6 ms·

Makes my blood boil reading this, especially how poor republicans who have the most to gain through tax reform are consistently voting against their interest.

by pcurve 9y ago

brianwawok 9y ago
But poor republicans have often a religious obligation to vote republican. So do you vote democrat to get more money and fail your religious obligtation? Or do you vote repblican to fulfill your religious obligation at the cost of some rich guys getting richer? Not all people vote through an economic lens. Many othet lenses exist. Religion is just one of them. You could replace religion with gun rights. Or states rights. Same story. I would guess for most people, no one party matches all their wants. So they need to prioritize.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  This is why our two-party political system needs to change. It's proven inadequate to reflect the people in a nuanced enough way.
  - menacingly 9y ago
    It's the same as the old cable company model. Slicing the list of available concerns up just perfectly enough that you can't get what you want without a bunch of shit you don't.
    - brianwawok 9y ago
      But it's almost worse. In the cable system, if I want channel 1 from package A, and channel 2 form package B.. I can get mad they aren't in the same package.. but I can ultimately just buy the super package and for $200 a month get all channels. How do I do that in politics? Get one view from party A and one view form party B? I can't. I have to pick my priorities and only get one. or maybe guess which party has more things I like.
  - sharemywin 9y ago
    The problem is a strong multiparty system can get fringe elements in power. We also, need to rank candidates: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ranking-candidates-more-accurate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ranking-candidate...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - jrs95 9y ago
      At this point, the fringes are the only groups that have any interest in changing this aspect of the tax system
      - brianwawok 9y ago
        So great, let's make a system of government where fringe groups can get more things done. Your fringe group wants to reform the tax code. Awesome. Another wants to build a wall with Mexico. Another wants to ban immigration by non-whites. Another wants to take away voting for women. Another wants to legalize the right to carry AK-47s in public. How do you get your "fringe" change through, but not other crazy changes through?
        jrs95 9y ago
        By making either making the establishment embrace what are currently fringe ideas, or replacing the establishment entirely
        icebraining 9y ago
        In Parliament, the fringe groups are usually still in the minority, so they can only pass whatever the non-fringe groups vote for. That may lead to some concessions, but not "take away voting for women" level of crazy. These fringe groups know their growth comes from mainstream voters trying to push some change, so if they push for crazy ideas, they'll lose those voters and the non-fringe groups can force new elections to "steal" them back. My Western European country is currently being governed by a centrist party with support by two "far left" parties, including our national Communist party, and the demands they make are for a somewhat higher minimum wage, not an imposition of Marxism-Leninism.
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    This sounds like perhaps the top fix, to get my personal view better represented. But then I see how coalition governments work in other places. I am not sure that is overall better? Better in some ways, but I think it has a lot of downsides also.
    - mac01021 9y ago
      What are the biggest downsides, as you see it?
      - brianwawok 9y ago
        The tiny minority has tons of power. Think of a three party system with 45 / 45 / 10 of the votes. The 10% party gets to see which of the big party will support their measures. The party that gives in can now have a combined 55% of the vote, and can then railroad through all the laws of both the 45% and the 10% party, totally ignoring the wishes of the other 45% party. So effectively, a tiny 10% party now has more political say than a party that represents 45% of the population!
        mac01021 9y ago
        But the 45% party and the 10% party form a coalition because their platforms are more closely aligned to one another than either is with that of the second 45% party, right? Isn't that exactly what we have in our current 2-party system, with factions forming coalitions against the other groups that they most disagree with? Might the only difference be that, on one side of the Atlantic, the individual factions have explicit names while the coalitions go unlabeled, and on the other side of the Atlantic we explicitly name the coalitions while the factions they comprise go (mostly) unlabeled?
toomuchtodo 9y ago
Vote. Run for office. Become active in politics. That is the only way these problems get fixed. EDIT: Start small. All politics are local. Run for city council, or some other form of local government. Work towards change. Network. Expand your reach as you become comfortable in your role. My contact info is in my profile if you want a step by step guide.
- Ygg2 9y ago
  Don't you need a lot of money to run a successful campaign. And we all know what that means. Which means, selling your soul to local corp.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    The amount of capital you need increases somewhere between linearly and exponentially as you move closer towards federal office, which is why I suggested starting with local politics (which costs almost nothing to participate in; selling your soul is not required). You can run a local office campaign for under $1000.
fortythirteen 9y ago
That's not true. Actual poor people pay very little, if any, income tax. As the article pointed out, this is most damaging to the upper-middle class.
- taeric 9y ago
  They would benefit from a funded government. Schools and other public services cost money.
  - ChiliDogSwirl 9y ago
    Schools in the US are funded at the local county/township/municipal level, typically by property taxes or sales taxes, though it varies from state to state. Nothing really to do with income taxes, apart from the occasional grant.
    - taeric 9y ago
      I get that it is not the majority of funding. I don't know if it is a solid source, but http://www.data-first.org/data/how-much-money-does-our-school-district-receive-from-federal-state-and-local-sources/ http://www.data-first.org/data/how-much-money-does-our-schoo... has it at about 10%. 10% is not nothing. And, quite frankly, the places that need the most help probably don't have a lot of options at the local level.
  - autokad 9y ago
    No. No. No. It is really hard to take someones money and claim you can do better with it than they can, especially if that: #1 you do not share their views #2 you have no obligation to spend the money on what you stole it for #3 you have a proven track record for inefficiency Want to help me out? let me keep my damn money, let me decide what is right for me. you got an agenda? spend your own money toward it. its also worth noting that almost all school funding does not come from these taxes. if you are so concerned about funding public services, demand Apple pay their taxes. they got 250 billion of the tax evaded stuff.
jrs95 9y ago
It's not like Democrats have any desire to do anything about this either. The people who benefit from this are paying off both parties.
jgalt212 9y ago
You're the wrong way around on this. The poor pay very little income taxes. It's the upper middle class getting screwed to the benefit of the oligarchs. Of course, the poor are getting screwed, I just don't think one of the ways they are getting screwed is income tax policy.
- pcurve 9y ago
  Even though they're not paying a lot tax, they are getting screwed because if tax burden is shifted from upper middle to rich, the former would spend more of freed up money than latter on more variety of productive goods and services, which would benefit the poor more.
jrmurad 9y ago
If a politician promises to take ALL of the rich people's money and give it to me, would I be voting "against my own interests" if I thought that was a stupid idea which would result in more problems for myself and others? Adjust "ALL" to some other high percentage and it's the same idea.
dionidium 9y ago
It makes my blood boil (ok, not really boil) that this is such a frequent talking point. People vote from a complicated set of principles and interests of which immediate economics is just one member. If you can't figure out why poor republicans don't vote in their own interest, perhaps it's your understanding of their interests that's flawed. Maybe they're not stupid; consider that maybe you don't know anything about their interests and motivations. In short: if people keep doing something that you don't understand, maybe it's time to take a step back and admit that you don't understand it (instead of surmising that they must be idiots).
putlake 9y ago
This is a condescending attitude. People vote against their interest all the time. The HN crowd is generally in the top 10% of income and they vote for Democrats who will raise their taxes.
- ascagnel_ 9y ago
  If you look at it reductively, yes. The other way you can look at it is that you're paying more in taxes, and in doing so funding the improvement of externalities.

