The Rich and Taxes

Another good article today in Real Clear Markets. I always wondered why pandering politicians keep their jobs. Here is the answer:

Last week, for instance, a labor union-supported policy group released a study
noting that Connecticut now has the largest gap between the rich and the poor in
the nation. The local pages of the New York Times dutifully reported on this
study and asked, what could be done as a remedy? Raise taxes, the advocates
urged, heedless of the fact that in Connecticut the top 5 percent of the state’s
taxpayers already bear the bulk of the state’s income tax burden. The situation
is much the same in neighboring New Jersey and in New York where, for instance,
the top income bracket represents just 0.4 percent of taxpayers, but they pay
one-third of the state’s income tax.
Is there a consequence to this? Well, for one thing, it’s practically compulsory when talking about the state government in each of these three places to use the adjective “dysfunctional.”
All three states have seen governors resign in disgrace within the past several
years. All three states are rife with corruption, pork barrel spending and
government inefficiencies. Hardly a day goes by that the newspapers don’t reveal
yet another outrage of waste, or mismanagement or thievery.
Yet little changes in the government of these states, much to the amazement of outsiders,who often wonder why voters continue to stand for it. The answer, I tell them, is that a very small percentage of voters are paying for this waste,
mismanagement and bloat. The rest pay so little that they don’t really care, or
they benefit from bloated government, either through jobs in the oversized
public sectors, or as users of services.
This is what you get when the few
support the many--the direction the federal government is now heading. You get
Connecticut, New York or (God help us) New Jersey.

When few support the many or costs are spread out and benefits concentrated, there can be nothing but problems yet no incentive to change.