Trump surrenders to Democrats

[ChrLzs]

48 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

One person,one vote is insanity if 1/3 or more are ignorant of actual facts.

So what?  I see that your suggested solution was, apparently tongue in cheek.  There will always be ignorant people, and I'd argue they are spread throughout societal classes.  If you honestly believe there is a way of dealing with that, or that it is fair to exclude persons of .. lower functionality, shall we say, I'd love to hear a sensible approach...

 

Here everyone is listed for voting, it is quite well and accurately tracked via electoral rolls.  If you don't vote you may get a small fine, but voter turnout is usually very high.  My ignorant vote is worth just as much as those highly edumacated ones.

And frankly, any system that tries to take away rights on whatever basis, is open to tyrrany...  So I totally disagree.

 

 

BTW, not that it was my issue, here we do NOT require photoID.  But because we have very high turnout and the electoral roll system, your name gets crossed out when you attend a voting station.  If you are crossed out at two or more locations, then your votes are not included until the matter is resolved.  It's pretty simple and there is virtually zero voter fraud because people understand how it works..

Edited February 21, 2019 by ChrLzs
added BTW

[CrimsonKing]

3 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

So what?  I see that your suggested solution was, apparently tongue in cheek.  There will always be ignorant people, and I'd argue they are spread throughout societal classes.  If you honestly believe there is a way of dealing with that, or that it is fair to exclude persons of .. lower functionality, shall we say, I'd love to hear a sensible approach...

 

Here everyone is listed for voting, it is quite well and accurately tracked via electoral rolls.  If you don't you my get a small fine, but voter turnout is usually very high.  My ignorant vote is worth just as much as those highly edumacated ones.

And frankly, any system that tries to take away rights on whatever basis, is open to tyrrany...  So I totally disagree.

I already did...take a test every few years with different questions rotating over time...

Yep already know about you guys system,don't love it/don't hate it...

Well "whatever basis" is already here in this country as felons can't vote,and i do not believe people should cast a ballot if they have no understanding of what they are voting for just...because! 

Yeah we will just have to TOTALLY agree to disagree...meh

[Golden Duck]

5 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

So what?  I see that your suggested solution was, apparently tongue in cheek.  There will always be ignorant people, and I'd argue they are spread throughout societal classes.  If you honestly believe there is a way of dealing with that, or that it is fair to exclude persons of .. lower functionality, shall we say, I'd love to hear a sensible approach...

 

Here everyone is listed for voting, it is quite well and accurately tracked via electoral rolls.  If you don't vote you may get a small fine, but voter turnout is usually very high.  My ignorant vote is worth just as much as those highly edumacated ones.

And frankly, any system that tries to take away rights on whatever basis, is open to tyrrany...  So I totally disagree.

 

 

BTW, not that it was my issue, here we do NOT require photoID.  But because we have very high turnout and the electoral roll system, your name gets crossed out when you attend a voting station.  If you are crossed out at two or more locations, then your votes are not included until the matter is resolved.  It's pretty simple and there is virtually zero voter fraud because people understand how it works..

I got sent a letter by the AEC because my name was crossed more than once. I just had to ring them and tell them where I voted. 

I don't see how they could exclude a secret ballot from the count. 

[ChrLzs]

11 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I got sent a letter by the AEC because my name was crossed more than once. I just had to ring them and tell them where I voted. 

I don't see how they could exclude a secret ballot from the count. 

Sorry, I misspoke.  You are correct in that they can't relate the correct vote to your actual attendance.  But they way it works is that in any election result that was close, if the cases of voter fraud were enough that the outcome could have been affected, then it could trigger a recount/revote.  As far as I am aware, there has never been a case of that happening in Oz, largely because the number of duplicate votes is always very small, and what's more, most of the duplicates occur from admin errors or where, say an elderly person does an early absentee vote, forgets, and then their relatives take them in to vote ..

It would take a large scale initiative to try to use that method to influence the vote, and the duplication issue would be uncovered later anyway.

[+DieChecker]

9 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

Biggest problem is actually our uninformed voters...

One should have to pass a test once every 3 years or so before each election to determine if they actually understand what they are voting for,not just the sweet nothings politicians whisper to them on the trail... 

One person,one vote is insanity if 1/3 or more are ignorant of actual facts.

You know that's never going to happen. It would eliminate 2/3 of all perspective voters.

I've watched a few videos of people polling university students on issues such as Medicare for All, and the New Green Deal. In which they first ask if they support those things. Then they outline what is in the legislation. Then tell them the effects (according to CBO usually), and get their reactions. It is amazing the number of what people who would be labeled "Lib-tards", who swing around to the Center when confronted with a 70% tax, and twice the wait time at hospitals, and having to turn in their gas burning car. 

[Farmer77]

29 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

. It is amazing the number of what people who would be labeled "Lib-tards", who swing around to the Center when confronted with a 70% tax,

Well since thats a misrepresentation its not that amazing. Id love for those same people doing the "polling" to explain that the 70% is only on income over 10 million annually. My guess is the swing, like the question, would be much more reality based. 

 

[Farmer77]

@DieChecker

oll: Majority Backs AOC’s 70 Percent Top Marginal Tax Rate

Quote

Over the weekend, pollsters from the Hill–HarrisX asked voters, “Would you favor or oppose a tax proposal that would apply a 70% rate to the 10 millionth dollar and beyond for individuals making $10 million a year or more in reportable income?” — and 59 percent said yes.

