Unfair voting restrictions in Indiana. Wait! What?

[GREEN607]

Hohn- excellent post, particularly regarding work/pay issues.

Today, CA's Gov Brown signed into law the $15/hr minimum wage. Some think it is overdue,basicllay because stuff costs way more in Caly. When asked by Fox News, one lady from there (L.A. I presume) said that it was the right thing to do, because .."people are losing their jobs, and losing their homes, etc, etc"...

Guess what?! If the people are losing their jobs.... a higher minimum wage doesn't benefit those who aren't working. Secondly, the main reason many CA residents in particular, are losing their homes, is because they are buying homes they cannot afford in the first place, and basically living beyond their means.... via credit cards, etc. Learn to budget, people.... TIME & MONEY.

 

[Lowe0]

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 knot 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.

Mmhmm. Let me know how many elections you win with the "right off the top, 10% of you aren't going to get to vote anymore" platform. Or if you have an implementable solution to the corporate subsidy problem, instead of just pointing out the obvious.

 

[Cerberus]

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

It is one of Marx's 10 pillars. Also since Marx often used the term socialism to describe his ideas, doesn't that certainly equate socialism and communism? In reality socialism is the means to communism.

And I agree consumption is a far better method of levying taxes. Feds should be restrained to only receiving funds from modest import duties. Only local government should levy consumption taxes, and be held accountable.

 

[Cerberus]

Mmhmm. Let me know how many elections you win with the "right off the top, 10% of you aren't going to get to vote anymore" platform. Or if you have an implementable solution to the corporate subsidy problem, instead of just pointing out the obvious.

Sure I have a plan, lots of people do. End all government subsidies...ALL of them, corporate or otherwise. Corporate subsidies= Socialism.

 

[Lowe0]

Sure I have a plan, lots of people do. End all government subsidies...ALL of them, corporate or otherwise. Corporate subsidies= Socialism.

Yanking the band-aid off could work, but it would hurt, on a level we haven't seen in this country in almost a century. And we can't count on another world war this time.

 

[churchmouse]

Sure I have a plan, lots of people do. End all government subsidies...ALL of them, corporate or otherwise. Corporate subsidies= Socialism.

Do you consider Social Security a subside...??

 

[Cerberus]

Do you consider Social Security a subside...??

1) Do you only draw out the money you put in?
Or
2) Is it a scheme of pay a little draw a lot more?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Privatize it immediately, it's not the incompetent governments place to save for individuals retirements.

 

[Cerberus]

Yanking the band-aid off could work, but it would hurt, on a level we haven't seen in this country in almost a century. And we can't count on another world war this time.

Stupid choices yield stupid results. And Government caused and prolonged that fiasco. Seems to be a common theme.

 

[churchmouse]

1) Do you only draw out the money you put in?
Or
2) Is it a scheme of pay a little draw a lot more?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Privatize it immediately, it's not the incompetent governments place to save for individuals retirements.

OK....what about the money's I ans so many others have paid into this fund. I started at 15. 1965. I have started drawing it out. Spouse as well. We have both been gainfully employed and paid a lot into it.
Your response is not an answer to my question.
I agree that much of what the Gov. does should be stopped but the entire nation is on the teet at some level. What is your answer to this issue besides yelling from a soap box. To just throw the switch would put the country in total chaos.

And, SS is not an entitlement. It was solvent at one point. How can a person my age pay a little....to late for that.....and draw a lot.

Not trying to start a fight but just "Stopping" everything is not the answer.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It is one of Marx's 10 pillars. Also since Marx often used the term socialism to describe his ideas, doesn't that certainly equate socialism and communism? In reality socialism is the means to communism.

And I agree consumption is a far better method of levying taxes. Feds should be restrained to only receiving funds from modest import duties. Only local government should levy consumption taxes, and be held accountable.

No, it does not. Related yes, interchangeable, no.

 

[Kutnupe14]

1) Do you only draw out the money you put in?
Or
2) Is it a scheme of pay a little draw a lot more?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Privatize it immediately, it's not the incompetent governments place to save for individuals retirements.

How about farming subsidies? Should those be ended too?

 

[actaeon277]

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.

Absentee ballots are difficult to get, because they come in the mail. Mail service can be "spotty" for various reasons.
I made 2 med deployments on a sub. 6 months each. Received ZERO mail the entire time. Obviously I couldn't receive it while at sea. But we pulled into ports. But, submarine destinations, departure times, and arrival times are classified. The Navy knows, but their not going to blow security for mail. So, after the sub pulls into port, they will forward it. Which doesn't help if you're in port for 24 hours, or even 2 days.
Then, there's the matter of ballots not being accepted. In at least on election I went through, the Democrats moved that ballots submitted by military personnel though military post offices (APO and FPO) could not be "verified". Therefore, inadmissible.

