# The Left- and Right-Wing Political Power Design: The Dilemma of Welfare Policy with Low-Income Relief

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

**Table 1.**Numerical simulation behind the left- and right-wing political power design; LWP—left-wing politicians, RWP—right-wing politicians.

Obtained by Means of Income Density Distribution (Figure 1); Personal Allowance φ = 4.03; θ = 61.9; h = −0.18; m = 2.07; r = ${\scriptscriptstyle \raisebox{1ex}{$\mathbf{2}$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$\mathbf{3}$}\right.}$: a Proportion to (ξ − σ) | Policy of Equal (Politically Symmetric) Power | LWP Proposal Accepted by RWP | Proposal Minimizing Wealth-tax | Poverty Line = ½ of Median Income | RWP Proposal Accepted by LWP | Policy of Disagreement, the Breakdown | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

η | λ_{1}, q = 5% | λ, q ≈ 0% | ½μ | λ_{2}, q = 5% | δ | ||

Poverty line; welfare policy | $\mathsf{\xi}=$ | 79.23 | 40.79 | 45.50 | 41.15 | 50.28 | 6.39 |

Poverty rate: percentage of citizens below the poverty line | 47.36% | 15.73% | 19.15% | 15.99% | 22.81% | 0.41% | |

Political power of left-wing politicians | $\mathsf{\alpha}(\mathsf{\xi})$ | 0.50 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.24 | Not defined |

LI netto; the after-tax residue of ξ | $\mathrm{u}(\mathsf{\xi})$ | 58.02 | 31.02 | 34.50 | 31.29 | 37.99 | 6.44 |

Account for public goods expenses | $\mathrm{g}(\mathsf{\xi})$ | 19.02 | 27.63 | 26.70 | 27.56 | 25.75 | −2.49 |

Account for LI relief transfers | $\mathrm{B}(\mathsf{\xi})$ | 10.61 | 1.57 | 2.17 | 1.62 | 2.91 | 0.01 |

Account for public spending, the size of the wealth-pie | $\mathrm{z}(\mathsf{\xi})$ | 29.63 | 29.20 | 28.87 | 29.18 | 28.66 | −2.48 |

Average taxable income—the wealth amount | $\mathrm{W}(\mathsf{\xi})$ | 105.04 | 109.95 | 108.86 | 109.87 | 107.88 | 120.46 |

Wealth-tax, marginal tax rate | $\mathsf{\tau}(\mathsf{\xi})$ | 28.21% | 26.56% | 26.52% | 26.56% | 26.56% | −2.06% |

**Figure 1.**At the sample $\mathrm{P}(\mathsf{\sigma},\mathsf{\theta}+\mathrm{h}\cdot {\scriptscriptstyle \raisebox{1ex}{$1$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$2$}\right.}\mathsf{\mu})$ of the income density distribution, $\mathsf{\mu}$ solves the equation ${\int}_{0}^{\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{P}(\mathsf{\sigma},\mathsf{\theta}+\mathrm{h}\cdot \mathrm{x})}\mathrm{d}\mathsf{\sigma}=0.5$ for $\mathrm{x}$; $\mathsf{\mu}=82.30$ . Appendix A1 contains the analytical form for the sample expression in Figure 1.

## 2. Preliminaries

#### Settings

## 3. Relevant Trends and Issues

- Fiscal policy: During the delivery to its final destinations, provided that the books accounting for the relief payments finance have been balanced a priori, the wealth-pie must remain balanced throughout and in spite of volatility in the economy;
- Negotiations: The left- and right-wing political bargaining on how to share the wealth-pie complies with the rules and norms of the alternating-offers bargaining game;
- Pre-equity of breakdown: Political breakdown, or threat, directly affects the bargaining solution. Pre-equity guarantees equal conditions for players before the bargaining game commences;
- Political power design: Bringing a motion to a vote is necessary to address the majority opposition to high taxes and excessive public spending. Whether it is viewed as positive or negative, or whether it ought to be acknowledged or not, rejected or accepted, this motion must be politically designed in advance.

