2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Bomb#20]

Is there any way to do that without effectively gutting the secret ballot? Which party a person is registered with is public information.

How would that violate secret ballot? As you said, registration is public info. You don't need to vote the way you registered. I don't.

But if I understood your proposal correctly, how you vote no longer matters much, because the overall makeup of the legislature is already fixed at registration time. Somebody who wants to bribe or coerce you doesn't need to know how you vote to get the outcome he wants -- as long as he knows how you register he's getting everything he needs from you. Sure, you still get a free and secret choice of this Party A guy over that Party A guy, or likewise Party B, but which 6 from Party A and which 4 from Party B win matters far less than how many As vs Bs get seats -- and the guy who bribes or coerces you to register with Party A controls that.

 

[unapologetic]

which 6 from Party A and which 4 from Party B win matters far less than how many As vs Bs get seats

Valid point. So choose your registration carefully.

the guy who bribes or coerces you to register with Party A controls that.

I have never seen any bribery going on. So not worried about it. ... Yet.

 

[Bomb#20]

which 6 from Party A and which 4 from Party B win matters far less than how many As vs Bs get seats

Valid point. So choose your registration carefully.

the guy who bribes or coerces you to register with Party A controls that.

I have never seen any bribery going on. So not worried about it. ... Yet.

You haven't seen it because it's not happening much. But it's precisely because the decisive choice is made in secret that bribery isn't going on -- there's nothing to stop you from taking the money in return for your promise to vote for A and then voting for B in the privacy of the voting booth. That kills the incentive for anyone to bribe you. The same goes for intimidation. Secret ballots were adopted in the late 1800s, not because people philosophically felt it was a good idea, but in reaction to the constant vote-buying and coercion of the era. If we move the decisive choice from the private part of the process to the public part then we'll bring the incentive back, and that will probably bring the vote-buying and intimidation back.

There's a god web-page on the history here: How the Secret Ballot Ended the Gilded Age

"Beginning in the 1830s, the iconic symbol of democracy — as depicted below in engravings and photographs — was the transparent glass globe ballot box. Voting was public, visible, and deliberately exposed. By the late nineteenth century, however, as partisanship intensified and campaign finance and economic inequality soared to historic highs, the United States shifted decisively toward increasingly stringent forms of the secret ballot - leading to the introduction of the Australian ballot. The intentions were explicit. From the labor movement to the Chartists, reformers argued that secrecy would blunt the power of intimidating landlords and disrupt the rampant vote-buying and coercion financed by wealthy interests. The secret ballot was designed not as a cosmetic reform, but as a structural defense against the ‘undue influence of wealth’ via intimidation and purchased loyalty. ..."​

(Ironically, the glass globe itself had been a reform, designed to protect against an earlier period's prevailing form of election corruption: ballot-box stuffing. Election security is an arms race.)

 

[unapologetic]

OK, I give up, the system is corrupted and I have no idea what to do about it.

 

[Tigers!]

which 6 from Party A and which 4 from Party B win matters far less than how many As vs Bs get seats

Valid point. So choose your registration carefully.

the guy who bribes or coerces you to register with Party A controls that.

I have never seen any bribery going on. So not worried about it. ... Yet.

You haven't seen it because it's not happening much. But it's precisely because the decisive choice is made in secret that bribery isn't going on -- there's nothing to stop you from taking the money in return for your promise to vote for A and then voting for B in the privacy of the voting booth. That kills the incentive for anyone to bribe you. The same goes for intimidation. Secret ballots were adopted in the late 1800s, not because people philosophically felt it was a good idea, but in reaction to the constant vote-buying and coercion of the era. If we move the decisive choice from the private part of the process to the public part then we'll bring the incentive back, and that will probably bring the vote-buying and intimidation back.

