>You and Doug talking about taxing those higher than the median income to
>subsidize the social programs of the lower median just does not have much
>political appeal to your average UPS driver or other $20 per hour worker
>just barely beating the median wage. Especially since they don't trust
>were the programs are going, it ends up being a political loser.
Nathan, I'm not talking about programs to benefit just the below-median crowd. I'm talking about basic social democratic programs - universal health coverage, free tuition, etc. And to fund those you can't just tax the top 1% of the population.
Talking about political losers, countries with "targeted" programs, like the U.S. (and your buddy Bill loves targeted programs) have higher poverty rates and cheesier benefit packages than those with universal programs. Targeted programs are also politically less secure than universal ones, as the transformation of AFDC into TANF shows. Also, note that most "tax rebellions" have happened in the liberal countries, with their targeted programs; they haven't really happened in the social democracies with universal programs. So your brand of realpolitik ends up being a worse long-term arrangement than something more ambitious might be. As they said in '68, be reasonable, demand the impossible.
Doug