#### 3.1. Fiscally Safe Welfare Policies, to Be Continued in Section 4

#### 3.2. Bargaining the Welfare State Rules and Norms, to be Continued in Section 5

- • X
- is the first actor’s share of $1, with $\mathsf{\alpha}$ as the first actor’s asymmetric power indicator, $0\le \mathrm{x}\le 1$, $0\le \mathsf{\alpha}\le 1$;
- • u(x)
- denotes the first actor’s payoffs of the first actor’s $1 share $\mathrm{x}$;
- • y
- is the second actor’s share of $1, where $1-\mathsf{\alpha}$ is the second actor’s asymmetric power indicator, $0\le \mathrm{y}\le 1$;
- • g(y)
- denotes the second actor’s payoffs of the second actor’s $1 share $\mathrm{y}$.

Leibenstein argued that there are two components to the productivity problem: one relates to the determination of the size of the pie, while the second relates to the division of the pie. Looked upon independently, all agents can jointly gain by increasing the pie size…the situation need not be a zero-sum game. Tactics that determine pie division can affect the size of the pie. It is this latter possibility that is especially significant.

#### 3.3. Pre-Equity of Political Breakdown

We can interpret a breakdown as the result of the intervention of a third party, who exploits the mutual gains. A breakdown can be interpreted also as the event that a threat made by one of the parties to halt the negotiations is actually realized. This possibility is especially relevant when a bargainer is a team (e.g., government), the leaders of which may find themselves unavoidably trapped by their own threats.

**Figure 4.**The graph depicts two different motions for a vote. For the higher tax τ = 29.01%, marked by the horizontal line, and the lowest tax τ = 26.52%, marked by the vertical dash. Indicated by $\to $ , at cross-points of the contract curve with the horizontal line, we observe controversial expectations of voters. The shares of lower basic but higher public goods are shown on the left, while this payoff reverses towards the right side of the graph, as the shares of basic goods increase while those of public goods decrease. Thus, the higher tax τ = 29.01% cannot lead to a political consent, in line with Observation 5.

#### 3.4. Voting and Political Power Design, to Be Continued in Section 6

## 4. Analysis of Fiscally Safe Welfare Policies, Continued from Section 3.1

#### Idempotent Rules and Norms of Wealth Redistribution

- ϕ
- the personal allowance establishing the tax bracket $\left[\mathsf{\phi},\infty \right)$; it is an ex-ante control (tuning) variable, $0<\mathsf{\phi}=\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}<\mathsf{\xi}$;
- ξ
- the income frame, the poverty line; a policy determining who is living in poverty, as well as the choice or the control parameter;
**z**- the size $\mathbf{z}=\mathsf{\tau}\cdot \mathrm{W}(\mathsf{\xi})$ of the wealth-pie; the amount of the wealth-pie that is equal to public spending per capita when taxes are proportional;
- X
- the share of the wealth-pie of size
**z**; a portion $\mathrm{X}$ of**z**to be deposited in favor of the left-wing politicians for funding the relief payments, $0\le \mathrm{x}\le 1$; - α
- the political power of the left-wing politicians, $0<\mathsf{\alpha}<1$;
- τ
- the marginal tax rate, the rate $\mathsf{\tau}(\mathsf{\xi},\mathrm{x})$ of the wealth amount $\mathrm{W}(\mathsf{\xi})$ determined by (1);
- u
- the after-tax residue of the income frame equal to the poverty line $\mathsf{\xi}$, the wants function $\mathrm{u}(\mathsf{\xi},\mathrm{x})$ of the left-wing politicians, as determined by (2) and (3);
- g
- the objective function $\mathrm{g}(\mathsf{\xi},\mathrm{x})$ of the right-wing politicians, determined by (1) and (2); the account for the refund of public goods expenses per capita.

## 5. Analysis of the Welfare State Bargaining and Rules and Norms, Continued from Section 3.2

#### 5.1. Left- and Right-Wing Politicians’ Bargaining Procedure

**Figure 5.**The aspirations of left-wing politicians expressed when opposing the right-wing political objectives are depicted on the vertical and horizontal axes, respectively. The graph shows the contract curve sloping from ${\mathsf{\xi}}_{2}$ toward ${\mathsf{\xi}}_{1}$ , projected on the surface of basic goods vs. vital goods—the projection of efficient poverty lines $\mathsf{\xi}\in \left[{\mathsf{\xi}}_{1},{\mathsf{\xi}}_{2}\right]$ resolving the contract constraint (5).

