The statement is not that Gore voter = low information.
The statement is that low information voters flock to the high name rec candidates. Gore and Hillary, by far, had the higest name rec when the campaign season started. Hence, Gore had a lot of low information voters who expressed a preference toward him.
That does not mean that every Gore voter is a low information voter.
What would you like to see taxes reduced to? I thought that the Reagan reductions were the ideal goal of conservatives. Then it was the levels that Clinton and then Bush II reduced taxes to. What is low enough? Because it seems like the goal is to get zero taxes for some and huge corporate subsidies and buyouts for the very richest.
And government has almost nothing to do with creating the environment under which they gained that wealth in the first place. We can just eliminate the civil society under which all that happened as a neutral arena.
But that notion has evolved over the years. The point of the original Progressive movement was to convert our government to be something more aptly described as a Representative democracy. That was the motivation behind the direct election of Senators, women's suffrage, as well as initiative, referendum and recall.
This is not to ignore older reforms that would be argued as a move toward a form of government more resembling democracy, most notably extending the franchise to non-property owners, and the 14th amendment.
Not to mention that the preamble of the constitution clearly states where the "authority" of the US government comes from--"we the people".
1) the supreme court of the late 1800s had a very, very pro-corporate interpretation of the laws
2) That sever wealth inequities had developed in the late 1800s, and that these inequities were beyond the ability of the founders to predict.
3) Even then, it would have been impossible for the Rockefellers or Carnegies of the world to accumulate their wealth without the aid of government.
Also, I would add that Washington's forthrightness in the face of the Whiskey rebellion would indicate his opinion re: the government's right to collect taxes. An income tax just didn't make sense in a society that was made up largely of subsistence farmers.
Renters don't deduct home interest. Someone making $50,000 can't buy in dense urban areas with an already high cost of living--rent on a 1 BR in NYC is something like $1500, minimum. Paying a much, much higher local and state income tax, and getting to deduct those payments is hardly a consolation.
Only you removed government subsidies to the rich from that equation. Not to mention high powered accountants and tax attourneys that manipulate the system. Not to mention the fact that lower income earners are audited at a higher rate than high income earners. Or that the ric h didn't earn their money in a vacuum. Or that your example was lifted from Sean Hannity.
there is no cost of living adjustment in the ta code. It is not the reason the tax code is at five million words. Giveaways to various special interests are the reason that the tax code is as long as it is. Adjusting for inequities amongst individuals is barely done.