EnviroLink Forum

Of course it does. You're simply allowing an opinion get in the way of making an objective determination.



And there were some that were not. How many were there? Was it inordinately more or about the same as we'd expect for non-military households of the same income? Obviously there's more risk to life and limb with one vs. the other, but that too can be quantified and taken into account.



Not necessarily. What are lotto winners doing with their money? Think that might be something reflected on a tax return? I do.



How about this: no income = no vote. No exceptions. Fair enough?

_________________
TANG SOO!

No, the income amount gauges the income amount and nothing else. If one saves it all it does not affect the economy and one such as Mother Teresa who does much for society but has little use for income does more.



It was about the same as non-military housholds with the same income levels, which is why it did not measure what was done for the society. It did show that society was not paying much for these people to protect our security and freedom.



Not based on income.



Some are blowing it, but in the example they were living off the interest more or less. That does not do much for the society compared to teachers educating the young and health care workers tending the ill.



I do not.



No, that increases the number of bad exceptions even more so.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Not so. Income is ultimately a measure of what the market is willing to pay for that which is provided to it. In other words, consumer value.

The fact that they can save generally indicates that there is a demand for the services they provide. That's unless we're talking about a lotto winner, which doesn't make a hella difference anyway. I describe why later.



Alright so soldiers, health care support, teachers, clergy...as if exceptions weren't "bad" enough, I'm getting the impression that they can't be managed either for what they are.

No, based on quantifiable risk, as stated.



Which is why one must account for past median income, to "pad" spikes and sudden shifts.



Using a lifelong median income factor would put career health care workers and teachers at a higher weight than someone who had never worked and suddenly hit the lotto. Even if the winner worked or remains working, their factor wouldn't change that much.

No, not if they spend it. If on the other hand, by chance, it is invested in such a way as to make more money...



I take it that translates simply into more people not voting.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Except consumer value is not the gauge of benefit for the society. The income is what the person has been able to take from parts of the society whether they benefit the society in the process or not. Public school teachers are paid not only by parents but those without children who pay taxes. This is because basic education is a benefit for society, but not all members will see that benefit and push to pay less. Even some of those who do see the benefit will try to pay as little as possible, which is the ultimate goal of the average consumer.



Not really as people can live on very little income and save even then. One cannot control one's income as much as one can control one's expenditures.




They are the very easy examples of the dichotomy created when income is viewed as a benefit for society. The other end of the spectrum is the CEO who makes seven figures while bankrupting the corporation. The income is far in excess of their benefit to society.



which is unrelated to income, as stated.



At what point do you draw the line? If I win 10 million in the lottery I can have an income of $100,000.00 per year for every 1% of interest. That is constant with no spikes for years afterward.



But if one works at a minimum wage job, or even in the education or health field there will be some increased emphasis ascribed to that same person if they attain a higher income level even if purely by chance. I do not see how good luck makes one better at voting than bad luck.



But making more money may not be to the benefit to the society in general. Those making investments in futures can cause prices to rise in addition to increasing their income, for example.



Yes, and some of those not voting would be the very wealthy who have little to no taxable income.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Satisfying demand doesn't benefit those who's demand is satisfied? We're not talking about what a population needs, but rather a combination of its needs and wants. What better gauge of one's value--one's contribution to society than tangible assets gained from providing what society demands at the price they're willing to pay for it?



True, as is the goal of the provider to cut costs in turn. Or is it? One of the reasons teachers, medical support, etc. don't draw the income everyone apparently thinks they so deserve is due to inefficiencies. Delivery isn't as big a problem as issues within the system itself. Government has never been a shining example of lean processing and medical is just now beginning to realize the benefits of it.



Like I said, generally. If one is capable of much more but doesn't apply his/herself to the fullest, that's their prerogative. In the end, society compensates according to what one does, not necessarily what they are capable of doing.



The weighting curve isn't linear.




True. You're against using income as a gauge. I'm proposing another or an additional factor that you brought up--risk.



That's right, but when did you win the lottery? If you're 40 and making 100k a year, having started out at 15k when you were 16, your life median income is 57.5k assuming a linear, gradual rise from 15k to 100k. Continuing to work with work income gradually rising at the same rate, income suddenly spiking an additional 100k from interest isn't going to affect your median it until you turn 65 (I hope I calculated that right). Furthermore, you're moved up the income curve, into diminishing returns anyway.



