
The Oppression of the Supermajority - iron0013
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/opinion/oppression-majority.html
======
citilife
> About 75 percent of Americans favor higher taxes for the ultrawealthy.

I for one, am glad the majority can't just decide what the taxes are. It's a
balance in society, but the general rule I personally have is live and let
live. I don't want hand outs, I don't want to take peoples money at the point
of a gun unnecessarily. I also regularly give to my community, by choice. I
think it's important to respect one another and increasing taxes on a neighbor
because they make more, doesn't seem fair. Maybe they worked harder, maybe
they were born in a better position in life. It doesn't matter, by the time
your 30, it's mostly what you did with your life that got you there. Let's not
be petty and try to force our neighbors to pay us.

I feel something like 20% of your income a year, for everyone making over
livable wage seems fair (livable wage meaning, average cost of food + minor
shelter for the average in said country). Then just close all loop holes. As
in, you have to pay 20%, no complaints after you make $15k or something (in
the U.S.). That'd probably >2x tax revenue and be "fair" to everyone.

~~~
freedomben
For people downvoting this, consider that it can (and should IMHO) be possible
for citilife to live in a system where this is the case, and for you to live
in a system that meets your needs as well. I don't understand why so many
people are convinced that a giant state imposing one-size-fits-all on a hugely
diverse population is a good idea. The United States particularly was founded
on the idea of a tiny federal government where most things were decided by
States, so people could freely move to the government that best fit their
needs.

Some further reading:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy)

~~~
anoncake
If it's possible to live in a system where the rich aren't properly taxed, the
rich will choose to live in that system. Thus no one can live in a system that
does tax them fairly, because the system that tries to does not have any rich
people to tax.

~~~
arcticbull
I respectfully disagree. People aren't simply motivated by taxes -- there's
other things like friendship, society, sense of purpose, opportunities, their
place of business and the country they live in as a whole. Further, perceived
value of money operates on a logarithmic scale so for someone with $2M in
income $1M is a lot of money to take, but for someone with $100M $1M just
isn't. I don't think you've factored in a whole lot of aspects. For instance,
the top tax rate in Denmark is 62.5% and yet they have wealthy people -- why
aren't they all in Hong Kong or Singapore or Malta or Gibraltar?

The hyperbolic example is "the only place that won't tax me is this deserted
island, so peace boys, it's just me and my money over here." Feels a bit
unlikely doesn't it?

There are places with truly nominal taxes already (Saudi Arabia for one), so
why aren't all our rich people ... there in one big pile already?

~~~
anoncake
You're right, I simplified way too much. Of course taxes are not the only
factor in play. Indeed, I hope that I overestimated their inpact. Also I
didn't expect the top taxes in Denmark to be that high.

------
slacka
> 83 percent favor strong net neutrality rules for broadband, and more than 60
> percent want stronger privacy laws.

No one in my largest circle is against net neutrality. Yet here we are. By
fixing the number of Reps. at 435, we have ended up in a situation where you
can win the Electoral College with 23% of the population.[1] The Wyoming Rule
would fix the underrepresentation in populated states and the electoral
issue.[2]

[1] [https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-
pres...](https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-
with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule)

~~~
jessaustin
Constitutional amendments are ratified using largely the same rules that favor
small states. Small states are not about to ratify amendments that would
reduce their own political power.

Changing federal statutes is easier than changing the Constitution, so if
there were a way to get to e.g. a 1000-member House that might make a
difference. Someone would have to be asleep at the switch for that to pass,
however. Besides, there are only seven single-representative states, some of
which would get two representatives if the size of the House were doubled, so
this would have a limited electoral effect anyway. Californians who really
worry about this should be talking about secession.

~~~
gumby
The number of representatives is simply set by law so congress could, say,
triple the number of representatives. The current size was set 90 years ago
when there were fewer states and the dynamics were different.

~~~
jessaustin
This was addressed in the second paragraph. If representatives were tripled,
Wyoming and Vermont would have lower representation percentages, but Montana
would just have their number of representatives tripled to three (actually
Montana is close to the cutoff so going by percentages they would probably get
four representatives) so would face no real change. The large states like
California and Texas might see representation percentages rise or dip
slightly, but this would have essentially no effect legislatively or
electorally. 55/535 is fairly close in value to 159/1405.

As a matter of arithmetic, this sort of change would not meaningfully change
political decision-making in USA.

