Unfair voting restrictions in Indiana. Wait! What?

[Kutnupe14]

They both do. Being able to vote yourself more free stuff is bad as well.

This discussion is fruitless though. The right to vote is not going to be stripped from people that already can vote.

Yes, there's merit to both. However, if we're going to weigh votes by wealth, then to be completely fair, we must tax proportionally as well.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

It doesn't limit access to anyone of any particular group. It applies to everyone across the board regardless of race, color, religion or ethnicity.

Actually, I can see where the new ID law makes it harder for some voters than for others. I was born in the sixties, in a hospital, always had a copy of my birth certificate and got my SS card when I started working at 14. But, what if I was born in the 1940's, at home, in a different state from which I live, and I don't have a birth certificate. Yeah, the ID might be free, but you still need the other documents in order to get one.

I'm not saying racism, but if anybody says that it's equally easy for every American to come up with the required supporting documents to get their valid Indiana ID, then you don't know much about the process.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

We all have an interest in votes being fewer and higher quality-- as our individual votes each count more.

And, those of us who know we'd stay in that rarefied minority have the highest interest in that (you did say OUR votes).

 

[hoosierdoc]

We should just have mail-in only ballots like in some states. Gives everyone a fair chance to vote.

What state has that?

 

[oldpink]

What state has that?

Washington state has it, for one.
They also have already had a few elections where more votes were made than there were registered voters in several districts.
All strictly coincidental, of course.

 

[jamil]

We should just have mail-in only ballots like in some states. Gives everyone a fair chance to vote.

Washington state has it, for one.
They also have already had a few elections where more votes were made than there were registered voters in several districts.
All strictly coincidental, of course.

I think mail-in voting is problematic.

I read a couple weeks back that excessive use of alcohol and other addictive drugs actually alter brain chemistry to reduce your drive and motivation to succeed.

You racist. How can poor families afford the postage?

 

[KLB]

Yes, there's merit to both. However, if we're going to weigh votes by wealth, then to be completely fair, we must tax proportionally as well.

Well, we do sort of.

I think a better solution is to make everyone actually pay into the pot.

 

[Hohn]

And, those of us who know we'd stay in that rarefied minority have the highest interest in that (you did say OUR votes).

Explain "rarefied " as you mean it.

 

[Hohn]

To you, it's not necessary, but what about to someone who makes more than you? If you're okay with disenfranchising those who don't contribute as much as you do, then what happens when someone else decides to do the same to you? Why should you have the same rights as the 1%?

You are conflating two separate ideas. Contributing vs not contributing is a difference of KIND. Contributing less than someone else does is a difference of degrees.

So my argument based on differences of kind doesn't apply to differences of degree, and trying to contort it to fit is not appropriate. The hypothetical 1%er wishing to disenfranchise me will have to come up with his own argument.

 

[Lowe0]

You are conflating two separate ideas. Contributing vs not contributing is a difference of KIND. Contributing less than someone else does is a difference of degrees.

So my argument based on differences of kind doesn't apply to differences of degree, and trying to contort it to fit is not appropriate. The hypothetical 1%er wishing to disenfranchise me will have to come up with his own argument.

Consider someone who works as many hours as they can get, but is still below the poverty line. So because the profits from their labor go into someone else's pockets instead of their own, those people don't deserve a vote?

 

[Cerberus]

27 pages of excuses why voting with an ID or just finding a way to vote within a 12 hour period is too hard. Try voting during one of several overseas deployments or in a combat zone when Indiana soldiers from Dem controlled counties, never received absentee ballots that were applied for. Spend hours that could be spent getting some sleep after a long combat mission just to find the appropriate ballot on slow internet services just to get to vote. Until then STFU if you can't get up a little early of take an hour from work.

 

[LPMan59]

Lol

 

[Cerberus]

Consider someone who works as many hours as they can get, but is still below the poverty line. So because the profits from their labor go into someone else's pockets instead of their own, those people don't deserve a vote?

Then end taxes. And if they are working a low wage job it is incumbent upon them to find a better way. So yes, if we are going to have progressive communist taxes then those that pay more taxes should get more say.

 

[Kutnupe14]

27 pages of excuses why voting with an ID or just finding a way to vote within a 12 hour period is too hard. Try voting during one of several overseas deployments or in a combat zone when Indiana soldiers from Dem controlled counties, never received absentee ballots that were applied for. Spend hours that could be spent getting some sleep after a long combat mission just to find the appropriate ballot on slow internet services just to get to vote. Until then STFU if you can't get up a little early of take an hour from work.

