>Policies aid the majority, they let the 51 rule the 49.
The people who control most of the world's wealth (over 50% of it) are equivalent to (or less than) 1% of the population. That 1% is what abuses the system. It's not 51 vs 49. It's the 99% vs. 1%.
That is not to say that there are no problems with the 51 vs 49, it's just a different set of problems entirely distinct and extremely lower in severity from the problem of rich people abusing the democratic system. In short the 51 vs the 49 percent is more of an acknowledged minor disadvantage of democracy rather than the unexpected critical flaw I describe above.
>Again let's assume you're right, the elite choose who are elected and can make the rules. Why are they being taxed? Why can't they use their influence so they get to keep their entire income?
Because you are illustrating an extreme that isn't the reality. The rich can't abuse the system to the point where it becomes a fascist empire. In the end it's still a democracy, and structurally there are certain limits to how far anyone can twist that concept.
The rich abuse the system to the point where they have MORE power, not ultimate power. To do so would ruin the economy structurally. They need laborers to spend and work in order to keep their status. All people, the kings and emperors included, are fully aware of the violent and economic repercussions when you only tax poor people. The rich therefore can't completely eliminate their taxes, instead they use complexities to disguise their alternative tax advantages. The majority know the term as "tax loopholes."
>So there are laws which supposedly benefit the rich and now you want to make more laws to fix the fact that the laws benefit the rich? You see the problem here?
Yes I do see the problem. More laws equals greater complexity, and a system with too much redundancy. Perhaps replacing existing laws are a better alternative, but that is not how our system works. Other than that there is no problem.
The people who control most of the world's wealth (over 50% of it) are equivalent to (or less than) 1% of the population. That 1% is what abuses the system. It's not 51 vs 49. It's the 99% vs. 1%.
That is not to say that there are no problems with the 51 vs 49, it's just a different set of problems entirely distinct and extremely lower in severity from the problem of rich people abusing the democratic system. In short the 51 vs the 49 percent is more of an acknowledged minor disadvantage of democracy rather than the unexpected critical flaw I describe above.
>Again let's assume you're right, the elite choose who are elected and can make the rules. Why are they being taxed? Why can't they use their influence so they get to keep their entire income?
Because you are illustrating an extreme that isn't the reality. The rich can't abuse the system to the point where it becomes a fascist empire. In the end it's still a democracy, and structurally there are certain limits to how far anyone can twist that concept.
The rich abuse the system to the point where they have MORE power, not ultimate power. To do so would ruin the economy structurally. They need laborers to spend and work in order to keep their status. All people, the kings and emperors included, are fully aware of the violent and economic repercussions when you only tax poor people. The rich therefore can't completely eliminate their taxes, instead they use complexities to disguise their alternative tax advantages. The majority know the term as "tax loopholes."
>So there are laws which supposedly benefit the rich and now you want to make more laws to fix the fact that the laws benefit the rich? You see the problem here?
Yes I do see the problem. More laws equals greater complexity, and a system with too much redundancy. Perhaps replacing existing laws are a better alternative, but that is not how our system works. Other than that there is no problem.