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.

I disagree with progressive tax. But I also disagree with someone getting a bigger vote because their richer.
However, I think people voting should have "skin in the game", even if it's a smaller amount.
If you vote for increased "services" by the government, then your taxes go up.
It's too easy for someone having no skin in the game to say, "yes, spend more money".

Do you consider Social Security a subside...??

OK....what about the money's I ans so many others have paid into this fund. I started at 15. 1965. I have started drawing it out. Spouse as well. We have both been gainfully employed and paid a lot into it.
Your response is not an answer to my question.
I agree that much of what the Gov. does should be stopped but the entire nation is on the teet at some level. What is your answer to this issue besides yelling from a soap box. To just throw the switch would put the country in total chaos.

And, SS is not an entitlement. It was solvent at one point. How can a person my age pay a little....to late for that.....and draw a lot.

Not trying to start a fight but just "Stopping" everything is not the answer.

I think Social Security (and Medicaid/Medicare) is a Ponzi Scheme.
The problem is, just stopping it hurts everyone at the bottom of the pyramid. Another problem is, the longer it goes on, the more it will hurt. Before Social Security, people saved for retirement. After, people saved a little, but depended on Social Security. So stopping it means they have nothing.
Three of the problems with social security.
You don't pay money into a savings account. You pay for people currently on social security. The initial people did not pay into it. Just as many people didn't pay into Medicaid or Medicare. So, they are receiving services the did not pay for.
And, there used to be something like 20 employed workers for every worker receiving social security. Now it is something like 4.
Finally, social security was set up with assumptions that people would work X amount of years, and live for Y amount of years drawing social security. Those numbers have changed. Yet, if people are told payroll tax needs to go up, retirement age goes up, or payment decreases, people want to hang politicians.

How about farming subsidies? Should those be ended too?

While farming subsidies seem to be for the farmer, the farmer can raise his prices to compensate. No farmer is at a disadvantage because it effects every farmer.
The subsidy is more like the graduated income tax system. If the subsidy goes away, cost of food goes up. This will disproportionately effect the poor. They will have a harder time absorbing the cost increase. So, by using the money from the graduated tax system, food costs go down, helping the poor.

 

[jamil]

Hohn- excellent post, particularly regarding work/pay issues.

Today, CA's Gov Brown signed into law the $15/hr minimum wage. Some think it is overdue,basicllay because stuff costs way more in Caly. When asked by Fox News, one lady from there (L.A. I presume) said that it was the right thing to do, because .."people are losing their jobs, and losing their homes, etc, etc"...

Guess what?! If the people are losing their jobs.... a higher minimum wage doesn't benefit those who aren't working. Secondly, the main reason many CA residents in particular, are losing their homes, is because they are buying homes they cannot afford in the first place, and basically living beyond their means.... via credit cards, etc. Learn to budget, people.... TIME & MONEY.

A big reason why Kalifornia is the way it is. Too many people like her vote.

Mmhmm. Let me know how many elections you win with the "right off the top, 10% of you aren't going to get to vote anymore" platform. Or if you have an implementable solution to the corporate subsidy problem, instead of just pointing out the obvious.

The constitution says every citizen 18 or over has the right to vote. It's not a matter of how many elections people with that mindset would have to win, it's how possible is it for socialist minded electorate to ratify such an amendment.

However, I do think it's morally wrong that people can vote to have the resources of others stripped from the earners and be given to them. I wish the constitution had made that point so clear that the courts fabricating a court ruled amendment to the contrary would be an obviously impeachable offense.

1) Do you only draw out the money you put in?
Or
2) Is it a scheme of pay a little draw a lot more?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Privatize it immediately, it's not the incompetent governments place to save for individuals retirements.

Stupid choices yield stupid results. And Government caused and prolonged that fiasco. Seems to be a common theme.

I didn't make the stupid choice. The generations past were seduced into supporting it. I never agreed to that. I've had no practical choice in having to pay into the ponzi scheme. That money was taken from me for almost 40 years. I want that and what it would have earned in interest back.

Rather than young people telling me I'm just **** out of luck on all the money that's been taken from me to pay into this Ponzi Scheme, phase it out. But yer not gonna tell me "tough ****".

No, it does not. Related yes, interchangeable, no.

