I think the difference is what we see in terms of "lead". I think the Framers, saw leadership in terms of affecting public opinion when it was needed and not leadership in spite of public opinion. There was another piece, which I couldn't find that cited the need of the government to go with public opinion even if "wrong". Public opinion itself would sway over time to correct itself. The exception being the Bill of Rights.
You say: "I have to disagree that we have representative government because of the fickle nature of public opinion". I do not think you quite grasp what I am getting at. Just as any larger deliberative body delegates work to committees, because there is neither time nor expertise for the body to act as a committee of the whole on all questions, so the People delegate deliberation on public questions to a representative legislature. It has less to do with fickleness, which is merely a symptom, than it has to do with the shallowness of opinion on most issues
I quite clearly understand your point. The shallowness of opinion is more of a modern day phenomena than it was at the time of the Framers. The populace was more knowledgable back then in politics than it is now. Technology is more complicated now then it was in 1790. But we are talking about why the government was established in 1790, not 2001.
I agree with you about Jefferson opinion. So clearly, between Jefferson, you and I; Jefferson must be wrong.
If it were the case that the bottom of the income curve were to pay so much more that it markedly altered their purchasing power, you might be onto something. I see no reason for that to be so, however.
I would likely point to the recent [the past year] numbers on negative savings rate. Between the Fed raising the interests in 1999-2000 and the negative savings might be complementing each other quite well in terms of the economic downturn.
The main thing is that taxes raise the costs on goods and services.
Which in turn leads to rising wages which is inflationary. Inflation is not an issue that seems to be a major one over the last n years. So you could argue that total tax revenue is not at a rate that has signifcant costs impacts nor did it appear to have an impact on employment rates. Further, lower or raising the higher marginal tax rates would have less impact than that at lower marginal [or base] rates. Since the accumulated wealth of the group at the top has increased at a more rapid rate than those at the lower end, the net income of the high end doesn't feed into the economy in as productive of a way. I have to speculate, that $100M in goods purchased has more positive impact on the economy than $100M of ticker nnnn held by Warren Buffet. Perhaps you might speculate the other way.
No magic number. Agreed. You would prefer to lower the marginal rate because it's more advisable to do so. Under the revenue neutral restriction the additional revenue has to come from somewhere, which is going to come from the group that is already at a negative savings rate. Since the accumulated wealth continues to increase at a more rapid rate at the high end, I don't see any motivation to flatten the curve.
As regards the consumer sovereignty issue, I do not think we are discussing mere culture differences.
I'm not sure how true that may be. First. Paris. There aren't very many hypermarkets in downtown DC, Boston, San Franciso, or Manhattan or London. You acknowledged earlier some question in that regard with respect to the suburbs of Paris....whether or not the suburbs of Paris had any hypermarkets was an open question. There are fewer hypermarkets here in the burbs or North Yorkshire, though they do exist. It hasn't been clear to me that the Brits actually want them. Even with the consumer advantages that they bring.
I was listening to a radio talk show some time ago, the subject being direct deposit of government pension checks vs. the current system of mail. Easier, quicker, reliable, lower cost, etc... My personal reaction was this is a no-brainer. Direct deposit is the way to go. Much to my surprise, one caller after another blasted away at the stupidity of such an idea. Direct deposit would negatively affect the culture of the United Kingdom. Collecting the pension check at the Post was a social event tied to the culture. I might personnally think "Bizarre!". But it's their country.
Back to standard of living. You're correct, the Brits that I've talked to on the subject admit that the standard of living is better in the US and they also believe that the quality of life in the UK is better. They acknowledge that they pay for it through higher taxes and prefer it that way.
the standards of climate control that I am used to in the States were not observed, and I actually saw a piece of a 13th century crucifix that had been glued on a canvas begin to come off, in the Louvre.
That's a shame. Fortuntely, I haven't seen that here. It does remind me of a somewhat humorous story though. <s> The Minster in York went through a refurbishment. They removed the stained glass [original from the Norman period] to repair/replace some of the broken pieces of glass and go through a general restoration process. The windows were sent to London. The particular restoration specialist upon replacing the broken pieces and cleaning the remaining ones, noticed that they didn't quite look the same. So he replaced all the original stained glass with modern glass; sent it back to York. The city of York was livid. They immediately went to London retrieved the original stained glass and refurbished the windows themselves. They vowed never to send anything to London for restoration.
Cheers,
jttmab |
