Did the government’s media countereofensive, centered on the issue of tax justice, have impact on the reversal of? The question is very complex because it coincided, largely, with an external shock in the system: o. But Quaest research data helps us analyze the issue.
According to the survey, 63% of respondents agree that “rich should pay more taxes to reduce the poor of the poorest,” while 33% disagree. However, 53% stated that the discourse that puts “rich against poor because it draws attention against the privileges of some” is wrong, because it creates more fighting and polarization in the country. “A much smaller percentage-38%-more relevant: 56% had not heard of the” poor against rich “campaign. Yes, the impact focused on the left bubbles. without party loyalties that are likely to change the vote: they agree in theory but oppose the strategy.
Knowledge accumulated in political science suggests that the electoral effects of tax policies are small (exceptions confirm the rule). Although the redistributive issue is largely the vertebrate axis of political dispute, tax policy is not. Tax issues are marked by technicalities that make them opaque and uncomfortable for electorate. Bizarre example is that the “War of the Poor against Rich” was triggered by increasing a regressive tax, the!
Ahrens and Bandau (2024), in “The Electral Consequences of Rousing in Oecd Countries”, analyze the issue with data covering 30 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and 50 years. They conclude that the effects vary depending on the tax, if direct or indirect. Changes in VAT, either by reducing or increasing the rates, has no electoral impact, while changes in individuals, yes. Increased taxes negatively impact subsequent. But tax exemptions have a lower impact, and are subject to being forgotten. There is a bias of negativity: tax increases generate more intense reactions than exemptions or cuts. That is, welfare losses have greater weight than gains of the same magnitude.
The “poor against the rich” war is inscribed in the first lesson of the populist manual: to create a “agonistic democracy”, centered on the permanent conflict. As shown, this strategy for leftist governments only works in tax bonança contexts. Right populism, in contrast, is viable through success in resolving acute national crises, for example, in public security and immigration. In the absence of these factors, agonist populism runs out and democracy is resilient. Opportunistic distribution generates an arms race to see who gives the most: as happened with Brazil and Bolsa Familia aid, and now with raising the proposed IRPF exemption ceiling.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
