GOP operative at the center of election fraud investigation reportedly paid woman to collect ballots

[Estebonrober]

Welfare recipients *shouldn't* be able to vote themselves a raise. It's a degenerate incentive in a system far more important than a video game.

Yet capital should feel no compunction about its use or misuse or its degenerative feedback loops? Capitalism should be used as a tool to raise everyone's standard of living as best as possible until we hit a post scarcity sustainable society. Taking voting away from 2/3s of humanity is not helping in any way.

Btw calculating whose a net payee would be a nightmare in the USA.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's pretty clear we are a post-scarce society with a deeply flawed economic model. It's worked out well for most people so far in that it's brought everyone out of starvation poverty and has given rise to a large middle class.Yet the amount of wealth sequestered now by a tiny fraction of the population could lift everyone into a decent life worth living. Instead we accept that people should be allowed to horde as much as they can and cheat on their taxes as much as they can get away while at the same time corrupting the government to give themselves more.

It sounds like a 'wake up sheeple!' post but it's true in broad strokes.

 

[Lexicus]

We're not quite post-scarcity - I'd say more like "post-accumulation" since we have capital disaccumulation rather than capital accumulation. Ie, we have increasing production as a function of reduced employment, plant, and so on.

 

[Traitorfish]

If we're not post-scarcity, we're certainly post-dearth. We may not be at a level where everyone gets to be rich, but we're incontestably at a level where nobody needs to be poor.

 

[brennan]

We are post-scarcity in that it is unarguable that we could feed and house everybody quite comfortably, in fact we could probably have done this over a hundred years ago.

We're not post-scarcity in that the economic system still leaves some people homeless and starving.

Depressingly, the right-wing hegemony over politics seems to be making things worse.

 

[El_Machinae]

To clarify, the most sensible threshold is whether someone is a net taxpayer. If someone isn't paying money into the system, it's awkward for them to have say where the money is going. The incentives are off.

This is a good instinct, but it misses the fact that a large part of our wage is a function of the power dynamic. You want people to work to be voting, and that's fair (we both understand that it's more complicated than that). But the taxes you pay are a function of your net productivity, not your captured productivity.

Consider the following situation: I have an employee whose services I rent out (she's a technician) at $75/hr and we spend $25/hr on supporting infrastructure. That's the benefit we are providing to society, the price the customer is willing to pay (we'll let the customer have the consumer surplus, and ignore it in this calculation).

If, through good negotiation, she makes $50 per hour she will go on to make ~$100k annually and absolutely be a net taxpayer. Let's call her take-home $60k.

If, through bad negotiation, she makes $6 per hour she will make $12k and qualify for some type of welfare. I, on the other hand, will be making $44/hr profit. I will be making $88k annually, and be 'paying' the taxes. Let's call my net $50k.

Neither is a function of her productivity, which is fixed. It's merely a function of the spread of the profits. If you view taxes as a 'drop in the quality of life to allow the rest of society to buy stuff', then the person who's income is $12k is going to be much less than the person who's (net) is $50k or $60k. My $12k technician has already paid.

In both scenarios, it's the combination of our labor that is generating the economic benefit and the taxes. IF we figure out some way of increasing her productivity (it doesn't matter WHO figures out the efficiency), some people will then feel more 'sorry' for the person who sees their income go up (and taxes go up) as a result. Based on the stagnation of the median wage, let's bet that it will be the employer (nevermind who did the innovation).

Even if my ownership is idle, I inherited shares or something, people would still feel 'sorry' for me if my taxes went up as a function of increased productivity. She's being paid $6 per hour, increases her productivity so that I get a 'free' $1/hr (and thus see an increase in my tax 'burden'), some people will say that my voting rights are more valuable than hers.

TL;DR - the taxes paid are from the sum of the arrangement (customer, employer, employee) and not merely a function of the component one person captures.

 

[Lexicus]

If we're not post-scarcity, we're certainly post-dearth. We may not be at a level where everyone gets to be rich, but we're incontestably at a level where nobody needs to be poor.

Depends on the definition of "post-scarcity" you choose to use. At any rate obviously I agree that we have the real resources available to us to easily eliminate poverty, homelessness, hunger, and so on from the entire world. The reasons we cannot do that are political.
Additionally in the age of capital disaccumulation consumption is what drives production. This means that consumers are contributing to production in their function as consumers.

 

[brennan]

Quite a large proportion of production in the richer parts of the world is extremely unproductive: given over to manufacturing disposable products and junk nobody really needs. Consumerism is driving this, and it is a real economic problem imo.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Quite a large proportion of production in the richer parts of the world is extremely unproductive: given over to manufacturing disposable products and junk nobody really needs. Consumerism is driving this, and it is a real economic problem imo.

Dead-Elvis-on-a-toilet statues are totally useful!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Quite a large proportion of production in the richer parts of the world is extremely unproductive: given over to manufacturing disposable products and junk nobody really needs. Consumerism is driving this, and it is a real economic problem imo.

I would not say it's unproductive - quite the opposite.