Above some soft cap, it really doesn't, luck or otherwise.



Ditto my last response.



No taxable income, but income nonetheless.

_________________
TANG SOO!

The criteria was supposed to be for the benefit of the society not the individual. Those who seek murders for hire can have their consumeristic wishes granted, but it does not benefit society when they do.



Which has nothing to do with whether those wants are beneficial to the society. There is a lot of money to be made in illegal drugs such as meth, but there is no benefit to the society for the manufacture, sale, or use of an addictive drug regardless of the "wants" of those addicted to it.



So just how valuable is Bernie Madoff in your opinion? His income was exceptional and there were quite a few willing to pay a high price for his services for a long time.



Inefficiencies? How is teaching the youth or saving lives inefficient?



If the lack of "lean processing" is the cause for low pay in these fields, why are the pay scales still so low after all of the years without the increased processing overhead?





But your criteria of income is purely subjective in whether one applies oneself to the fullest. The income ONLY shows to what extent one seeks monetary compensation. Remember there was a time when doctors treated their patients and were compensated by whatever the patient could afford. The docters were no less working to their potential than a Hollywood plastic surgeon making high six figures is now. The benefit to society was probably greater with the old doctors too.



The weighting appears to be purely subjective to me.



Whatever gauge or gauges used will be highly subjective or either highly questionable in determining who should and should not vote. Any attempt to decide whose vote should count or not has to be questionable.





But the median household income in the US for 2009 was only $50,221 so the impact would be far greater to the average houshold. There was 14.3% of the population below the poverty level in 2009, which is a hefty number to exclude from the input. It might skew the input towards the more wealthy view even more than we have today.



Then why would income be chosen as a factor if it does not represent the quality of the vote?



So income does not reflect a benefit to society now?



How would that income be proved since non-taxable income is not documented on the tax forms? That would also indicate those involved with very profitable illegal activities would also have similar non-taxed incomes and should be allowed to vote.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

You could make it a simple choice, only those who volunteer for two years or so of service have the right to vote or run for office. That is the basis of several Sci-Fi scenarios, such as Starship Troopers. Anyone who joins the military or some other service based organization earns the right to guide and those who choose not to serve the society do not. Something like the Peace Corps would allow those who did not feel the military service was the best coice for them could be established. Even some local uses such as police or fire department duty for a small wage would create a benefit to society through service by the individual.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I stopped reading this tripe after this comment...




Huh? I hope you weren't serious with that Fosgate. How about college students? Women who chose to stay at home and raise a family, or does her husband's income count and make her eligible to vote?

What crap.

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

Those...plural.


True on both counts. However, like your scenario involving untaxable income...



Hard to say. It would depend on where he fell on that subjective curve. In the end, all it boils down to is what class gets the most bang for their buck with their votes.



For one, in the form of product--graduation rates. Secondly, the manner in which it is administered--student/teach ratios. Third, capability of the teachers themselves.



Overprocessing wasn't as big a waste as others, apparently.



No, it's perfectly objective. Of course it's a factor, but folks are compensated for the value of their work regardless of how much they apply themselves.



No, it reflects the value of one's contribution toward meeting demand.



There was less waste in the process, that's for sure. As for the benefit, well, I really can't say that our level of health is any better or worse today.



As are many laws, but they are what they are because that's what we want them to be. One can take it all the way back to the constitution if they want, but that was written by men putting their own subjective thoughts to paper all the same.



Why? Because someone or something says so?



Not if they fall on the curve in such a way that maximizes their voting potential.



No, no exclusion of the poor.



It represents the weighting factor of the vote, the quality of the vote remains the same. If you want to look at it that way, quantity would be a better descriptor. Income would enhance this aspect up to a point of diminishing returns.



Of course it would, up to a point.



Good question. I don't have all the answers, but I do have some suggestions.



Obviously, we're not going to begin taxing profits from illegal activities.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Sure was. Does crap excite you more than tripe? If that's what it takes to get you to join in, I can throw out some more.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Which ones? There seem to be several options. Only income or the various modified versions.



...show the significant flaws in this concept.



