I almost think it would be better if we went back to a system where you had to own property to have a vote. Without property you don't have the same kind of vested interest in the country that someone who owns a chunk of land has.
Here's an interesting piece by James Madison on this subject:
Property: James Madison, Note to His Speech on the Right of Suffrage
Madison had advocated (at the constitutional convention) requiring property as a condition of suffrage. Twenty-four years later, while editing his notes on the convention, he wrote this to indicate that his thinking had changed over the years.
He recognizes the problem
Who would rely on a fair decision from three individuals if two had an interest in the case opposed to the rights of the third?
which happens to sound like the lions/lambs example.
But also explains the other side of the issue. One observation has been repeated many times, though in our times we tend to say "wealth" instead of "property":
The U. States have a precious advantage also in the actual distribution of property particularly the landed property; and in the universal hope of acquiring property. This latter peculiarity is among the happiest contrasts in their situation to that of the old world, where no anticipated change in this respect, can generally inspire a like sympathy with the rights of property. There may be at present, a Majority of the Nation, who are even freeholders, or the heirs, or aspirants to Freeholds.
He's saying that in the US, wealth is more equally distributed in Europe. Even those who don't have much aspire to have more. They won't vote to "soak the rich" because they already have a little, and they hope to be among the rich someday.
I think the estate tax is a good example. The tax we've got only hits 2% of the estates, so it seems that the other 98% of the people would see a self-interest in keeping it. The numbers are so lopsided this shouldn't be an issue.
But the estate tax is an issue. It seems to me that a lot of people own enough that they can envision the tax being expanded downward to catch them. They also hope to move up the ladder and get into a taxable situation that way.
So I think that maintaining these attitudes is important in avoiding a "soak the rich" policy. We need lots of people who have enough that they are concerned about losing what they have, and lots of people who believe they can move up. It seems that the wider the gap between the middle and the top 1% or 5%, the weaker these beliefs get, and the greater the popularity of spreading the wealth. Of course, the gap has been getting wider.