There's a god web-page on the history here: How the Secret Ballot Ended the Gilded Age

"Beginning in the 1830s, the iconic symbol of democracy — as depicted below in engravings and photographs — was the transparent glass globe ballot box. Voting was public, visible, and deliberately exposed. By the late nineteenth century, however, as partisanship intensified and campaign finance and economic inequality soared to historic highs, the United States shifted decisively toward increasingly stringent forms of the secret ballot - leading to the introduction of the Australian ballot. The intentions were explicit. From the labor movement to the Chartists, reformers argued that secrecy would blunt the power of intimidating landlords and disrupt the rampant vote-buying and coercion financed by wealthy interests. The secret ballot was designed not as a cosmetic reform, but as a structural defense against the ‘undue influence of wealth’ via intimidation and purchased loyalty. ..."​

(Ironically, the glass globe itself had been a reform, designed to protect against an earlier period's prevailing form of election corruption: ballot-box stuffing. Election security is an arms race.)

Yay to Australia

 

[Elixir]

Yeah but... How much of the 10B…

Let it depend on their DECLARED net worth. That’s all that matters once you surpass the threshold of “more than you could ever spend”.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It would do a lot more than questionable wealth tax and similar schemes that would need a constitutional amendment anyway.

Why would a wealth tax be unconstitutional?

It's unconstitutional for the feds to impose a nation-wide wealth tax because it's an "unapportioned direct tax", which Article 1 Section 9 prohibits. This is why the federal income tax required a constitutional amendment. As far as I can see there's nothing in the federal constitution barring states from imposing their own wealth taxes; you'd have to check each state's own constitution to see if they prohibit them.

Yes, it can't be done by the federal government. Some states are considering it. California is putting one in (I believe). Washington is considering it. There are many issues that make it difficult: how to put values on assets; compliance issues and etc. Allowing the states to implement seems fairer as evil wealth hoarders would have the option to move to states that are more business/economic friendly.

 

[Elixir]

A computer programmed to minimize some objective function while districting doesn't actually address unfairness; it only addresses gaming the system. (Not knocking it -- gaming the system is a really good thing to prevent!)

Absolutely. At this juncture, preventing gaming the system would be a giant leap forward IMO. Absent people gaming it, the system’s fairness might be improvable.

 

[jonatha]

Why would a wealth tax be unconstitutional?

Probably because the 16th Amendment talks about taxing income.

 

[jonatha]

As far as I can see there's nothing in the federal constitution barring states from imposing their own wealth taxes; you'd have to check each state's own constitution to see if they prohibit them.

Inasmuch as property taxes are essentially wealth taxes (albeit only on a fraction of one's wealth) I doubt they're unconstitutional at the state level...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It would do a lot more than questionable wealth tax and similar schemes that would need a constitutional amendment anyway.

Why would a wealth tax be unconstitutional?

It's unconstitutional for the feds to impose a nation-wide wealth tax because it's an "unapportioned direct tax", which Article 1 Section 9 prohibits. This is why the federal income tax required a constitutional amendment. As far as I can see there's nothing in the federal constitution barring states from imposing their own wealth taxes; you'd have to check each state's own constitution to see if they prohibit them.

Yes, it can't be done by the federal government.

"Taxing wealth" itself is indeed not particularly viable, however, unless we are having a pissing match about the term "wealth tax", trying to target how the uber-wealthy realize income like value from their unsold asset shouldn't be out of reach. The biggest problem with a wealth tax is that it sounds much better on the campaign trail than it executes as helping resolve out budget issue.

I would say the best way to "tax wealth" would likely be trust busting. But consolidation has gone too far at this point.

Some states are considering it. California is putting one in (I believe). Washington is considering it. There are many issues that make it difficult: how to put values on assets; compliance issues and etc. Allowing the states to implement seems fairer as evil wealth hoarders would have the option to move to states that are more business/economic friendly.

Indeed, America is stripping America bear. Tearing at each other to get what the other had.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

OK, I give up, the system is corrupted and I have no idea what to do about it.

Same here. All the outrage over gerrymandering right now is understandable, but this has always been a corrosive problem. I have no other opinions on it because like the electoral college, it will never change barring a literal overthrow of the government.

I have the incredibly naive thought that districts should be, as much as is possible given the varying geography of each state, perfect squares. of uniform size. It's a fantasy, but it would be interesting to see.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It would do a lot more than questionable wealth tax and similar schemes that would need a constitutional amendment anyway.

Why would a wealth tax be unconstitutional?

