Reality Checks of Conservative & Liberal Rhetoric

As an absolute independent (i.e. not democrat or republican) looking at things void of those "filters" I usually get people on both sides upset as they accuse me of being from the side they oppose. Anyway, here are a few reality checks irt often brought up rhetoric:

1) The mantra that "taxing the rich" kills job creation and, similarly, "tax breaks" create jobs.

Reality check- This one does have some truth to it but not nearly as much as some would have you believe. Yes, the rich do account for many job creations but it's nowhere near the levels that purveyors of this rhetoric proclaim when they infer "every dollar" kept by the wealthiest is used for job creation. Top tax rates would have to be MUCH higher iot impact reinvestment policies of an already successful businesses. Anyone with business experience will tell you that the most important factor when considering business expansion or hiring is demand. Regardless of any tax breaks/incentives that may be offered, a business will fail without demand "period".

However, the alternative options of stimulus packages for extended unemployment, state aid funds, etc, are no better. While they sound nice and actually "do" ease a painful downturn, they don't spur on meaningful, long term, job creation... Current and potential employers "see through" the temporary nature of stimulus packages and will not do any real expansion or long term job creation based on temporarily manipulated demand that has little long term impact.

2) Taxes, in general, prevent job creation by innovators/inventors.

Reality check- This one does have "some truth" to it but not nearly as much as some would have you believe. Top tax rates would have to be much higher iot have a "seriously dramatic" impact on already successful businesses reinvestment policies.

The vast majority of innovators/inventors are focused on the challenge of creating or improving something and aren't even thinking about "taxes" they may eventually pay. That's especially true on the young innovator side because taxes aren't even a concern to most young inventor/innovators. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, MySpace, Yahoo, etc. were started without worrying about what the tax code was and they created a whole lot of jobs...

3) Arguments that big oil tax break are necessary.

Reality check- The argument is so weak that people touting it consistently contradict themselves. They'll say: 1. "The dem's want to blame gas prices on oil co's but the oil co's margins are tiny so they're not responsible for high gas prices!

Then, during a different tirade, they'll say 2. "Look how expensive gasoline is...Can you believe the dem's want to take away oil co's incentives?...In who's world does that seem like it will help bring prices down?!"

Number 1 indicates they have practically no impact on pump prices while 2 indicates the exact opposite (contradictory). #1 is correct (they make little per gallon)., various taxes and fees push up prices (as well as demand obviously). #2 is a smokescreen in favor of "not removing" the tax breaks. Tax breaks/gov't incentives have a place in helping along various industries during specific conditions and for limited time periods. Things Oil co's haven't been in those conditions for a long time and some of them had even said (when oil was around $30/barrel) that there would be no reason for them to need tax incentives if oil was above $50/barrel...

It's also very disingenuous to hear petroleum lobyists & supporters say "we should take away tax breaks & incentives from everyone so we all have an EVEN playing field". That's like having a race to the 50th floor and saying "we should all have to use the stairs so we have an even playing field" (after having used the elevator to get to the 30th floor)...

The Supermajority Voting Requirement Explanation:

1) There's an inherent conundrum for people in addressing an issue that benefits them but is factually flawed (especially when fixing it could be disadvantageous to them). Which one takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...

The benefit a simple majority provides, of aiding in the achievement of a desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. The simple majority voting examples I give here are totally accurate but might be easier to get through with a calculator to verify the figures accuracy and help with the understanding of it.

2) To continue a disagreement as to the need for a supermajority, after going through and understanding the mathematical reasons in the above link, is to argue that it would make perfect sense to allow Idaho residents to vote with us irt raising our WA state sales tax with a "simple" majority vote. In actuality, a supermajority would not only be wanted, it would in fact be a necessity, iot achieve a more fair vote. This would once again be due to allowing a group of people (Idaho residents in this case) to vote for something "they benefit from" yet "don't have to pay for". Exactly what occurs with a simple majority property levy vote.

How could anyone seriously/honestly believe that passing a 12% sales tax on WA residents (due to the influence of ID voters), when only 29-38% of WA voters approved it, would make sense or seem fair/democratic...? Yet that's exactly what could happen if a simple majority was used. It's a perfect example of where a "simple" majority would be a flawed vote (as it is with property levies). The mathematical evidence is unquestionable, and a bit silly to argue (unless the math aspect just isn't understood). I've tried to provide simple examples but you can't force someone to "accept" the truth, you can only "provide" the truth.

*****To clarify, the "simple" majority is the absolute correct vote in "most" situations (everyone voting pays & benefits equally: President, Govenor, Statewide taxes, etc.) but is flawed when used in situations where a group of people are allowed to vote for something they don't have to pay for even though they enjoy benefits from it (like property levy votes). This brings back the question irt these votes: Which one takes priority, personal benefit (simple majority) or truth & correctness (supermajority)?...

3) Irt the argument that it takes more yes votes to counter no votes and that it somehow is less democratic: A supermajority actually makes the vote "more" democratic in these types of votes. The idea it takes more yes votes to counter no votes is correct (although not necessarily 2-1) and is the exact and necessary intent of supermajority votes. ((You'd want it that way in order to account for the yes votes from the Idaho residents voting yes to raise your WA state sales tax in the above analogy and the reasons are just as justified in the case of property levies. The basic mathematics of the problem show it to be 100% true in both cases.))

The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of people don't have an actual understanding of the mathematical "why/how" reasons that a supermajority is required in certain situations (property levy votes are, in fact, one of those situations). With a better understanding, the law would have never been reversed and we would still have a super majority requirement (especially given that HJR4204 passed by "less than" 1%).