That is the problem with the current situation in that money is buying the election process for the sole benefit of those with money now and not society as a whole. This concept would only serve to worsen the situation.



Teaching is but one factor in the graduation rates and the rates do not show a level of effciency of teaching as a whole.



That is a function of investment not teaching. No matter how you try to define teaching if you only provide funds to hire 1 teacher per 40 students there is no way teaching by itself can convert that to 1 teacher per 20 students.



How are they all inefficient?



Which still leaves no explanation for the low pay scales compared to value to society.



It cannot be as the value is based on subjective criteria. The income is not the value to society but you choose it to be modified by other subjective means.



But NOT in relation to the value to society just in relation to what some are willing to pay and others will accept partly for the love of the type of work.



Both of which have nothing to do with the value to the society since demand or seeking compensation are unrelated to society and the value to it.



So you are saying the compensation rate does not equate to better or worse level of health, which means there is no more value to society for the increased compensation today as compared to previous times?



So that is a "yes" on the purely subjective aspect then?



No, because a LOT of someones and some very important things say so.



How can it maximize their voting potential when income is the determination? The maximization of income will be the maximization of voting potential under that criteria.



Except when they have no reported income that is?



If a vote has more weight without that weight representing a higher quality it is only a form of discrimination based on income.



So essentially the more income you have, the more votes you can cast, up to the point where you max out the number of votes anyone can cast?




So how does a drug dealer making 1 million per year benefit society more than a teacher making 40K per year exactly?



It appears to be a higher level of complexity with the sole intent of preventing certain voters from being able to participate in electing officials and voicing their official opinion on issues based only on their wealth or lack thereof.



We already do. Tax evasion is how they convicted Al Capone and there are tax stamps sold to cover income which is not reported due to the legality.

http://www.dor.state.nc.us/taxes/usub/substance.html


About The Unauthorized Substances Tax
(North Carolina General Statutes 105-113.105 Through 105-113.113)

What is the unauthorized substances tax?

The unauthorized substances tax is an excise tax on controlled substances (marijuana, cocaine, etc.), illicit spirituous liquor ("moonshine"), mash and illicit mixed beverages.

Who is required to pay the tax?
The tax is due by any individual who possesses an unauthorized substance upon which the tax has not been paid, as evidenced by a stamp.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Just one option--the portion of society whose demand is satisfied benefits.



We don't have to stop at income.



I don't think so. It would effectively put the middle class on par with the upper crust.



Oh, you mean teaching specifically. Well, teaching is not necessarily inefficient, if that's what you mean. However, the education process of which it is a part is and lends to teachers themselves not being compensated like "everyone thinks" they should be. That's what I mean when I get into student/teacher ratios and teacher capability itself. I'm not talking about just teachers in any case.




See above.



I guess that's where we differ then. What better indicator is there? Is there one or more than one at all?



Supply and demand isn't supply and demand because they're rooted in human wants, needs, and propensities?



You've lost me now. If society isn't the one with demands and therefore granting value to that which is demanded, then who is?



Not when it comes to general health, no. If we're talking about living longer, which is what is ultimately valued, then yes.



Yes. It's the way of ethics and morals, isn't it? Then again, I'm not one to refrain from doing anything simply due to the fact that it can't be done objectively, especially when objectivity seems a long time coming.



I know alot of someones saying stuff because it's said in some things that are supposedly important, but I'm not necessarily following along.



If their income falls at or near the soft cap of the curve, then their voting potential is maximized.



Ever...in their life? Remember, we're not going strictly by the last tax return.



Yes, it is.



Exactly.



I can't say that they necessarily do not, but there's a reason such activity is illegal. I'm pretty sure the negatives outweigh the benefits regardless.



Certainly can appear that way. My intent is to keep government from being mismanaged and going broke. The MS Delta is what happens when the poor have as much a voice in governing their communities as the middle and upper classes. That's the flaw with our current system.



I meant that we're not going to legalize drugs. At least, I don't think so.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Oh I see another political system in which the pseudo intellectual believes he is a part of.

Come on you anarchists!

Does the soap opera with its confrontations and arguements make the watcher feel better as the make believe quashes the conscience of the real?

Yes, I've noticed you are quite proficient in that regard.

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

u mad bro?

_________________
TANG SOO!