Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

I think your analysis is close to home, but with one huge caveat: it really only applies solidly to the white working class, which is these days only about half the working class (though it depends on how you define "working class"). The black and hispanic working classes, which are a large portion of the country, are strongly organized within the Democratic Party, though the hispanic working class is a bit more split.

There are plenty of disconnects between them and the white middle-class wing of the party as well, especially around issues like gay marriage and separation of church/state, which tend to be seen as "rich white liberal" issues. But I think it's a bit more complicated than simple conservatism, and it's often more than balanced by significant left-leaning sentiment on economic issues. There is, for example, huge support for social safety nets, welfare systems, socialized healthcare, etc., among the non-white working class. If you put single-payer healthcare to a referendum in black working-class neighborhoods in Atlanta or Brooklyn, it'd pass by lopsided majorities. So I think the left wing of the Democratic party is fairly well in tune with that portion of their concerns, but most of the party is arguably out of touch by not being left enough on economics, promoting more of a middle-class, centrist liberalism that's roughly ok with the economic status quo and not very interested in major social-justice initiatives.

There's also no real cultural understanding between the GOP and this segment of the working class: a good showing for a Republican is 10% of the black vote, almost all of it coming from the wealthier portion (i.e., they only connect on class issues). But I agree that the Democratic connection is not great, either, especially if you take the national party; they're often seen as economic-centrist social liberals, less bad than the GOP but not really willing to fight for the working class on economics (or at least not succeeding at doing so).

The reason I put fairer in quotes is because it is a term that can be argued over.

Yes two bands, with the focus on making it attractive for people to earn money and pay tax, ideally the 0% band would be just enough to clothe, feed yourself and pay rent in a bad neighbourhood.

Progressive is a word that seems to mean different things to the left and the right, I notice you didn't define it.

As I said a flat tax is economically progressive because it doesn't discourage people from trying to earn more money.

At the moment you have people buying houses they don't need or using complex financial instruments just to do something with their money because if they don't they will get taxed more. Investing this money for the sake of it is not always beneficial to the economy or society, I favour a persons right to choose what to do with their own money.

I am coming from this from a libertarian perspective, whether you earn 50k a year or 500k the government should not be taking a higher percentage from you than other people. Especially considering that with a percentage rate whilst the proportion is the same, the actual amount of tax high earners pay is greater (which is socially progressive enough for me, but perhaps not for you). I believe I am using the word proportion correctly here, but if not please feel free to let me know how I have got it wrong.

Here in the UK the top rate of tax is 50%. I doubt I will ever be taxed at that rate but the government taking half a persons income scares me a little, no wonder people try to move their money around so the taxman can't get at it.

Yes, this. I've asked the same question as the post you were replying to, but your response sheds new light on the issue.

Now that I think of it, it also matches my experiences living in lower income neighbourhoods.

> They're just, apparently, completely unable to actually get those initiatives through Congress.

There is a Progressive Caucus in Congress but they just don't have the numbers to pass anything, especially with a refusal for any sort of compromise from the Right. And there are simply too many Blue Dogs that will tow the line in the middle.

If someone were a "liberal", it would be best to get progressive candidates in Congress, not just any Democrats.

The problem with Economics is that, in trying to get a handle on the enormous complexity of its field, they constantly over-simplify. GDP, for example, is in itself a poor indicator of wealth. If I sell you something for $10, you sell it back to me for $20, and I sell it back to you for $30, GDP is up $60.

But in all of Stupidtown, PPP is the village idiot. First, which basket of goods do you choose? Whatever you select will favor some cultures over others. Second, what about the quality of goods? Butter might be cost the same in terms of hours worked, but for that same amount, the Swiss get pure, mountain-made butter, whereas in LA they get corn-oil margarine. Then there's the flattened world. It used to be that you would earn more in Switzerland, but a couch, for example, would cost more. But now, both go to IKEA and the costs are nearly identical. A tablet computer? Flat-screen TV? Car? Those things essentially cost the same everywhere. When the Swiss go on vacation, their better income means they get a lot more and they go to much nicer places. Then there's taxes. The Swiss pay about the same percentage as in LA, but for that they get amazing things: free university, guaranteed health care, etc.

Finally, there's the wet-finger test. If the weather models show that it should be sunny and you step outside and it's wet, please consider that despite what you read: it's raining. I'm American but I've lived in Switzerland, and I must humbly admit that there's nowhere in America that comes close to being as wealthy as Switzerland.

Visit Baton Rouge and then visit Zurich. You will laugh your ass off at the notion that LA is 10% off of Switzerland's wealth. You will then laugh at economists themselves as the poorest of weather scientists who simply don't know how to walk outside.