Makes my blood boil reading this, especially how poor republicans who have the most to gain through tax reform are consistently voting against their interest.

by pcurve 9y ago

Makes my blood boil reading this, especially how poor republicans who have the most to gain through tax reform are consistently voting against their interest.

brianwawok 9y ago

But poor republicans have often a religious obligation to vote republican. So do you vote democrat to get more money and fail your religious obligtation? Or do you vote repblican to fulfill your religious obligation at the cost of some rich guys getting richer? Not all people vote through an economic lens. Many othet lenses exist. Religion is just one of them. You could replace religion with gun rights. Or states rights. Same story. I would guess for most people, no one party matches all their wants. So they need to prioritize.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
This is why our two-party political system needs to change. It's proven inadequate to reflect the people in a nuanced enough way.
- menacingly 9y ago
  It's the same as the old cable company model. Slicing the list of available concerns up just perfectly enough that you can't get what you want without a bunch of shit you don't.
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    But it's almost worse. In the cable system, if I want channel 1 from package A, and channel 2 form package B.. I can get mad they aren't in the same package.. but I can ultimately just buy the super package and for $200 a month get all channels. How do I do that in politics? Get one view from party A and one view form party B? I can't. I have to pick my priorities and only get one. or maybe guess which party has more things I like.
- sharemywin 9y ago
  The problem is a strong multiparty system can get fringe elements in power. We also, need to rank candidates: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ranking-candidates-more-accurate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ranking-candidate...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jrs95 9y ago
    At this point, the fringes are the only groups that have any interest in changing this aspect of the tax system
    - brianwawok 9y ago
      So great, let's make a system of government where fringe groups can get more things done. Your fringe group wants to reform the tax code. Awesome. Another wants to build a wall with Mexico. Another wants to ban immigration by non-whites. Another wants to take away voting for women. Another wants to legalize the right to carry AK-47s in public. How do you get your "fringe" change through, but not other crazy changes through?
      - jrs95 9y ago
        By making either making the establishment embrace what are currently fringe ideas, or replacing the establishment entirely
      - icebraining 9y ago
        In Parliament, the fringe groups are usually still in the minority, so they can only pass whatever the non-fringe groups vote for. That may lead to some concessions, but not "take away voting for women" level of crazy. These fringe groups know their growth comes from mainstream voters trying to push some change, so if they push for crazy ideas, they'll lose those voters and the non-fringe groups can force new elections to "steal" them back. My Western European country is currently being governed by a centrist party with support by two "far left" parties, including our national Communist party, and the demands they make are for a somewhat higher minimum wage, not an imposition of Marxism-Leninism.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  This sounds like perhaps the top fix, to get my personal view better represented. But then I see how coalition governments work in other places. I am not sure that is overall better? Better in some ways, but I think it has a lot of downsides also.
  - mac01021 9y ago
    What are the biggest downsides, as you see it?
    - brianwawok 9y ago
      The tiny minority has tons of power. Think of a three party system with 45 / 45 / 10 of the votes. The 10% party gets to see which of the big party will support their measures. The party that gives in can now have a combined 55% of the vote, and can then railroad through all the laws of both the 45% and the 10% party, totally ignoring the wishes of the other 45% party. So effectively, a tiny 10% party now has more political say than a party that represents 45% of the population!
      - mac01021 9y ago
        But the 45% party and the 10% party form a coalition because their platforms are more closely aligned to one another than either is with that of the second 45% party, right? Isn't that exactly what we have in our current 2-party system, with factions forming coalitions against the other groups that they most disagree with? Might the only difference be that, on one side of the Atlantic, the individual factions have explicit names while the coalitions go unlabeled, and on the other side of the Atlantic we explicitly name the coalitions while the factions they comprise go (mostly) unlabeled?

