Unless you can short-circuit that system by convincing the lower tax brackets that their success hinges on minimizing the taxation of the top-bracket.
Then the whole thing just sort of goes to hell.
Then the whole thing just sort of goes to hell.
Also, the viewpoint you advocate is extremely patronizing. It assumes that a large swathe of voters are just rubes who have been taken in by parlor tricks and sleight of hand. Have you considered the possibility that, instead, they have taken the earnest position that the point of democracy is not to use the votes of the many to take from the few, but rather to set up a system that is reasonably fair to all?
My guess is that once you factor-in payroll taxes & regressive consumption taxes, the poor contribute a larger % of their income than do the rich.
> ...the viewpoint you advocate is extremely patronizing.
W/ all due respect, spare me the crocodile tears. Using economic chicanery to persuade huge swathes of voters is a storied tradition in electoral politics (as is accusing those who would call it chicanery of having 'no respect for the common man,' or whatever).
> ...is not to use the votes of the many to take from the few, but rather to set up a system that is reasonably fair to all?
I'd love for democracy to take from the many and give to the few, but for _some MYSTERIOUS reason_, the many don't appear to have much to spare these days.
So, until the Gini coefficient starts to tick-back towards this "reasonably fair" system you mention, I'll likely stick to my rube-like habit of suspiciously asking '_cui bono_?'