~~~
jessaustin
A friend pointed out that large states in general would benefit relative to
small states in general, even if by a small amount. However, I don't see
California and Texas voting together any more than I see Wyoming and Vermont
voting together, so that too seems like a wash.

------
hirundo
> The framers of the Constitution, having experienced a popular revolution,
> were hardly recommending that the will of the majority be ignored. The
> Constitution sought to fine-tune majoritarian democracy, not to silence it.

Specifically they "fine-tuned" it by including a supermajority requirement for
changing the Constitution. The argument that this constitutes oppression is
therefore clearly an argument against the Constitution. OK, but own it.
Instead the author is trying to have it both ways, paying obeisance to a
sacred cow while insisting that we slaughter it.

------
kansface
Perhaps 75% of Americans do believe the wealthy should pay more taxes (why
not!), but what if we instead asked exactly how much the highest marginal rate
should be? I'd guess 30-50% of answers would actually be below the current
rate (39.6%). What percentage of respondents would want to lower the current
rate after learning the current value? What percentage of Americans actually
understand marginal tax rates in the first place? As for meaningful policy,
high income earners have little in the way of income and alot in the way of
capital gains. Should we increase short/long term capital gains taxes or
impose marginal taxes? Public policy needs an actual number and that also
happens to be the sticking point!

People are upset about income inequality (or just mad at large) so they say we
should increase taxes on the rich. I think these sorts of surveys should be
taken like any other sort of user feedback; listen to the problems and discard
the proposed solutions. We have actually run the experiment of tax policy by
popular vote in California, and not unexpectedly, its a disaster! Lets tell
our goals to the economists and let them figure out the rest.

see also: [https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-
and...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-
reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/)

------
qubex
I had expected this would be a retelling of how Kurt Gödel (of Incompleteness
Theorems fame) claimed to have found a logical flaw in the U.S. Constitution
and was dissuaded from brining it up at his naturalisation interview. I was
pleasantly surprised it was nothing of the sort.

[https://jeffreykegler.github.io/personal/morgenstern.html](https://jeffreykegler.github.io/personal/morgenstern.html)

------
brandonmenc
> more than 60 percent want stronger privacy laws

TIL that 60% is considered a "supermajority."

~~~
mikeash
60% is a common supermajority threshold. For example, it’s what the Senate
requires to invoke cloture.

------
squozzer
>About 75 percent of Americans favor higher taxes for the ultrawealthy.

I would ask that if 75% of the population favor something, how many election
cycles should it take to install a Congress willing to carry it out? Even in
single-party districts, opponents can run in primaries.

So Mr. Wu's analysis has holes -- one I would mention is the role of political
marketing -- by which I mean, sure the incumbent is in the lobbyists' back
pockets, but they did ${something_heroic_way_back_when} and besides, the
challenger did/said ${something_that_sounds_bad}.

And I think too that people believe too strongly in the "write a letter to
your rep" fairy tale, which when balanced against the lobbyist USD, is found
wanting.

Maybe incumbency is too strong an advantage.

>And when running for office, Mr. Trump did gesture at his support for popular
policies, promising to control drug prices, build public infrastructure and
change trade policy to favor dispossessed workers. Yet since coming to power,
Mr. Trump, with a few exceptions, like trade, has seemed to lose interest in
what the broader public wants, focusing instead on polarizing issues like
immigration...

Mr. Wu seems to be wrong here. In the past weeks, I have heard news about
Congress wanting to get a handle on drug prices; trade policy seems to be
creeping slowly in the direction Mr. Wu would like; and around the time the
last Congress was swearing itself in, Trump had mentioned something about
infrastructure.

If Congress can find the time to pass an infrastructure bill, that is.

[https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-
problem.asp...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx)