#### 5.2. Alternating-Offers Bargaining Game Analysis

- Politician No. 1, u
- the left-wing political aspirations, the marginal citizens’ $\mathsf{\sigma}=\mathsf{\xi}$ after-tax residue, basic necessities of the needy, cost of living;
- Politician No. 2, g
- the right-wing political objective, expenses that benefit all citizens—expenses upon vital goods alone, without relief payments;
- Third Partaker, q, τ
- voters’ electoral maneuvering facing higher taxes $\mathsf{\tau}$ expressing an implicit risk $0<\mathrm{q}<<1$ of the negotiations collapsing prematurely.

$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Q}(\mathsf{\xi},\mathsf{\tau},\mathrm{g})=0\\ \mathrm{L}(\mathsf{\xi},\mathrm{x},\mathrm{u})=0\\ \mathrm{D}(\mathsf{\xi},\mathrm{x},\mathrm{u})=0\end{array}$ | $\begin{array}{c}\to \mathbf{\text{Delivery (1);}}\hfill \\ \to \mathbf{\text{Volatility (4);}}\hfill \\ \to \mathbf{\text{Contract (5);}}\hfill \end{array}\}$ | enforcing constraints on rules and norms of the wealth redistribution, |

$\mathrm{u}(\mathsf{\xi})=\mathsf{\xi}-\frac{(\mathsf{\xi}-\mathsf{\phi})}{\mathrm{v}(\mathsf{\xi})}$, where $\nu (\mathsf{\xi})=1+\left(\mathsf{\xi}-\mathsf{\phi}\right)\cdot \left(\frac{\dot{\mathrm{B}}(\mathsf{\xi})}{\mathrm{B}(\mathsf{\xi})}-\frac{\dot{\mathrm{W}}(\mathsf{\xi})}{\mathrm{W}(\mathsf{\xi})}\right)$4; $\mathsf{\tau}(\mathsf{\xi})=\frac{1}{\nu (\mathsf{\xi})}$. |

$\mathrm{g}(\mathsf{\xi})=\frac{\mathrm{W}(\mathsf{\xi})}{\nu (\mathsf{\xi})}-\mathrm{B}(\mathsf{\xi})$; the size of wealth-pie $\mathbf{z}(\mathsf{\xi})=\mathrm{B}(\mathsf{\xi})+\mathrm{g}(\mathsf{\xi})=\frac{\mathrm{W}(\mathsf{\xi})}{\nu (\mathsf{\xi})}$. |

## 6. Analysis of Voting and Political Power Design, Continued from Section 3.4

To count on ${\mathrm{x}}^{\circ}$ share of $1 is a realistic attitude toward the first actor’s position of negotiations. Indeed, even if the second actor might have a stronger negotiating power than the first actor, ${\mathsf{\alpha}}^{\circ}<1-{\mathsf{\alpha}}^{\circ}$, the first actor, sooner rather than later, might predict the second actor’s preferences and thus force a concession.

## 7. Discussion

## 8. Concluding Remarks

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A1. Example and Results

## Appendix A2. Simulation Foundation and Illustration

- η
- the policy on poverty with equal left- and right-wing political power; the left- and right-wing political organizations are in symmetrical positions or in equal roles;
- λ
_{1} - the outcome of the alternating-offers game—representing what the right-wing politicians accept;
- λ
- the policy on poverty minimizing wealth-tax;
- ½μ
- ½ of the median income, indicating that half of the population earns income above $\mathsf{\mu}$, while the income of the remaining half is below $\mathsf{\mu}$;
- λ
_{2} - the outcome of the alternating-offers game—representing what the left-wing politicians accept;
- δ
- the least desirable outcome, resulting in the policy breakdown or disagreement, which naturalizes the risk of negotiations’ premature collapse, caused, for instance, by mutual traps.