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Vote. Run for office. Become active in politics. That is the only way these problems get fixed. EDIT: Start small. All politics are local. Run for city council, or some other form of local government. Work towards change. Network. Expand your reach as you become comfortable in your role. My contact info is in my profile if you want a step by step guide.

Ygg2 9y ago
Don't you need a lot of money to run a successful campaign. And we all know what that means. Which means, selling your soul to local corp.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  The amount of capital you need increases somewhere between linearly and exponentially as you move closer towards federal office, which is why I suggested starting with local politics (which costs almost nothing to participate in; selling your soul is not required). You can run a local office campaign for under $1000.

fortythirteen 9y ago

That's not true. Actual poor people pay very little, if any, income tax. As the article pointed out, this is most damaging to the upper-middle class.

taeric 9y ago
They would benefit from a funded government. Schools and other public services cost money.
- ChiliDogSwirl 9y ago
  Schools in the US are funded at the local county/township/municipal level, typically by property taxes or sales taxes, though it varies from state to state. Nothing really to do with income taxes, apart from the occasional grant.
  - taeric 9y ago
    I get that it is not the majority of funding. I don't know if it is a solid source, but http://www.data-first.org/data/how-much-money-does-our-school-district-receive-from-federal-state-and-local-sources/ http://www.data-first.org/data/how-much-money-does-our-schoo... has it at about 10%. 10% is not nothing. And, quite frankly, the places that need the most help probably don't have a lot of options at the local level.
- autokad 9y ago
  No. No. No. It is really hard to take someones money and claim you can do better with it than they can, especially if that: #1 you do not share their views #2 you have no obligation to spend the money on what you stole it for #3 you have a proven track record for inefficiency Want to help me out? let me keep my damn money, let me decide what is right for me. you got an agenda? spend your own money toward it. its also worth noting that almost all school funding does not come from these taxes. if you are so concerned about funding public services, demand Apple pay their taxes. they got 250 billion of the tax evaded stuff.

jrs95 9y ago

It's not like Democrats have any desire to do anything about this either. The people who benefit from this are paying off both parties.

jgalt212 9y ago

You're the wrong way around on this. The poor pay very little income taxes. It's the upper middle class getting screwed to the benefit of the oligarchs. Of course, the poor are getting screwed, I just don't think one of the ways they are getting screwed is income tax policy.

pcurve 9y ago
Even though they're not paying a lot tax, they are getting screwed because if tax burden is shifted from upper middle to rich, the former would spend more of freed up money than latter on more variety of productive goods and services, which would benefit the poor more.

jrmurad 9y ago

If a politician promises to take ALL of the rich people's money and give it to me, would I be voting "against my own interests" if I thought that was a stupid idea which would result in more problems for myself and others? Adjust "ALL" to some other high percentage and it's the same idea.

dionidium 9y ago

It makes my blood boil (ok, not really boil) that this is such a frequent talking point. People vote from a complicated set of principles and interests of which immediate economics is just one member. If you can't figure out why poor republicans don't vote in their own interest, perhaps it's your understanding of their interests that's flawed. Maybe they're not stupid; consider that maybe you don't know anything about their interests and motivations. In short: if people keep doing something that you don't understand, maybe it's time to take a step back and admit that you don't understand it (instead of surmising that they must be idiots).

putlake 9y ago

This is a condescending attitude. People vote against their interest all the time. The HN crowd is generally in the top 10% of income and they vote for Democrats who will raise their taxes.

ascagnel_ 9y ago
If you look at it reductively, yes. The other way you can look at it is that you're paying more in taxes, and in doing so funding the improvement of externalities.