4) BTW: The argument that "renters pay levy taxes via rent" is "ridiculously simplistic" because only in a perfectly linked, utopian, system would this be the case. In actuality, landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Meaning, if a landlord can't get a renter at a price that covers the costs of the levy, he/she has to lower the rent, "eating" the expense, in order "to simply rent the unit out and avoid a vacancy".

5) ----As a side note, a vote "to change" a current voting requirement should always require thecurrent standard iot change that standard (no matter what the vote deals with). In other words, going "from" a simple standard should require a simple majority to change it. Likewise, going "from" a supermajority standard should require a supermajority to change. It defies basic logic, mathematics, and common sense that a "lesser" requirement would be used to "get around a stricter requirement" that was seen, by a select group, as "a pesky rule" preventing their ballot items from passing.----

The solutions are either:

1) Requiring a 60% Super Majority to pass property tax issues
2) Allowing only levy payers to vote on those measures...

3) A sales tax with total revenue evenly distributed on a per student basis would be a much more equitable solution (everyone pays in) and would also remove the disadvantage that can occur in lower property value school districts. Net-net the schools would still get their money, but in a much more fair way.

--->Once again, the conundrum: The benefit a simple majority provides of aiding in the achievement of your desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. So which takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...

Examples proving the mathematical necessity of the Supermajority in specific situations:

This post provides mathematical examples proving why/when a supermajority is necessary. It expands on the basic explanation of supermajority requirements here and uses property levy examples (which are a type of vote that needs a supermajority).

A supermajority vote is necessary anytime you allow a subset group of people to vote on a matter that's beneficial to them but they don't pay for.

--Abbreviations used: Levy Payer (LP), Non-Levy Payer (NLP)

--Colors (occasionally used): Blue for LP items /Red for NLP items

--Assumptions used: 100 people vote

1) If all 100 voters are LPs: The vote should require 51 votes to pass (The basic Simple Majority).

2) However, if the 100 are split we discover that the vote needs to be a supermajority. Here's why (using 55 LPs & 45 NLPs):

To get the simple majority of LPs you need at least 28/55 of them. The problem is that with the introduction of the 45 NLPs voters, you've created a flawed vote. Flawed because you could get passage with 5 LPs (a far cry from the 28) and 45 NLPs voting yes (5+45=50). That would be passing a tax with only 9% (5/55) support from the LPs who'd actually pay the tax! If NLPs voted yes by 85% (.85x45=38), the levy could still pass with a meager approval rate from LPs of 21% (.21x55=12)...(38+12=50).

Obviously a 100% (45/45) NLP voting rate is extreme, and 85% would be quite high, but the mere fact it's a possibility shows the flaw. However, a very realistic 75% (34/45) of NLPs would cause passage with a mere 31%(17/55) LPs approval rate (still extremely unfair). Obviously, passing a tax on people, when only 31% approved it, is a flawed system. By no means is that an "extreme" example. High approval rates are much more common among people who benefit from, but don't pay for, something. Even using 65% (29/45) NLPs you find that "a minority" 38% (21/55) of LPs still results in the tax being passed upon them. How could anyone support a belief that it's ok to pass a tax on people when only 38% of them actually voted for it? How could that be seen as fair/democratic?

3) How about this: If Washington was having a vote to increase the sales tax to 12% you surely would not want people from Idaho/Oregon allowed to vote on it. If they "were" allowed to participate, you'd want a "supermajority vote" because, as stated above, you'd be adding a subset of voters who wouldn't pay the extra tax but would benefit nonetheless (as people crossed the border to avoid the increase). Wouldn't you be a little upset if that 12% tax passed with only 21-38% support of actual WA state voters? Would you think that was "democratic"...? Remember, the mere fact that it's possible shows the flaw (and these aren't even unrealistic voting figures).

4) To correct this problem: Using the same 100 people example, you start by accounting for the baseline premise of wanting at least a 50% (simple majority) approval rate among the actual "LPs" (WA residents in above example) who pay the tax (.5x55=28). Now, you simply make an educated estimate of the "NLP" yes voting rate. Again, a higher yes rate is perfectly logical/normal when people vote for something they benefit from but don't pay for (especially with all the exploitative "for the kids" ads)... Using the 75% rate (from above) we get (.75x45=34). Adding 28+34 yields 62 votes required (a supermajority 62%). The worst case scenario of 45 NLPs voting yes results in 28+45=73% required to pass with at least a "simple majority" of 28 LPs.

Even though 60% is less than the above 62% & 73% figures it still represents a good all around happy medium figure to be used in these types of situations (subset introduced into equation) and it's a heck of a lot better than the simple majority rule that was swindled in 2007's HJR4204 (passing w/less than 1% of vote). A vote that most likely wouldn't have passed if people had a better understanding of the mathematical reasons necessitating a supermajority...

Again, it's basic mathematics that shows why a supermajority vote is required in order to simply even out the vote and account for the addition of a group of voters who don't have to pay for the very thing they're voting for.

****If a levy passes by 60% there's a good chance it would've also passed with a simple majority vote consisting of only LPs (demonstrated by the 28 in above paragraph). Therefore, the tax could be seen as resulting from a legitimate vote. However, any that pass with less than a supermajority are mathematically flawed voting results. It's quite different from being seen as emotionally flawed when an item someone favor fails.

The solutions are either:

1) Requiring a 60% Super Majority to pass property tax issues
2) Allowing only levy payers to vote on those measures...

3) A sales tax with total revenue evenly distributed on a per student basis would be a much more equitable solution (everyone pays in) and would also remove the disadvantage that can occur in lower property value school districts. Net-net the schools would still get their money, but in a much more fair way.

5) There's an inherent conundrum for people in addressing an issue that benefits them but is factually flawed (especially when fixing it could be disadvantageous to them). Which one takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?... The benefit a simple majority provides of aiding in the achievement of a desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. So again, which takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...