One of the major criticisms of the U.S. government seems to be something along the lines of accusing them all to be white, corporate, greedy fuckheads whose motivations are far removed from what the average American wants. You know, Reagan's trickle-down economics just benefiting the rich, bush's tax cuts (hell, just Cheney in general), ad nauseam.

Anyway, it occurred to me that maybe America should vote by economic divisions, then. Instead of dividing each state into classless districts, allocate a certain amount of representatives to be elected by the lower class, the middle class, and the upper class, based on distinctions by yearly income. Thus, the argument that middle class representative(s) are being rich, white assholes detached from "real america" would be negated, because the senator/representative would only be trying to appeal to the middle class base, not the rich fat cats. The middle class would be ensured to have a representative, right?

I have no idea if this thought is viable or makes any sense at all. Tear it to shreds, totse.

Politicians already pander to the middle and lower classes during their campaigns, they just don't keep their promises or end up making things worse with klepocratic socialism, so there'd be no difference.

It's not white people who control the US government anyway:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0aJ9cODcbR2po/610x.jpghttp://s.wsj.net/media/mccain_aipac_art_400_20080602122641.jpg

Politicians already pander to the middle and lower classes during their campaigns, they just don't keep their promises or end up making things worse with klepocratic socialism, so there'd be no difference.

It's not white people who control the US government anyway:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0aJ9cODcbR2po/610x.jpghttp://s.wsj.net/media/mccain_aipac_art_400_20080602122641.jpg

But by actually making those officials elected only by one particular class, wouldn't that make them more honest in terms of their goals? The point of dividing the vote into classes would be to remove a lot of a politician's conflict of interest in terms of his base. That way, he or she would have a more cohesive group to pander to, and thus actually represent some people and keep their promises?

And I completely forgot about Barack when I wrote that. Shit.

The super-wealthy, by nature of their small population, do not hold a significant number of votes. The middle and lower classes already cast almost every vote.

The very nature of being a politician would still remove them from "Real America"

Yeah, that worked well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_States-General#The_Estates-General_of_1789)

We already have this in a way, rich people tend to live near other rich people and poor people tend to live near poor people. So the congressman from a ghetto is a representative of the poor while the congressman from Beverly Hills is going to be the champion for the rich.

Also in American politics it's very unpopular to be rich. So the representatives of the rich would be hated very much.

We already have this in a way, rich people tend to live near other rich people and poor people tend to live near poor people. So the congressman from a ghetto is a representative of the poor while the congressman from Beverly Hills is going to be the champion for the rich.

Also in American politics it's very unpopular to be rich. So the representatives of the rich would be hated very much.

As long as there's no gerrymandering of our districts it should work similar to this. Everyone voting in a pattern which reflects their interests.

Historians will look back on this Republican party that has been in charge the majority of the time since Reagan, and ask themselves this:

How did the Republicans actually convince the lower and middle classes to vote against their own best interests, and vote for them?

This will be a test question in hundreds of gradaute Gov and Econ courses, a hundred years from now.

-----

The problem with our democracy is the tremendous ignorance of the voting public.

Historians will look back on this Republican party that has been in charge the majority of the time since Reagan, and ask themselves this:

How did the Republicans actually convince the lower and middle classes to vote against their own best interests, and vote for them?

This will be a test question in hundreds of gradaute Gov and Econ courses, a hundred years from now.

-----

The problem with our democracy is the tremendous ignorance of the voting public.

We could argue for days about the benefit of trickle down and laizzes-faire economics to the lower and middle classes. But the answer to your question is very simple, working people can't identify with the latte-sipping liberal persona that is associated with today's democratic party. The democratic party may very well be the party of the working class when it comes to policy, but they portray a highfalutin image. They are seen as the type of person that an American worker hates the most.

It is also due to the democratic stance on social issues. Working people tend to agree with the republicans on abortion, the death penalty, crime etc. That together with the image of today's stereotypical democrat means that the working class will usually vote republican, even if it may be detrimental to their own economic interests.

We could argue for days about the benefit of trickle down and laizzes-faire economics to the lower and middle classes.

Haha.
So the government incurs debt on the behalf of all Americans in order to help those already rich to glut themselves.
It isn't arguable.
Wealth 'trickles' up.

If you give a tax cut to lower/middle income earners, their spending benefits those who own businesses.
Both benefit. Whether it's worth it to do this financed through a deficit is an empirical question.


If you give a tax cut to higher income earners, they just put it back into their investments.
As a proportion of income the wealthy spend less on consumption, bill gates doesn't go through billions of dollars in a year.
There's only the most minutely marginal benefit to everyone else, and if the tax cuts are financed through deficit spending incurred on the behalf of all citizens it's simply an amazing living example of 'how to loot a nation'.

Haha.
So the government incurs debt on the behalf of all Americans in order to help those already rich to glut themselves.
It isn't arguable.
Wealth 'trickles' up.

If you give a tax cut to lower/middle income earners, their spending benefits those who own businesses.
Both benefit. Whether it's worth it to do this financed through a deficit is an empirical question.


If you give a tax cut to higher income earners, they just put it back into their investments.
As a proportion of income the wealthy spend less on consumption, bill gates doesn't go through billions of dollars in a year.
There's only the most minutely marginal benefit to everyone else, and if the tax cuts are financed through deficit spending incurred on the behalf of all citizens it's simply an amazing living example of 'how to loot a nation'.

But when you raise taxes on big business, it hurts their workers and their ability to create jobs. And guess what, except for the small percentage of people who own businesses or are self-employed, every worker has to work for a business. So when a small mom and pop shop actually becomes successful, instead of helping them to grow and create more jobs, we hinder their ability to do these things by raising their taxes. Also, I would propose lowering taxes on everyone, not just the wealthy.