Progressive tax is a component of socialism. Communism is an implementation of socialism. If A implements B and B contains C, then A contains C. But we can't say any more than that's saying. Having a system that contains an element of communism doesn't make that system communist, it only makes it closer to communism. Of course, getting rid of that element would then make it less communist.

How about farming subsidies? Should those be ended too?

Yep. Ending government subsidies includes farm subsidies.

 

[churchmouse]

Absentee ballots are difficult to get, because they come in the mail. Mail service can be "spotty" for various reasons.
I made 2 med deployments on a sub. 6 months each. Received ZERO mail the entire time. Obviously I couldn't receive it while at sea. But we pulled into ports. But, submarine destinations, departure times, and arrival times are classified. The Navy knows, but their not going to blow security for mail. So, after the sub pulls into port, they will forward it. Which doesn't help if you're in port for 24 hours, or even 2 days.
Then, there's the matter of ballots not being accepted. In at least on election I went through, the Democrats moved that ballots submitted by military personnel though military post offices (APO and FPO) could not be "verified". Therefore, inadmissible.




I disagree with progressive tax. But I also disagree with someone getting a bigger vote because their richer.
However, I think people voting should have "skin in the game", even if it's a smaller amount.
If you vote for increased "services" by the government, then your taxes go up.
It's too easy for someone having no skin in the game to say, "yes, spend more money".






I think Social Security (and Medicaid/Medicare) is a Ponzi Scheme.
The problem is, just stopping it hurts everyone at the bottom of the pyramid. Another problem is, the longer it goes on, the more it will hurt. Before Social Security, people saved for retirement. After, people saved a little, but depended on Social Security. So stopping it means they have nothing.
Three of the problems with social security.
You don't pay money into a savings account. You pay for people currently on social security. The initial people did not pay into it. Just as many people didn't pay into Medicaid or Medicare. So, they are receiving services the did not pay for.
And, there used to be something like 20 employed workers for every worker receiving social security. Now it is something like 4.
Finally, social security was set up with assumptions that people would work X amount of years, and live for Y amount of years drawing social security. Those numbers have changed. Yet, if people are told payroll tax needs to go up, retirement age goes up, or payment decreases, people want to hang politicians.




While farming subsidies seem to be for the farmer, the farmer can raise his prices to compensate. No farmer is at a disadvantage because it effects every farmer.
The subsidy is more like the graduated income tax system. If the subsidy goes away, cost of food goes up. This will disproportionately effect the poor. They will have a harder time absorbing the cost increase. So, by using the money from the graduated tax system, food costs go down, helping the poor.

Understand that the spouse and I had a nice nest egg set in place with 3 401k's and an annuity.
They all took a death hit in the last crash (06/08) before we were aware enough to get what was left out before the thieves in suites got that as well. Yes, we are drawing from the fund. After paying into it since 1965 it is my turn. This is no freebie my friends. Not for me.
This is my argument against privatizing SS. Put that much money out there and some suit or group of suits will find a way to rape it.

I remember when the fund was solvent. Then the Dems started (with help from the rep. I am sure) raping it leaving IOU's and now it is just the general fund.

To just start screaming for all this to just stop is not the answer. It has taken years and years to get us here...........Now what.

 

[Hardscrable]

...the farmer can raise his prices...


How ?

 

[Cerberus]

The constitution says every citizen 18 or over has the right to vote. It's not a matter of how many elections people with that mindset would have to win, it's how possible is it for socialist minded electorate to ratify such an amendment.

Not originally. While I can understand setting the voting age at 18, especially if 17 is the minimum age for military service. However, I do think politicians saw it as an opportunity to let in a bunch of people with almost no life experiences to help temper their judgement. After all the socialist always seem to loudly proclaim how they have the youth vote.

However, I do think it's morally wrong that people can vote to have the resources of others stripped from the earners and be given to them. I wish the constitution had made that point so clear that the courts fabricating a court ruled amendment to the contrary would be an obviously impeachable offense.

I agree in the highest. No one has the legal right to steal from others, and no government should mandate such either.



I didn't make the stupid choice. The generations past were seduced into supporting it. I never agreed to that. I've had no practical choice in having to pay into the ponzi scheme. That money was taken from me for almost 40 years. I want that and what it would have earned in interest back.

Me either. You will not get any argument from me on this. An opt out should be offered as soon as possible and refunds in full need to be made. No one should ever be made to pay for the screw ups of others. Mass punishment is the means of tyrants.

Rather than young people telling me I'm just **** out of luck on all the money that's been taken from me to pay into this Ponzi Scheme, phase it out. But yer not gonna tell me "tough ****".