We have such a surplus of wealth we can produce whatever crap we want without having to choose between trinkets and bread. That we have extreme poverty in the US is not because of wasted economic productive capacity but rather because we do not believe in downward wealth distribution and have instead done what we can to make sure wealth funnels upward.

 

[Hygro]

Welfare recipients *shouldn't* be able to vote themselves a raise. It's a degenerate incentive in a system far more important than a video game.

You might want to think this one through....

 

[Takhisis]

While I agree with Mr Hygro that ‘more important than a video game’ is simply not a valid statement, I also have to point out that…

Wealth is coming from somewhere. The people giving it up should be the ones who have say how it's spent. Of course not paying taxes has its own benefit. Government can't afford too many people not doing it so there will still be voters.

Given that foodstuffs eaten by all people in a democracy are paid by everyone while income tax is usually the target for ‘exemptions’ for rich people, why do the rich get to vote but the poor get struck off voters' rolls and so on, in that there yonder land of the free?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Welfare recipients *shouldn't* be able to vote themselves a raise. It's a degenerate incentive in a system far more important than a video game. Same goes for politicians giving themselves a raise directly.

Business shouldnt be able to vote themselves a tax cut
Military industrial complex shouldnt be able to vote themselves a massive expenditure increase
Steel industry shouldnt be able to vote themselves a tariff
Coal industry shouldnt be able to vote themselves government subsidies
etc etc etc

Technically the mass of voters and the constitutional right to exercise this power of vote should have acted as a balance to big powerful business interests and rich lobbying groups

 

[Hrothbern]

Welfare recipients *shouldn't* be able to vote themselves a raise. It's a degenerate incentive in a system far more important than a video game. Same goes for politicians giving themselves a raise directly.

Let's bring that to its logical end conclusion:

The amount of votes you have is proportional to the amount of tax you pay.

That's straight back to the power balance of the Medieval period and so many other in history.
Nobility allowed to be nobility as long as it paid taxes and soldiers to the King.

This is a good instinct, but it misses the fact that a large part of our wage is a function of the power dynamic. You want people to work to be voting, and that's fair (we both understand that it's more complicated than that). But the taxes you pay are a function of your net productivity, not your captured productivity.

Consider the following situation: I have an employee whose services I rent out (she's a technician) at $75/hr and we spend $25/hr on supporting infrastructure. That's the benefit we are providing to society, the price the customer is willing to pay (we'll let the customer have the consumer surplus, and ignore it in this calculation).

If, through good negotiation, she makes $50 per hour she will go on to make ~$100k annually and absolutely be a net taxpayer. Let's call her take-home $60k.

If, through bad negotiation, she makes $6 per hour she will make $12k and qualify for some type of welfare. I, on the other hand, will be making $44/hr profit. I will be making $88k annually, and be 'paying' the taxes. Let's call my net $50k.

Neither is a function of her productivity, which is fixed. It's merely a function of the spread of the profits. If you view taxes as a 'drop in the quality of life to allow the rest of society to buy stuff', then the person who's income is $12k is going to be much less than the person who's (net) is $50k or $60k. My $12k technician has already paid.

In both scenarios, it's the combination of our labor that is generating the economic benefit and the taxes. IF we figure out some way of increasing her productivity (it doesn't matter WHO figures out the efficiency), some people will then feel more 'sorry' for the person who sees their income go up (and taxes go up) as a result. Based on the stagnation of the median wage, let's bet that it will be the employer (nevermind who did the innovation).

Even if my ownership is idle, I inherited shares or something, people would still feel 'sorry' for me if my taxes went up as a function of increased productivity. She's being paid $6 per hour, increases her productivity so that I get a 'free' $1/hr (and thus see an increase in my tax 'burden'), some people will say that my voting rights are more valuable than hers.

TL;DR - the taxes paid are from the sum of the arrangement (customer, employer, employee) and not merely a function of the component one person captures.

Yes
And, or but, the consequence of that is that our current voting system of one person one vote with some level of welfare..... relaxes the pressure the poor income earners would otherwise develop on their employers in a likely chaotic fashion, on average being detrimental for the overall prosperity level of the economy.

Democracy is imo rockbottom an appeasement arrangement, thought out by the historical elite, pacifying the people among eachother, enabling domestic continuity with little disruptions, for the higher prosperity of all, for the higher economical AND military strenght of the nation.
The increase of level of suffrage happened in a period of history where wars were all over the place. And having the buy in from your people, the buy in in their own nation to encourage spending their blood in the conflict, by conscription for all physical able, having mostly loyal soldiers, was a competitive advantage.

Now..
With increasing AI in military, with increased high tech capital assets per soldier, with nations arrogantly trusting that going back in the direction of mercenary military (like Medieval times), gives more "flexibility" to engage in more and more kinds of conflicts to leverage existing power surplus in lasting power surplus....
With increasing automation and AI in the economy, delivering obedient machines, eroding the use of meanwhile not only the lower skilled but also the middle level workers, enabling lower wages and more topdown obedience structures. Reducing the needed buy in to a much lower percentage of the workforce....

