More than 2.3 million people in america are in jail or prison.sixty percent are african american and Latino.Of all the statistics portraying racial inequity in our country, this is the most alarming: it indicates the failure of so many of our society's institutions; it predicts dire consequences for millions of children and families of color who are already at socioeconomic disadvantage; and it challenges the very definition of our democracy.
Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University
Abstract:
The 2010 debate over extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts often focused the fairness of the tax distribution in the United States. Unfortunately, discussions of tax fairness rarely take into account the distribution of the overall tax system, typically focusing only on the federal income tax or on federal taxes without consideration of the state and local tax system. This paper updates a 2003 analysis (Roach, 2003) to present a current assessment of the distribution of all components of the U.S. tax system, including recent trends. The results show that the overall federal tax system is quite progressive. But when state and local taxes are included as well, the overall U.S. tax system is only slightly progressive. Further, most of the progressivity of the overall tax system occurs in the lower half of the income spectrum. At upper-income levels, progressivity levels off and actually reverses at the highest income levels. Median-income taxpayers pay about 25% of their total income in taxes, while taxpayers in the top 1% pay about 31% of their income in taxes. Thus claims that America has a “highly progressive” tax system do not appear to be valid.
Topic:
Economics, Social Stratification, and Monetary Policy
Department of Economics and Business, Colorado College
Abstract:
During the tabulation of votes in the 2000 presidential election, the world was shocked at the technological inadequacy of electoral equipment in many parts of the US. In reaction to public dismay over "hanging chads", Congress quickly enacted the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), legislation to fund the acquisition of advanced vote-counting technology. However, the intention was to enable, rather than mandate, choices of new electoral equipment. This paper takes advantage of a unique historical opportunity to test whether electoral equipment follows the pattern predicted by well-established models of innovation diffusion, merging electoral data with census data on socioeconomic characteristics. We infer that fiscal constraints to acquisition are strong but are not the only limitations to technology adoption, particularly within certain types of easily identifiable populations.
Topic:
Democratization, Politics, and Social Stratification