The idea was “popular in all regions of the country.” Southerners backed it by a 57-to-43 percent margin, while 56 percent of voters in rural zip codes agreed that the socialist congresswoman was onto something. Even 45 percent of self-identified Republicans approved.

 

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Well since thats a misrepresentation its not that amazing. Id love for those same people doing the "polling" to explain that the 70% is only on income over 10 million annually. My guess is the swing, like the question, would be much more reality based. 

 

Well, to be fair the videos never say how many people they had to interview to get their video. Could be they interviewed 10 and 10 turned their opinions around. But, could easily be they interviewed 50 and only showed the 10 that they wanted to show.

The videos are really about as useful as any other youtube video. Not much. Basically just entertainment, but sometimes can make you think.

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

@DieChecker

Poll: Majority Backs AOC’s 70 Percent Top Marginal Tax Rate

Quote

Over the weekend, pollsters from the Hill–HarrisX asked voters, “Would you favor or oppose a tax proposal that would apply a 70% rate to the 10 millionth dollar and beyond for individuals making $10 million a year or more in reportable income?” — and 59 percent said yes.

The idea was “popular in all regions of the country.” Southerners backed it by a 57-to-43 percent margin, while 56 percent of voters in rural zip codes agreed that the socialist congresswoman was onto something. Even 45 percent of self-identified Republicans approved.

ONLY 59%? !! I'd imagine that a lot more people would be OK with taxing the "over 10 million" crowd. That barely represents Democrats and Independents. Heck, I'd support raising their taxes, if not to 70%.

I saw a similar poll where they asked if the person being polled would want their own taxes raised by even 1% and it had something like 15% saying they backed that. And, let's be real.... Taxing the over 10 million crowd isn't going to pay for a third of any one single idea of the many that AOC wants to push forward. EVERYONE is going to have to eat a giant tax bill, if we want free education, free healthcare and want to accomplish enormous environmental reform in the next decade or so.

Heck, if someone said they would make California pay all of Oregon's bills, so I had to pay 0 in taxes to Oregon, I'd be like, "Heck yeah!". Point being the majority is always quick to accept the other guy paying the bill, but when it falls to their own pockets... Not so much.

EDIT: YIKES!!!

The guy that wrote the article, crowing about this good news, wrote this also.... (From end of article)

Quote

There are reasonable critiques of Ocasio-Cortez’s tax plan (raising taxes on capital gains might be a more effective way of soaking the superrich; a confiscatory top marginal rate might prove impotent, absent a global war on tax havens; socializing the means of production, under the control of a workers’ state, might be a more technocratically efficacious means of reducing America’s Gini coefficient). But the notion that it’s “politically damaging for Ds” ain’t one.

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by DieChecker

[Myles]

4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Well since thats a misrepresentation its not that amazing. Id love for those same people doing the "polling" to explain that the 70% is only on income over 10 million annually. My guess is the swing, like the question, would be much more reality based. 

 

Wouldn't that just end up leading to people leaving the country to avoid a 70% tax?    Certainly it would encourage more questionable practices of hiding money.

[+DieChecker]

12 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I saw a similar poll where they asked if the person being polled would want their own taxes raised by even 1% and it had something like 15% saying they backed that.

This, I don't think, is the same poll, but this one shows the same trends...

The answers to the questions depend on what the question is. A majority likes the idea (+14 points), and supports everyone having healthcare (+45 points), but the majority (by -20 points) doesn't want to pay for it. And if it leads to "delays" they HATE it (-44 points).

[Farmer77]

8 hours ago, Myles said:

Wouldn't that just end up leading to people leaving the country to avoid a 70% tax?    Certainly it would encourage more questionable practices of hiding money.

Oh it definitely would require an entire reworking of the legal protections in our financial system, closing tax loopholes and enacting consumer protections. Which in and of itself would be huge for our treasury.

[Setton]

9 hours ago, Myles said:

Wouldn't that just end up leading to people leaving the country to avoid a 70% tax?    Certainly it would encourage more questionable practices of hiding money.

You already have higher tax brackets than plenty of other countries. By this logic, why are they still there now? 

[ChrLzs]

47 minutes ago, Setton said:

You already have higher tax brackets than plenty of other countries. By this logic, why are they still there now? 

Maybe it's because of those very 'questionable practices of hiding money', easy tax avoidance and the general benefits of a corrupt government system handing out contracts-for-donations?

[ChrLzs]

On 21/02/2019 at 10:14 AM, Ellapennella said:

Is it ridiculous to you that some people  complain about having to have  photo I.D  required  to vote ?

FTR, it's ridiculous to me how some folks think their little circle is applicable to entire countries, entire social groups..

In two of the country towns I used to live in, there were large indigenous populations.  By the nature of their culture, and also the fact that these were not large towns, most had no driver's licence.  In Australia, you only need to carry ID when you are driving - just about everything else does not require ID (got it yet Mr Trump? - you don't need to show ID to buy groceries..).

So all of those folks currently without photo ID would have to go to some government agency (and doing that is not something they (or I for that matter) like, given historical injustices).  They would then have to be photographed (which raises other cultural issues eg about not seeing images of people who have passed on), and also remember to carry that card with them.  A card that is useless to them for 99.9% of the time...

So, yes, to exclude indigenous folks from voting, just introduce Photo ID - won't affect us well-to-do car enthusiasts.... just everyone else.

It seems it is the Age of Me-Me-Me-Me... I'm the only one that is important, and my experience trumps all (geddit?).....

[Myles]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

You already have higher tax brackets than plenty of other countries. By this logic, why are they still there now? 

Perhaps it is just not enough to bother with.   70% would be.