## Appendix A3. Verification

Replace | to implement an improved | by | to make a decline in |

– | better off | – | worse off |

– | improve improvement | – | decline deterioration |

– | to claim for relief payments | – | that relief payments have been revoked |

– | defici | – | surplus |

– | ≥, > | – | ≤, < |

Transpose | an increase | with | a decrease |

- (
**i**) - ${\frac{\partial}{\partial \mathsf{\xi}}\mathrm{L}(\mathsf{\xi},{\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{o}},{\mathrm{u}}^{\mathrm{o}})|}_{\mathsf{\xi}=\mathsf{\xi}\xb0}=0$, where ${\mathrm{u}}^{\mathrm{o}}=\mathrm{u}({\mathsf{\xi}}^{\mathrm{o}},{\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{o}})$ provided that
- (
**ii**) - ${\frac{\partial}{\partial \mathrm{u}}\mathrm{L}({\mathsf{\xi}}^{\mathrm{o}},{\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{o}},\mathrm{u})|}_{\mathrm{u}=\mathrm{u}\xb0}\ne 0$.

**Proof**

**ii)**holds. Let (

**i)**solve for ${\mathsf{\xi}}^{\mathrm{o}}$ at the fiscally idempotent outcome $\mathsf{\phi},{\mathsf{\xi}}^{\mathrm{o}}\Rightarrow {\mathbf{z}}^{\mathrm{o}},{\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{o}},\mathsf{\alpha},{\mathsf{\tau}}^{\mathrm{o}},\langle {\mathrm{u}}^{\mathrm{o}},{\mathrm{g}}^{\mathrm{o}}\rangle $. Combining (

**i**) and A(2), we conclude that

## Appendix A4. Mathematical Derivation

$\mathsf{\tau}\cdot \mathrm{W}(\mathsf{\xi})=\mathrm{B}(\mathsf{\xi})+\mathrm{g}$ | Delivery constraint: the size of the welfare pie, i.e., the average amount of tax returns, is equal to the sum of the average monetary value per capita of primary goods and the average of non-primary goods g. |

$\mathrm{B}(\mathsf{\xi})=\mathrm{x}\cdot \mathsf{\tau}\cdot \mathrm{W}(\mathsf{\xi})$ | Budget constraint imposed on the relief payments finance in accordance with the share x of the wealth-pie—the tax-revenue. |

$\mathrm{u}=(1-\mathsf{\tau})\cdot (\mathsf{\xi}-\mathsf{\phi})+\mathsf{\phi}$ | Stability constraint that determines fiscally idempotent policy ξ. |

$\mathrm{u}=\mathsf{\xi}-\mathsf{\tau}\cdot (\mathsf{\xi}-\mathsf{\phi})$ | After-tax residue constraint: an alternative form of stability constraint, where u is the after-tax position of a marginal citizen with income σ = ξ, which concedes with the left-wing political aspirations. |

