contributes 10% of the needed $100 ($10) and the person who has $900 (90%) contributes $90.  this collected $100 will now go to helping the country, which for the purposes of the post i will simplify to equal redistribution.  as such, the person that started withh $100 will now have $140 and the person that started with $900 now has $860, still far more than the former.

Im a little confused. Person 1 has 100$, so he pays 10% which is 10 dollars.
Person 2 has 90% so out of his 900$ he needs to pay 810$ which is 90%. Perhaps im reading it wrong, but thats what it looked like the post was saying.
Wait, after looking again, I think im sort of understanding. Its a % of the debt that they are responsible for, not a % of their income that they are paying.
So if you won 90% of the income you are responisible for 90% of the debt, is that correct?

essentially, i was going for 90% (and 10% respectively) of the operating expense (which i suppose should include payment towards the debt) but same basic principle.

So both people paid a 10% (Total taxes/Total wealth) wealth tax?

well a tax system based on total wealth would have various issues, mostly cries of "why are you punishing me for saving"  so whatever tax system we have should be based on income, my suggestion was more of a metric to judge the system by, and the system we have is currently very very far away from that.