And your point about Bill Gates is 100% true. But the highest tax bracket is $250,000, and for a family making $275,000, it is certainly not true. If they were to recieve a tax cut they would spend more, and they'd also be a lot more likely to spend it at small businesses. And even if they didn't spend it and just invested it, that is still beneficial to the economy.

But when you raise taxes on big business, it hurts their workers and their ability to create jobs. And guess what, except for the small percentage of people who own businesses or are self-employed, every worker has to work for a business. So when a small mom and pop shop actually becomes successful, instead of helping them to grow and create more jobs, we hinder their ability to do these things by raising their taxes. Also, I would propose lowering taxes on everyone, not just the wealthy.

And your point about Bill Gates is 100% true. But the highest tax bracket is $250,000, and for a family making $275,000, it is certainly not true. If they were to recieve a tax cut they would spend more, and they'd also be a lot more likely to spend it at small businesses. And even if they didn't spend it and just invested it, that is still beneficial to the economy.

But Reaganomics wasn't just taxes on big business, it was also upper bracket income taxes - same for the bush tax cuts. There is a point as far as corporate taxes are concerned (provided it's occurring in competitive industries rather then oligopolies.) There is not however any point as far as taxes on upper income earners are concerned.
Whether it'd be better to cut lower/middle income taxes or corporate taxes is once again probably an empirical question.
EDIT:also I never said anything about raising taxes on big business anyway.
Straw man = fail

I'm not super familiar with the American tax system - but I was under the impression that you... well ya know... need to be incorporated to pay corporate taxes. (in regard to the mom and pop shop).

A family making 275,000 is still generally going to spend less of their income on consumption goods then one making 60,000 - the latter family is probably living hand to mouth and would be spending almost all of their income on consumption.
If the goal of the policy is to 'stimulate the economy and create jobs' clearly the latter family is a better candidate for tax cuts.

But Reaganomics wasn't just taxes on big business, it was also upper bracket income taxes - same for the bush tax cuts. There is a point as far as corporate taxes are concerned (provided it's occurring in competitive industries rather then oligopolies.) There is not however any point as far as taxes on upper income earners are concerned.
Whether it'd be better to cut lower/middle income taxes or corporate taxes is once again probably an empirical question.
EDIT:also I never said anything about raising taxes on big business anyway.
Straw man = fail

I'm not super familiar with the American tax system - but I was under the impression that you... well ya know... need to be incorporated to pay corporate taxes. (in regard to the mom and pop shop).

A family making 275,000 is still generally going to spend less of their income on consumption goods then one making 60,000 - the latter family is probably living hand to mouth and would be spending almost all of their income on consumption.
If the goal of the policy is to 'stimulate the economy and create jobs' clearly the latter family is a better candidate for tax cuts.

But I already explained why it can be beneficial to lower taxes on the highest bracket as well as on business. And i know i made a mistake in grouping those two points together, but democrats want to raise both the taxes that mom and pop shops would pay and the corporate tax, so your point is moot. Plus the attempt at conservative economics in recent years hasn't been done perfectly and has been distorted so much. (Bush is NOT a fiscal conservative no matter what you say, he doesn't speak for us)

And the family making $275,000 is going to spend more money in total than a family making $60,000, percentage doesn't matter. And wealthier families are more likely to invest, which can have a stimulating effect on the economy.

And so many people get the idea that fiscal conservatives don't want to give the middle and lower classes a tax break, we do! We just want to lower taxes on everyone rather than just the lower and middle classes. All throughout the campaign Obama wouldn't shut up about how he wants to cut taxes on 95% of Americans, but I believe that 100% of Americans deserve a tax cut. When EVERYONE spends more, the economy is stimulated and American infrastructure flourishes.

speak for us)
And the family making $275,000 is going to spend more money in total than a family making $60,000, percentage doesn't matter.
So what? we're talking about tax cuts.
We're talking about giving them more money.
The proportion they spend matters if we have a given policy outcome in mind.


And wealthier families are more likely to invest

Yes they are and that's the point.


And so many people get the idea that fiscal conservatives don't want to give the middle and lower classes a tax break, we do! We just want to lower taxes on everyone rather than just the lower and middle classes. All throughout the campaign Obama wouldn't shut up about how he wants to cut taxes on 95% of Americans, but I believe that 100% of Americans deserve a tax cut. When EVERYONE spends more, the economy is stimulated and American infrastructure flourishes.

But the whole point is that higher income earners will spend less as a proportion of any given tax cut on consumption spending. I'm not saying that investment isn't important, but productive investment comes about because there are profitable investment opportunities.

Rather then be at all theoretical, just think about it:
What is there to invest in right now?
There's no one to buy new /more goods and services, companies are going under. What exactly would you invest in? it isn't rational to invest in producing anything unless you can reasonably expect that there's going to be someone to buy it.

But the whole point is that higher income earners will spend less as a proportion of any given tax cut on consumption spending. I'm not saying that investment isn't important, but productive investment comes about because there are profitable investment opportunities.

Rather then be at all theoretical, just think about it:
What is there to invest in right now?
There's no one to buy new /more goods and services, companies are going under. What exactly would you invest in? it isn't rational to invest in producing anything unless you can reasonably expect that there's going to be someone to buy it.

But when everyone receives a tax cut we assume the spending as a whole will increase. If spending goes up, the amount profitable investment opportunities increases, and then investment goes up again. True right now there may not be many investment opportunities, but the way to increase those is to increase spending. And spending will be increased a lot
more when 100% of Americans receive a tax break than when only a portion of Americans receive a tax break.