It's unconstitutional for the feds to impose a nation-wide wealth tax because it's an "unapportioned direct tax", which Article 1 Section 9 prohibits. This is why the federal income tax required a constitutional amendment. As far as I can see there's nothing in the federal constitution barring states from imposing their own wealth taxes; you'd have to check each state's own constitution to see if they prohibit them.

Yes, it can't be done by the federal government.

"Taxing wealth" itself is indeed not particularly viable, however, unless we are having a pissing match about the term "wealth tax", trying to target how the uber-wealthy realize income like value from their unsold asset shouldn't be out of reach. The biggest problem with a wealth tax is that it sounds much better on the campaign trail than it executes as helping resolve out budget issue.

I would say the best way to "tax wealth" would likely be trust busting. But consolidation has gone too far at this point.

I favor progressive tax policy. But it should be based taxable income. Value from unsold assets are taxed in the future when they are converted to income. I have unsold assets (stock portfolio) that are unsold because I want to retire someday. I convert these stocks/bonds into cash for us to live on in the future when I can't work. Secondly, I have non-publically traded shares in companies. Some of these companies don't have the cash flow now to pay me if I took some conversions. I could be forcing them into bankruptcy if I forced conversion in order to pay taxes.

I would favor raising taxes on income in order to resolve the budget. I do think that we are heading to a crisis.

Some states are considering it. California is putting one in (I believe). Washington is considering it. There are many issues that make it difficult: how to put values on assets; compliance issues and etc. Allowing the states to implement seems fairer as evil wealth hoarders would have the option to move to states that are more business/economic friendly.

Indeed, America is stripping America bear. Tearing at each other to get what the other had.

I don't know about stripping the bear. I'm a big believer in competition and choice. Some states (Oregon and California) are okay with larger safety nets and tax paid benefits than others; and are okay with higher taxes. Other states, Texas for example, would prefer smaller safety nets, less taxes, but higher growth that comes from relocated companies and high net worth individuals moving to their state. Taxes have really gone up in Oregon for example, and businesses are fleeing. I'd assume that at some point, Oregon citizens will get tired of this, and lower their taxes in order to bring companies back. Maybe not? Choice is good.

 

[ZiprHead]

Indeed, America is stripping America bear.

 

[ZiprHead]

"Taxing wealth" itself is indeed not particularly viable, however, unless we are having a pissing match about the term "wealth tax", trying to target how the uber-wealthy realize income like value from their unsold asset shouldn't be out of reach. The biggest problem with a wealth tax is that it sounds much better on the campaign trail than it executes as helping resolve out budget issue.

They should be taxed on the value of the stock at the close of the market on the day it was issued to the new owner, the same as income.

 

[ZiprHead]

I favor progressive tax policy. But it should be based taxable income.

Why do you think the CEO class is paid in stocks instead of money? Because it's a huge tax break for them unavailable to the average US citizen.

Value from unsold assets are taxed in the future when they are converted to income. I have unsold assets (stock portfolio) that are unsold because I want to retire someday. I convert these stocks/bonds into cash for us to live on in the future when I can't work. Secondly, I have non-publically traded shares in companies. Some of these companies don't have the cash flow now to pay me if I took some conversions. I could be forcing them into bankruptcy if I forced conversion in order to pay taxes.

As I said to Jimmy, They should be taxed on the value of the stock at the close of the market on the day it was issued to the new owner, the same as income.

Banks can see assets as a value and let the stock holder borrow against those stocks. There's no reason the government cannot do the same.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some states are considering it. California is putting one in (I believe). Washington is considering it. There are many issues that make it difficult: how to put values on assets; compliance issues and etc. Allowing the states to implement seems fairer as evil wealth hoarders would have the option to move to states that are more business/economic friendly.

Indeed, America is stripping America bear. Tearing at each other to get what the other had.

I don't know about stripping the bear. I'm a big believer in competition and choice. Some states (Oregon and California) are okay with larger safety nets and tax paid benefits than others; and are okay with higher taxes. Other states, Texas for example, would prefer smaller safety nets, less taxes, but higher growth that comes from relocated companies and high net worth individuals moving to their state. Taxes have really gone up in Oregon for example, and businesses are fleeing. I'd assume that at some point, Oregon citizens will get tired of this, and lower their taxes in order to bring companies back. Maybe not? Choice is good.