While your service is appreciated, you have provided no explanation as to why you never received absentee ballots while in a war zone. Don't assign the ease of overcoming difficulties from your process to others, stateside, simply because your conditions were also difficult.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Then end taxes. And if they are working a low wage job it is incumbent upon them to find a better way. So yes, if we are going to have progressive communist taxes then those that pay more taxes should get more say.

How about taxing consumption. That seems to be the far better method. And a progressive tax isn't "communist."

 

[jamil]

How about taxing consumption. That seems to be the far better method. And a progressive tax isn't "communist."

But it is socialist.

 

[Kutnupe14]

But it is socialist.

Certainly.

 

[Hohn]

Consider someone who works as many hours as they can get, but is still below the poverty line. So because the profits from their labor go into someone else's pockets instead of their own, those people don't deserve a vote?

OK, let's roll with your reductio ad absurdum for a moment.

What about this fictional worker?

Weasel phrases like "as many hours as they can get" make your argument impossible to address. How many hours can they get if they are a drug user that can't pass a basic pee test? Or if they have no skill at all? So let's just put aside the useless disclaimer.

Standard work year of 2000 hours times minimum wage of $7.25 is $14,500 a year. Hardly a luxurious life. But-- above the poverty line for a single person.(11,490 for a single person). With a standard deduction of $6300, they have a taxable income of $8200, and would pay FICA on that, plus 15% income tax bracket. They would be a net contributor. Aside: ask this low-income hard worker (2000 hrs a year at anything is hard work!) if they believe Social Security and Medicare worth the $1254.60 they paid in FICA taxes that year. (Because Villages dwellers need their custom golf carts subsidized, you know.)

Except for tax credits. AKA-- welfare via tax code. Throw in an ETIC here or a MWP credit there, and suddenly all that tax burden is gone.


This is corporate welfare at its worst. Why do you think Wal Mart can get people to work there for peanuts in pay? ANSWER: Because Uncle Sugar eases the pain enough to make it bearable. No generous welfare state, and WMT has to actually pay people a better wage.


The profits from their labor don't go into someone else's pockets. Though if you still believe all that labor-theory-of-value- Marxist Hegellian baloney, you'd probably believe that myth.

It is rather self-evident that people generally pursue what they feel is best for them. If someone chooses to work for $9/hr instead of $12, there's probably a reason why-- they need flexibility, or want better work conditions, etc.


It's really as simple as this: we all are both consumers and producers in terms of economics. We all want the lowest possible price in the former case, and the highest possible price in the latter.

Anyone working at any wage or salary rate MUST recognize that the employer thinks that job is worth more than he's paying, and that the worker think his wage is worth less than what he's actually getting.

Consider the example of a haircut. If the barber is charging $10, and I agree to it, then it *must* be the case that I think the haircut is worth more than $10, so I'm better off after the trade of money for services. Conversely, the barber MUST believe that his skilled labor is worth LESS than $10/haircut or he wouldn't agree to take my money for his time and talent. $10 is mutually agreeable because we both believe that, relative to not transacting, we are each better off.

Where does the profit of an NFL player's labor go? Only the the owners? Surely you jest.

It's unavoidable that if your primary job skill is exchanging oxygen and CO2, then you will likely struggle to market your "business" relative to those who are offering a better bargain to prospective employers.

I have a cousin that went through an extended period of unemployment, despite having a work ethic that would run circles around men half his age. Why? Because a strong back was all he had. And while that might often be enough, any number of illiterate or non-legal persons might also possess that talent. On top of that, he wasn't will to relocate even 15-20 miles, and he wasn't learning any new skills-- no night classes or anything. Yet always he had the same story: "there's just no work out there, nobody is hiring." Reality: Nobody in your narrow search scope is willing to hire YOU, sir.

I shared with him the fable of the zebra: you don'y have to be the fastest zebra to avoid getting eaten by lions, you just can't be the slowest.

And with even 10% unemployment, you only have to be in the top 90% of the labor pool. There's a 90% chance most people can do that.

 

[Hohn]

How about taxing consumption. That seems to be the far better method. And a progressive tax isn't "communist."

I've not heard of a better all around proposal than the FairTax. It puts taxation on the consumption side (where you want it), makes the taxes VERY visible (thereby constraining taxation) and has only two variables-- simplicity is the ultimate virtue in taxation.

 

[Leadeye]

Consumption taxes would be a hard sell for a lot of folks I believe , other than food and the internet , I can't think of much that I consume that isn't taxed already. Booze, tires, gas, ammo, etc, I would be interested in seeing how the "consumption" tax would be figured and where it would land.