Do we really need instant election returns? (About voting, not politics.)

[LSUmiss]

Not exactly. The perspective is that there is a base at which the COL is factored in, and a point above it at which it no longer is. A person who makes $30K has very little disposable income, while a person who makes $300K has rather a lot more left over once basic needs (food, shelter, reliable transportation, medications) have been covered. A wealthier person can afford to pay a larger amount of money and shoulder a bit more of the public burden without suffering unduly from the lack of that money.

Now, some folks will say that's a socialist perspective, but that's what taxes are all about. We pay them in order to maintain services that serve the public good, for all of us. Even those people who have all the money they could ever want still benefit when the poorest in society are kept proactively healthy and educated, so that they live productive lives, pay some taxes themselves, and don't overburden the criminal justice and health care systems.

But it goes further than that. With loopholes & tax breaks a person who makes a lot more than $300k typically pays about 15% of their income in taxes (at best) while someone who makes $30k usually pays 25-30% in taxes.

 

[Colleen27]

Any benefit we might have seen is going to be more than offset by increased costs for our employer-sponsored health insurance, and the rising cost of food caused by the trade war. We also need to replace our vehicles, and that is likely to cost more than we had anticipated, again because of the tariffs. We won't go hungry, but there will be no windfall.

That's where we're at too. We're in the group that is going to take the biggest hit from the loss of the personal exemption, since we have three dependents in the "too old for child tax credit" age bracket. The adjusted withholding tables meant about $25/week in additional take-home pay between the two of us... but now we're hearing that the adjusted tables may be problematic for dual-income hourly families where overtime is a factor, so that boost was probably at least partially due to under-withholding. Plus we're seeing 5 and 8 percent increases in our health insurance premiums respectively, on top of the higher general rate of inflation. Neither of our companies are increasing wages. My husband is doing the job of two people because they can't attract anyone to the lower-level position beneath him at their current wage, though the job has been posted since July, and my boss warned me when I hired in that only the union staff (we're not) get regular pay increases. Both cases are excellent examples of the irrationality of the job market - DH's company counts on good benefits and work-life balance to attract employees without accounting for the fact that those things don't matter much if you can't keep food on the table, and mine relies on the fact that I'm in a "calling" type profession to pay less than many retailers are currently offering.

 

[sam_gordon]

I think you are part of the group that has been convinced that you’re not getting screwed by the extremely rich b/c they told you you weren’t. I don’t want the rich destroyed. I just want them to pay their fair share. Currently most do not.

Who is "you"?

 

[bcla]

But it goes further than that. With loopholes & tax breaks a person who makes a lot more than $300k typically pays about 15% of their income in taxes (at best) while someone who makes $30k usually pays 25-30% in taxes.

I live in a state where the cap of the state and local tax deduction is going to result in a lot of upper middle class taxpayers paying more in taxes because of a loss of the deductions.

 

[LSUmiss]

Who is "you"?

The pp the post was in response to.

 

[sam_gordon]

The pp the post was in response to.

So you don't know either. As long as we're clear on that.

Since your post immediately followed mine, I'll assume you were addressing me. I never said I'm not getting screwed by the extremely rich. So you might want to check your reading again.

 

[b2k1121]

You are not watching the right news. Companies increased hiring this year (mostly small companies) due to the tax breaks, major corporations gave bonuses to their employees (I know. Crumbs, right? I think those people appreciated those $1000 crumbs though). Unemployment lowest rate in forever, and wages have increased across the board approximately 3% since the tax law took effect.

Wages have increased 2-3% each year for the last 5 years already. So that tax cut made no difference in wage growth.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

As far as one time bonuses, sure it's nice, but I'm sure most would rather have a permanent pay raise considering the amount of breaks corporations received. It's pretty obvious these were given out as purely PR moves considering how much the companies made sure to promote the bonuses.

I don't think you are watching the right news.

 

[rickybobby]

True, but that's misleading. Wage growth is at a 10-year high... and so is inflation, which is consuming most of that growth. Estimates of real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth are mostly in the .5 to 1 percent range, and many analysts are quick to point out how much of that growth is owing not to any change in tax policy but rather to phased-in increases in the minimum wage in many high-population cities and states.

Pretty much everyone I know is in the same boat they've been in for years - no or minimal pay increases that are more than offset by annual increases in health insurance costs. Wage growth is happening naturally at the top and through policy at the bottom, but many of those of us in median-income land are still watching our paychecks shrink.

Another point to ponder. The Fed is steadily increasing the interest rates. Bad news for consumers that have credit card debt that does not have a locked in rate, good news for people that want to start putting money back in an old fashioned savings account. Remember those? The reason for the increase is that the economy is strong enough to allow it. It sat at nothing for the last 10 years.

 

[LSUmiss]

So you don't know either. As long as we're clear on that.

Since your post immediately followed mine, I'll assume you were addressing me. I never said I'm not getting screwed by the extremely rich. So you might want to check your reading again.