Ohio has been cutting taxes for decades. Our population has risen about half the national average in that period of time. Despite the extremely reasonable cost of living, Ohio is struggling. And people are getting tired of it and keep voting for the same fuckfaces that have overseen the decline of the state.

Services are declining, road construction takes forever now, culverts can't be replaced without federal money, and cities are left to fend for themselves. But the GOP will do swimmingly in November because people are tired of what the GOP has done to the state, oh and the permanent gerrymandering of the State Legislature in 2011.

 

[jonatha]

They should be taxed on the value of the stock at the close of the market on the day it was issued to the new owner, the same as income.

What makes you think they aren't?

The problem is that they amass the stock when it's nearly worthless and, if the enterprise is successful, they are able to extract cash from the increase in value by borrowing against it. Not only is the cash so extracted not taxed, but the interest they pay on the loan is deductible.

This could be fixed by (essentially) assessing a tax on loan proceeds secured by stock...

 

[Elixir]

Why would a wealth tax be unconstitutional?

Probably because the 16th Amendment talks about taxing income.

Oh, so now we’re s’posed to abide by the dumb old constitution?
I thought Trump fixed it so now it’s up to The President! I’m sure he will pass a wealth tax - he can afford it because he works so hard.

 

[Toni]

It would do a lot more than questionable wealth tax and similar schemes that would need a constitutional amendment anyway.

Why would a wealth tax be unconstitutional?

It's unconstitutional for the feds to impose a nation-wide wealth tax because it's an "unapportioned direct tax", which Article 1 Section 9 prohibits. This is why the federal income tax required a constitutional amendment. As far as I can see there's nothing in the federal constitution barring states from imposing their own wealth taxes; you'd have to check each state's own constitution to see if they prohibit them.

Yes, it can't be done by the federal government.

"Taxing wealth" itself is indeed not particularly viable, however, unless we are having a pissing match about the term "wealth tax", trying to target how the uber-wealthy realize income like value from their unsold asset shouldn't be out of reach. The biggest problem with a wealth tax is that it sounds much better on the campaign trail than it executes as helping resolve out budget issue.

I would say the best way to "tax wealth" would likely be trust busting. But consolidation has gone too far at this point.

Some states are considering it. California is putting one in (I believe). Washington is considering it. There are many issues that make it difficult: how to put values on assets; compliance issues and etc. Allowing the states to implement seems fairer as evil wealth hoarders would have the option to move to states that are more business/economic friendly.

Indeed, America is stripping America bear. Tearing at each other to get what the other had.

We used to have wealth tax which gradually morphed into taxes on holdings that the middle class is likely to have, such as property taxes. As wealth tax gradually was whittled away, wealth inequality grew

America Used to Have a Wealth Tax: The Forgotten History of the General Property Tax

Over time, broad wealth taxes were whittled away to become the narrower property taxes we have today. These selective wealth taxes apply to the kinds of wealth that make up a large share of middle-class families’ net worth (like homes and cars), but usually exempt most of the net worth of the...

itep.org

Our current system of selective wealth taxation through the property tax is largely neglecting—and in some ways even worsening—these problems. Data from the Federal Reserve indicate that the bottom 90 percent of families have more than half of their net worth tied up in real estate, whereas the top 1 percent have just 13 percent of their wealth in real estate. A similar pattern is present across race and ethnic groups: white families hold just 27 percent of their wealth in real estate while Black and Hispanic families hold 40 percent and 58 percent, respectively.

At the same time, real estate has also been declining as a share of total net worth, meaning that the narrow property taxes we have on the books today apply to a shrinking share of overall wealth.

In other words, wealthy families—particularly wealthy white families—have a far lower share of their net worth subject to property taxation than other groups. They also have a lower share of their wealth being taxed today than they did just a few decades ago, as intangible assets have grown in prominence. Given our nation’s high level of inequality, and the unequal opportunities it affords based on race and class, a return to a broader system of wealth taxation is worth a closer look.