It is almost (darwinistic) natural to assume that the old need for full participation, for full suffrage is starting to erode.
In the period from WW2 until end 20th century highlighting abuse by lazy welfare recipients was always a nice agenda point to divide the broad masses, to lessen their influence as a whole.
But I think our new nobility, emerging in (capital) strenght, has meanwhile on its agenda to act upon the changed situation, and reduce actively the power of suffrage and (more) equality.
Developing tools to control the broad masses, developing tools and test them out to handle and direct mobs against their own personal interests are the way to go for the new nobility.
The old nobilities had "the bread and circuses" for the true citizens (Rome) to have their reservoir of core loyal legions. The old nobilities had influenced, transformed the christian beliefs into an obedience system (since Constantine, developing into the state religion this took flight).

Populism has always been there. It is part of our human nature.
Populism has always been used to strenghten the position of the powerfull and to attack the existing powerfull.
What I see now is that the new nobility is better in handling that populist potential to their interests, than the people, bodies, movements, that have good intentions for the interests of the broad masses. Nationalism, tribalism, identity culture, a good alternative for religion in our increasing secular societies.
The attack on the Rule of Law, the oldest formalised convenant to appease the masses when the population density and tribal scale size increased, alligned.


TheMeInTeam
Are you aware that your opinions make you the perfect pawn for this nobility ?
And that you are just as expendable as a pawn once your use has reached its expiry date, and you are ditched by that nobility.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The amount of votes you have is proportional to the amount of tax you pay.

That's straight back to the power balance of the Medieval period and so many other in history.
Nobility allowed to be nobility as long as it paid taxes and soldiers to the King.

That's not quite true, as both an evaluation of logical conclusion in present or in historical terms (quite often kings were beholden to support of nobility rather than the other way around). We would need to straight up reform how votes are counted to move meaningfully away from non-representative candidates. Right now, elected representatives at many different levels of government are almost entirely comprised of one of two parties, both laced with an incredible amount of money coming consistently from the same people (or corporations).

Are you aware that your opinions make you the perfect pawn for this nobility ?

That's my line. MO of one party is to promise people free stuff for votes and recruit more such voters, MO of the other party is to vaguely do the same thing, largely differentiating on what social issues and lip service to use + which major private backers to favor with legislation.

We'd need to do a lot more than just remove degenerate incentives from who votes to correct for this. That + a voting setup that allows candidates more representative of the population is the best model I've seen proposed, though notably democrats/republicans would *never* go for this.

TL;DR - the taxes paid are from the sum of the arrangement (customer, employer, employee) and not merely a function of the component one person captures.

I'd certainly be willing to work with a less crude/more accurate model that still addresses the incentive problem, if there's one that estimates wealth generation --> taxes better and is equal or less prone to corruption (method for deciding what "counts").

 

[MaryKB]

Oh dear, I feel it's absolutely repugnant to suggest capital's more important than people, I mean do you feel a country should serve money or its citizens? I don't care how much money you make, I believe everyone's equal under the law, but if you think your laws should only be made to represent wealthy people, you're absolutely talking about classism and aristocracy, and that never ends up well, and is totally against ideas of universal personal freedom.

 

[Lexicus]

Populism has always been used to strenghten the position of the powerfull and to attack the exiting powerfull.

Populism in the United States in the 1880s and 1890s, the original populism, was a cross-racial coalition that attacked the power of the planter and financial elites in the Southern and Western United States, which led directly to Jim Crow as a reaction against it. Populism is properly thought of as an attack on power and privilege. The way that "populism" is being used in the mainstream press today bears almost no resemblance to the way the term has historically applied.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd certainly be willing to work with a less crude/more accurate model that still addresses the incentive problem, if there's one that estimates wealth generation --> taxes better and is equal or less prone to corruption (method for deciding what "counts").

Oh, absolutely. I just want to insist that someone who is working is already a net taxpayer. It's just that the taxes are coming from the sum of the arrangement (customer, employer, worker), and you don't necessarily need to look at the actual line item.

I'll also point out that the non-working have already voted just tax breaks for themselves. I don't think that savings should be taxed (except property, for obvious reasons) but I think it's important to tax incomes. In our currently unstable society you can make a really good income just buying and holding onto stuff and selling it later. And you'll pay a much lower tax, even though the majority of the growth in the underlying value of your holding is because of all the efforts and work put in by other people. The amount of income collected by the 'non-working' is going to skyrocket as the Boomers die*, and they've already voted themselves a tax cut on the incomes produced by other people. Insignificantly different from the poor non-working voting themselves higher benefits.

*In Canada, if you inherit $11 million, you can have a median level lifestyle AND seize an increasing share of the Canadian economy each year. i.e., you get richer faster than the endogenous growth rate.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'd certainly be willing to work with a less crude/more accurate model that still addresses the incentive problem, if there's one that estimates wealth generation --> taxes better and is equal or less prone to corruption (method for deciding what "counts").

That's actually pretty easy to do. Tax wealth directly rather than income. Income that is just used to get along makes the economy churn anyway. It's the pockets where wealth just gathers up and collects dust that produce economic and societal problems. So tax those and don't worry about modeling wealth generation more accurately.

 

[Farm Boy]

That could fuel a lot of burn-style consumption, wouldn't it?