I do believe Cicero had a valid assessment of youth such as we have now. 'Nuff said.




Progressive tax is a component of socialism. Communism is an implementation of socialism. If A implements B and B contains C, then A contains C. But we can't say any more than that's saying. Having a system that contains an element of communism doesn't make that system communist, it only makes it closer to communism. Of course, getting rid of that element would then make it less communist.

And also when the man that codified such said it's a key component, and the man that was largely the father of realized "communism" say the goal of one is the other, does that actually make them all part of the same progression?

Yep. Ending government subsidies includes farm subsidies.

Yes it do

Mine in bold

 

[Cerberus]

No, it does not. Related yes, interchangeable, no.

So, the father of codified Communism, who titled his most infamous work "The Communist Manifesto" and then made many references to his ideas as laid forth in said titled work as "socialist", then both are not in fact the same? Now ad to that, that the #2 man in communist history, Lenin, actually stated that "the goal of socialism is communism". Certainly sounds to me like while they may be in the slightest way different, mainly in the means of implementation, they can at least be called twins.

 

[Cerberus]

Absentee ballots are difficult to get, because they come in the mail. Mail service can be "spotty" for various reasons.
I made 2 med deployments on a sub. 6 months each. Received ZERO mail the entire time. Obviously I couldn't receive it while at sea. But we pulled into ports. But, submarine destinations, departure times, and arrival times are classified. The Navy knows, but their not going to blow security for mail. So, after the sub pulls into port, they will forward it. Which doesn't help if you're in port for 24 hours, or even 2 days.
Then, there's the matter of ballots not being accepted. In at least on election I went through, the Democrats moved that ballots submitted by military personnel though military post offices (APO and FPO) could not be "verified". Therefore, inadmissible.


Land forces have a little better mail reception in most cases. I did find it rather odd that most of the men I knew that did not receive absentee ballot that were requested all seem to have been residents of more urban area. We all know which side controls most urban areas.

I disagree with progressive tax. But I also disagree with someone getting a bigger vote because their richer.
However, I think people voting should have "skin in the game", even if it's a smaller amount.
If you vote for increased "services" by the government, then your taxes go up.
It's too easy for someone having no skin in the game to say, "yes, spend more money".

Don't necessarily agree with such either. But on the other hand, how can anyone tell anyone paying more that they don't in fact in all justification deserve more? And that is where progressive taxes looses all credibility. That is also why no income tax should ever be levied.





I think Social Security (and Medicaid/Medicare) is a Ponzi Scheme.
The problem is, just stopping it hurts everyone at the bottom of the pyramid. Another problem is, the longer it goes on, the more it will hurt. Before Social Security, people saved for retirement. After, people saved a little, but depended on Social Security. So stopping it means they have nothing.
Three of the problems with social security.
You don't pay money into a savings account. You pay for people currently on social security. The initial people did not pay into it. Just as many people didn't pay into Medicaid or Medicare. So, they are receiving services the did not pay for.
And, there used to be something like 20 employed workers for every worker receiving social security. Now it is something like 4.
Finally, social security was set up with assumptions that people would work X amount of years, and live for Y amount of years drawing social security. Those numbers have changed. Yet, if people are told payroll tax needs to go up, retirement age goes up, or payment decreases, people want to hang politicians.

The choices, good or bad, by others should never be placed at the feet of anyone other than those that made them.


While farming subsidies seem to be for the farmer, the farmer can raise his prices to compensate. No farmer is at a disadvantage because it effects every farmer.
The subsidy is more like the graduated income tax system. If the subsidy goes away, cost of food goes up. This will disproportionately effect the poor. They will have a harder time absorbing the cost increase. So, by using the money from the graduated tax system, food costs go down, helping the poor.

We already have the fattest poor class on the planet, seems they are getting far more than the actually need. I could go on.....

Once again mine in bold

 

[actaeon277]

...the farmer can raise his prices...


How ?

If the cost of gas quadruples for all the farmers, they have to make that up somehow. By raising prices.
A farmer can not raise his prices when no other farmers are.
But if they all lose their subsidy, then they are in the same boat. The price will have to go up.

 

[KLB]

If the cost of gas quadruples for all the farmers, they have to make that up somehow. By raising prices.
A farmer can not raise his prices when no other farmers are.
But if they all lose their subsidy, then they are in the same boat. The price will have to go up.

Crops aren't products where the farmer sets prices. They are a commodity where the market sets prices. The farmer could refuse to sell his crop for whatever the market price is, but then he gets to eat it himself.

In many cases subsidies are there to prop up prices, not keep them down.