## References

- Matthey Oakley, and Peter Saunders. No Rights without Responsibility: Rebalancing the Welfare State. London: Policy Exchange, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Peter Flora, ed. Growth to Limits: The Western European Welfare State since World War II. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987.
- Evelyne Huber, Thomas Mustillo, and John D. Stephens. “Politics and Social Spending in Latin America.” Journal of Politics 70 (2008): 420–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mary Jean Bowman. “Poverty in an Affluent Society.” In Contemporary Economic Issues. Edited by Neil W. Chamberlain. Chicago: R. D. Irwin Inc., 1969, pp. 53–56. [Google Scholar]
- John Rawls. A Theory of Justice, rev. ed. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1971/2005. [Google Scholar]
- Victor Fuchs. Toward a Theory of Poverty-The Concept of Poverty. Washington: Chamber of Commerce of the United States, 1965. [Google Scholar]
- Milton Friedman. Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Ehud Kalai. “Nonsymmetric Nash solutions and replications of 2-person bargaining.” International Journal of Game Theory 6 (1977): 129–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph E. Mullat. “The Sugar-Pie Game: The Case of Non-Conforming Expectations, Walter de Gruyter.” Mathematical Economic Letters 2 (2014): 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kevin W.S. Roberts. “Voting over income tax schedules.” Journal of Public Economics 8 (1977): 329–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James M. Malcomson. “Some analytics of the Laffer curve.” Journal of Public Economics 29 (1986): 263–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John F. Nash Jr. “The bargaining problem.” Econometrica 18 (1950): 155–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin J. Osborne, and Ariel Rubinstein. Bargaining and Markets. Economic Theory, Econometrics, and Mathematical Economics. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc., 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Duncan Black. “On the rationale of group decision-making.” Journal of Political Economy 56 (1948): 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louis Narens, and R. Duncan Luce. “How we may have been misled into believing in the interpersonal comparability of utility.” Theory and Decisions 15 (1983): 247–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel Cardona, and Clara Ponsatí. “Bargaining one-dimensional social choices.” Journal of Economic Theory 137 (2007): 627–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alvin E. Roth. “Individual rationality and Nash’s solution to the bargaining problem.” Mathematics of Operations Research 2 (1977): 64–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torben Iversen. Capitalism, Democracy, and Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Gosta Esping-Andersen. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: University Press, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Duane Swank. Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy. Change in Developed Welfare States. Cambridge: University Press, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Ariel Rubinstein. Modeling Bounded Rationality, Zeuthen Lecture Book Series. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Carles Boix. Political Parties Growth and Equality: Conservative and Social Democratic Economic Strategies in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Amy Rothstein, and C.T. Lawrence Butler. On Conflict and Consensus: A Handbook on Formal Consensus Decision-Making. Philadelphia: New Society Publisher, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- John P. Formby, Steven G. Medema, and W. James Smith. “Tax Neutrality and Social Welfare in a Computational General Equilibrium Framework.” Public Finance Review 23 (1995): 419–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peter Saunders. “Economic adjustment and distributional change: Income inequality in Australia in the eighties.” In Changing Patterns in the Distribution of Economic Welfare: An International Perspective. Edited by Peter Gottschalk, Bjorn A. Gustafsson and Edward E. Palmer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 68–83. [Google Scholar]
- Reiner Eichenberger, and Felix Oberholzer-Gee. Rational Moralists, The Role of Fairness in Democratic Economic Politics. Zurich: Institute for Empirical Economic Research, University of Zurich, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Lars P. Feld, and Bruno S. Frey. “Trust Breeds Trust: How Taxpayers are Treated.” Economics of Governance 3 (2002): 87–99. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s101010100032 (accessed on 25 January 2016). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richard Musgrave. The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGrew Hill, 1959. [Google Scholar]
- Marcus Berliant, and Frank H. Page Jr. “Incentives and income taxation: The implementation of individual revenue requirement functions.” Ricerche Economiche 50 (1996): 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonathan R. Kesselman, and Irwin Garfinkel. “Professor Friedman, meet lady Rhys-Williams: NIT vs. CIT.” Journal of Public Economy 10 (1978): 179–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amartya Sen. “Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement.” Econometrica 44 (1976): 219–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anthony Barnes Atkinson. “On the measurement of poverty.” Econometrica 55 (1987): 749–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Udo Ebert. “Taking empirical studies seriously: The principle of concentration and the measurement of welfare and inequality.” Social Choice and Welfare 32 (2009): 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyd Hunter, Steven Kennedy, and Nicholas Grahame Biddle. “One Size Fits All?: The Effect of Equivalence Scales on Indigenous and Other Australian Poverty.” CAEPR Working Paper No. 19. Canberra, Australia: The Australian National University, 2002. Available online: https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/40165/2/CAEPRWP19.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2016).
- Finn Tarp, Kenneth Simler, Cristina Matusse, Rasmus Heltberg, and Gabriel Dava. “The Robustness of Poverty Profiles Reconsidered.” FCND Discussion paper No. 124. Washington, DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute, 2002. Available online: http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/72954 (accessed on 25 January 2016).
- Cecilia García-Peñalosa. “The Economics of Distribution and Growth: Recent Issues.” 2008. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/events/2007/researchconf1110/garciapenalosa_paper_en.pdf.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2016).
- Frances Stewart, Graham Brown, and Alex Cobham. “The Implications of Horizontal and Vertical Inequalities for Tax and Expenditure Policies.” CRISE Working Paper No. 65. Oxford, UK: Centre for Research on Inequality Human Security and Ethnicity, February 2009. Available online: http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/crisewps/workingpaper65.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2016).
- Andrei V. Malishevski. “Path Independence in Serial-Parallel Data Processing.” In Qualitative Models in the Theory of Complex Systems. Moscow: Nauka/Fizmatlit, 1998, pp. 413–45. [Google Scholar]
- Douglass C. North. “Institutions and the Performance of Economics over Time.” In Handbook of New Institutional Economics. Edited by Claude Ménard and Mary M. Shirley. Dordrecht, Berlin and Heidelberg: Spriner, 2005, p. 844. [Google Scholar]
- Martin S. Feldstein. “Effects of Taxes on Economic Behavior.” National Tax Journal LXI (2008): 131–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudolf Richter. “Book Reviews.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 162 (2006): 384–88. [Google Scholar]
- Elinor Ostrom. “Doing Institutional Analysis: Digging Deeper than Markets and Hierarchies.” In Handbook of New Institutional Economics. Edited by Claude Menard and Mary M. Shirley. Dordrecht, Berlin and Heidelberg: Spriner, 2005, p. 844. [Google Scholar]
- Alvin E. Roth. Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining. London and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Harvey Leibenstein. “A branch of economics is missing: Micro-micro theory.” Journal of Economic Literature 17 (1979): 477–502. [Google Scholar]
- Morris Altman. “What a difference an assumption makes.” In Handbook of Contemporary Behavioral Economics: Foundations and Developments. Edited by Morris Altman. Armonk and New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006, pp. 125–64. [Google Scholar]
- James M. Buchanan. Public Finance in Democratic Process: Fiscal Institutions and Individual Choice. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1967, vol. 4. [Google Scholar]
- Bent Greve. “What is welfare? ” Central European Journal of Welfare Policy 2 (2008): 50–73. [Google Scholar]
- Victor A. Canto, Douglas H. Joines, and Arthur B. Laffer. “Tax Rates, Factor Employment, and Market Production.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. May 1981. Available online: https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/81/conf/1981section1-1.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2016).
- Lawrence Summers. “America risks becoming a Downton Abbey economy.” Financial Times. 16 February 2014. Available online: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/875155ce-8f25-11e3-be85-00144feab7de.html#axzz3yDx9TRo5 (accessed on 25 January 2016).
- Bernhard Kittel, and Herbert Obinger. “Political Parties, Institutions, and the Dynamics of Social Expenditure in Times of Austerity.” Journal of Europian Public Policy 10 (2003): 20–45. [Google Scholar]