So you don't know either. As long as we're clear on that.

Since your post immediately followed mine, I'll assume you were addressing me. I never said I'm not getting screwed by the extremely rich. So you might want to check your reading again.

No I know who it was. I’m not sure if I accidentally quoted you. I was replying to Rickybobby who said I was part of the group who thinks the rich need to be destroyed b/c they have more money than me (paraphrasing). My comment was in response to him saying that.

 

[sam_gordon]

No I know who it was. I’m not sure if I accidentally quoted you. I was replying to Rickybobby who said I was part of the group who thinks the rich need to be destroyed b/c they have more money than me (paraphrasing). My comment was in response to him saying that.

Nah, you didn’t quote anyone, which was why I was confused. I knew you had a conversation going with Ricky Bobby, but wasn’t sure if you were continuing that or jumping elsewhere.

 

[LSUmiss]

Nah, you didn’t quote anyone, which was why I was confused. I knew you had a conversation going with Ricky Bobby, but wasn’t sure if you were continuing that or jumping elsewhere.

Oops. Sorry!

 

[bcla]

Well - back to the original point of the topic, some elections have such a big margin from all votes tabulated on election night such that it's not really in doubt. However, then you get all these razor thin margins in some elections. We've had several US House of Representative races in California that took over a week to determine as more mail-in ballots and provisional ballots were accepted then counted.

Utah's 4th Congressional District just got certified. They had running totals where the leader flip flopped as mail in and provisional ballots were accepted under various signature-matching and eligibility verification requirements, then counted.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...-for-mcadams-in-final-vote-certification.html

And in other Utah news relevant to part of the discussion here, they apparently passed a ballot proposition meant to counter gerrymandering by setting up a civilian redistricting commission. I'm not sure how much it'll change things, but I found it interesting that Salt Lake City is part of three different Congressional districts. The usual charge for civilian restricting commissions is to try and keep cities and well-defined communities together in the same districts. Apparently (unlike California) this initiative gives the state legislature the opportunity to vote the district maps up or down, but then they would be held to the same mandate as the commission with judicial oversight.

 

[kdonnel]

This fits in with some of the conversation that has taken place in this thread.

A little late(54 years), but Georgia Rep. Scot Turner, R-Holly Springs, is trying to get Georgia to ratify the 24th Amendment.

https://politics.myajc.com/news/sta...rohibition-poll-taxes/6JAeSLKm1FVNx855QNFSsN/

 

[GreatLakes]

True, but that's misleading. Wage growth is at a 10-year high... and so is inflation, which is consuming most of that growth. Estimates of real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth are mostly in the .5 to 1 percent range, and many analysts are quick to point out how much of that growth is owing not to any change in tax policy but rather to phased-in increases in the minimum wage in many high-population cities and states.

Generally speaking, and there are of course exceptions, you have either low unemployment or low inflation. You don't have both.

Another point to ponder. The Fed is steadily increasing the interest rates. Bad news for consumers that have credit card debt that does not have a locked in rate, good news for people that want to start putting money back in an old fashioned savings account. Remember those? The reason for the increase is that the economy is strong enough to allow it. It sat at nothing for the last 10 years.

The Fed needs to raise rates. Money has been too cheap for too long.

The reality is we are due for a recession, we are getting close to setting the record for continuous growth by month. If we make it to next summer we will have the longest expansion in U.S. history. I hope everyone is preparing now for the coming recession and won't be caught off guard despite it being inevitable. Regardless of money and trade policy we need recessions, they are a perfectly normal part of the business cycle.

 

[Colleen27]

And in other Utah news relevant to part of the discussion here, they apparently passed a ballot proposition meant to counter gerrymandering by setting up a civilian redistricting commission. I'm not sure how much it'll change things, but I found it interesting that Salt Lake City is part of three different Congressional districts. The usual charge for civilian restricting commissions is to try and keep cities and well-defined communities together in the same districts. Apparently (unlike California) this initiative gives the state legislature the opportunity to vote the district maps up or down, but then they would be held to the same mandate as the commission with judicial oversight.

It will be interesting to see how all the different approaches to addressing gerrymandering play out in 2020. I think it was 5 states that passed different plans this year? Mine included, and I'm glad for it because our district is a train wreck of older/inner suburbs mixed with a TON of farmland to produce a safe seat with an impossible diversity of interests to represent well simultaneously. And our representative isn't even from the district - he moved here just in time to file as a candidate and except for the six months or so between then and moving to DC, he never actually lived in the district full-time.

Generally speaking, and there are of course exceptions, you have either low unemployment or low inflation. You don't have both.

The Fed needs to raise rates. Money has been too cheap for too long.

The reality is we are due for a recession, we are getting close to setting the record for continuous growth by month. If we make it to next summer we will have the longest expansion in U.S. history. I hope everyone is preparing now for the coming recession and won't be caught off guard despite it being inevitable. Regardless of money and trade policy we need recessions, they are a perfectly normal part of the business cycle.

