> And what do you think happens once the tax is collected by the government? It is spent
Well yeah, I kind of thought that was the whole goal? If we assume/believe that governments generally are capable of spending that money in a more equitable way that would benefit a larger proportion of the society (while also resulting in higher productivity growth) than allowing it to be (effectively) hoarded by the wealthy.
(#) ok, that’s a fairly low value comment that I frankly should have not clicked send on, but I just spent ages getting that one blasted word past my own spell checker, user friendly piece of shit, and realising not for the first time that typing anything on a textbox on a mobile is its own piece of hell. Sysiphus I am with you. And yeah Musisippians is probably the wrong collective noun but at this point I don’t care. Kamala and Trump will both just avoid campaigning there because their speech writers simply won’t let them.
Mississippi has been a reliable Republican voting block since the parties switched platforms in the 60-70’s.
So republicans don’t need to spend money there to get votes.
And even if democrats spent all that money there to ‘buy’ the vote - would it be enough to work, considering the socio-political aspects?
An argument could be made vis-a-vis gdp improvements. But are good roads good enough to drive major GDP improvements in Mississippi, considering other factors? Probably not.
> Mississippi has been a reliable Republican voting block since the parties switched platforms in the 60-70’s.
In presidential elections? Yes. On the local level the Democrats controlled the Mississippi House of Representatives every single year until 2011 (almost the same for the Senate).
Even federally, the Democrats usually won most of the house seats (occasionally all 5 of them like in 90, 92) until 1998. Last time they won the majority was in 2010.
> So republicans don’t need to spend money there to get votes.
Only over the last ~10 or so years (and the Democrats still have 1 mostly safe seat there).
The party "switch" wasn't really a switch to such a huge extent on the local/state level. The Southern Democrats lost most of their relevance on the national level but locally the it didn't really happen until the generation that held offices in the 60s retired/died out
IMHO even nationally it wasn't even that obvious, the Democrats "abandoned" the South but the Republicans more or less just stuck to the same positions that were mostly mainstream in the party for the last 20-30 years outside of the progressive wing. On the whole even Nixon was relatively progressive and liberal by modern Republican standards (probably much too progressive considering his stances on healthcare reform and the environment).
Well yeah, I kind of thought that was the whole goal? If we assume/believe that governments generally are capable of spending that money in a more equitable way that would benefit a larger proportion of the society (while also resulting in higher productivity growth) than allowing it to be (effectively) hoarded by the wealthy.