^{1}Below, we continue to refer to the average taxable income as “wealth”.^{2}Status and control variables are the prerogatives of control theory.^{3}We already highlighted the worsening quality of welfare services for all citizens when the LI level is “climbing” high.^{4}$\mathrm{\pm}$ Rates $\dot{\mathrm{W}}(\mathsf{\xi})\le 0$, $\dot{\mathrm{W}}(\mathsf{\xi})\ge 0$ of the changes in the wealth amounts $\mathrm{W}(\mathsf{\xi})$ are essential for the analysis, whereas the function $\mathrm{B}(\mathsf{\xi})$ is valid only when $\dot{\mathrm{B}}(\mathsf{\xi})>0$, and $0<\mathsf{\phi}<\mathrm{u}<\mathsf{\xi}$.^{5}Table 1 was created by numerical simulation carried out upon imaginary distribution of citizens’ incomes.^{6}Poverty rate determines the percent of anyone who lives with income below the official poverty line. The poverty line separates the rich (those with an income above the poverty line), from the less fortunate (having income below the line).

© 2016 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Mullat, J.E.
The Left- and Right-Wing Political Power Design: The Dilemma of Welfare Policy with Low-Income Relief. *Soc. Sci.* **2016**, *5*, 7.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5010007

**AMA Style**

Mullat JE.
The Left- and Right-Wing Political Power Design: The Dilemma of Welfare Policy with Low-Income Relief. *Social Sciences*. 2016; 5(1):7.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5010007

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Mullat, Joseph E.
2016. "The Left- and Right-Wing Political Power Design: The Dilemma of Welfare Policy with Low-Income Relief" *Social Sciences* 5, no. 1: 7.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5010007