But generally speaking, low unemployment leads to higher wage growth... not just barely inflation-matching wage growth that fails to reach many sectors.

I agree that we're due for a recession. I don't think many are prepared for the storm that is likely to come with the next one, though - all of the conditions that fed the '08 recession are still present and mostly stronger than they were then, particularly in the banking and investment sectors, and a huge chunk of our workforce still hasn't recouped the wage and asset losses from the last go-round. We need recessions, but we also need broad-based growth during periods of expansion. We haven't gotten the latter this time around. We also haven't fully "turned off" the recession-era stimulus policies at the federal level, though raising rates is one step in that direction, which means we'll have fewer tools to work with to balance the next downturn in the cycle.

 

[bcla]

It will be interesting to see how all the different approaches to addressing gerrymandering play out in 2020. I think it was 5 states that passed different plans this year? Mine included, and I'm glad for it because our district is a train wreck of older/inner suburbs mixed with a TON of farmland to produce a safe seat with an impossible diversity of interests to represent well simultaneously. And our representative isn't even from the district - he moved here just in time to file as a candidate and except for the six months or so between then and moving to DC, he never actually lived in the district full-time.

The various means to counteract gerrymandering include various equal protection arguments in the state courts as well as independent commissions. So far the US Supreme Court hasn't taken any gerrymandering case, although they have let state court cases stand. I haven't heard of a case in federal court ruling where a mapping has been overturned other than for some limited changes. Those usually had to do with establishing "majority minority" districts that theoretically pieced voters with similar interests together.

There's no Constitutional requirement that a member of the house has to live in the district. We've got our fair share of carpetbaggers in California. It has varied from someone living just outside of a district to someone literally 400 miles away. I've heard of some states attempting to make that a requirement for their state, but they would have faced it being declared unconstitutional.

 

[bcla]

So apparently there are two races in the US House of Representatives that haven't been certified yet. One is unusual in that it seems to involve someone sent to collect and deliver absentee ballots to a polling place in North Carolina, which is actually illegal unless it's someone related (more or less) to the voter. There are claims that ballots were collected unsealed, and that voters were specifically told that the collectors would fill out the remainder of the ballots.

The other is the 2nd Congressional District in Maine, which is the first state to employe ranked-choice voting for a federal election. The incumbent (who would lose if the current results are certified) is suing, claiming that RCV is unconstitutional for a federal office. It's going to hand recount, which isn't expected to be completed until next year. I suppose the problem is the complexity of figuring out all this by hand, when the raw results are usually fed into a computer program that figures out how to move second/third/etc choices to the top after a candidate is eliminated.

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/12/03/ranked-choice-voting-put-to-national-test/
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/12...nced-for-2nd-congressional-district-election/

 

[MrsPete]

But it goes further than that. With loopholes & tax breaks a person who makes a lot more than $300k typically pays about 15% of their income in taxes (at best) while someone who makes $30k usually pays 25-30% in taxes.

Pointing out the obvious -- you can look at "how much" a person pays in two ways: the percentage he pays AND the total amount he pays. The person earning $30,000 pays a higher percentage of his income to taxes, but the person earning $300,000 pays a much larger total dollar amount.

Here's a little story, which you've probably heard before, which illustrates this principle:

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn't share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

"You're all very good customers," the owner said, "so I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I'm going to charge you just $80 in total." The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren't paying anything for their meals anyway. They'll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that's fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person's share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got one dollar out of the $20," said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, "and he got $9!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too! It's not fair that he got nine times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn't faced before. They were $50 short.

It's important to understand the whole picture, not just to focus on the percentage being paid.

 

[marker123]

In relation to the original post:

The media rushes to report trends, predictions, and half-baked "results" solely because it is profitable. Elections, especially if they are seminal--such as Presidential elections--are extremely fruitful events for media houses. The emergence of mass media coincides with the rise of services prefixed with "instant." Instant election results are a fad, and very fruitless and indispensable if they are not accurate. In fact, "experts" mostly peddle "predictions" and "trends," which are just other words for "guesses." Election reporting, as some have rightly argued, represents the "carnivalization" of democracy (Source: Essentials of Sociology - 12th Edition). It does little good.

 

[sam_gordon]

In relation to the original post:

The media rushes to report trends, predictions, and half-baked "results" solely because it is profitable. Elections, especially if they are seminal--such as Presidential elections--are extremely fruitful events for media houses. The emergence of mass media coincides with the rise of services prefixed with "instant." Instant election results are a fad, and very fruitless and indispensable if they are not accurate. In fact, "experts" mostly peddle "predictions" and "trends," which are just other words for "guesses." Election reporting, as some have rightly argued, represents the "carnivalization" of democracy (Source: Essentials of Sociology - 12th Edition). It does little good.

OK. So what do you think should happen? People complain about the media all the time, but they forget the "media" is trying to appeal to the most people. In other words, they're trying to give their viewers/readers what they want. So is the problem the media, or is the problem the audience?