Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday January 06 2019, @08:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the stopped-clock dept.

Securityweek has a look at the bits of HR1 with digital election security implications running:

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has unveiled its first Bill: HR1, dubbed the 'For the People Act'. It has little chance of getting through the Republican-controlled Congress, and even less chance of being signed into law by President Trump.

Nevertheless, HR1 lays down a marker for current Democrat intentions; and it is likely that some of the potentially bi-partisan elements could be spun out into separate bills with a greater chance of progress.

One of these is likely to include the section on election security. This has been a major issue since the meddling by Russian-state hackers in the 2016 presidential election, and the subsequent realization on how easy it would be for interested parties (both foreign hackers and local activists) to influence election outcomes.

I'm all for secure and accountable elections but the feds are going to need to be careful and deliberate in what they mandate vs. what they place conditions for funding on. They do have significant authority as far as election laws go but their power is more deep than broad; most specifics are legally up to the states. Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean they currently have the legal authority necessary to do it.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday January 06 2019, @10:15PM (26 children)

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Sunday January 06 2019, @10:15PM (#782869) Homepage Journal

    IMHO Income is the ONLY thing that should be taxed.

    Sales taxes are _highly_ regressive, in that the proportion paid by the poor is substantially greater than that paid by the right. This because the poor cannot buy much else but the basic amenities of life. While its helpful that food is generally not taxed, clothing and vehicles are.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @10:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @10:21PM (#782873)

    Income tax just encourges more spying, thats my biggest issue with it. That said, states would still be free to have them. Also, the best tax is tariffs, since everything entering and leaving the country can be spied on legitimately.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @10:27PM (21 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @10:27PM (#782879)

    Also food/gas/housing is taxed heavily. Its called inflation and the "fuck you got mine" democrats love it since it makes their 401k numbers go up. No one who actually cares about the poor can be in favor of constant inflation, because wages always lag inflation/deflation.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 07 2019, @03:26AM (20 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 07 2019, @03:26AM (#782996) Homepage Journal

      You need to do some reading on economics before you talk about it. For starters, you should find out why inflation exists. It forces the rich to keep their money constantly moving and making more of itself or watch it decrease in value. That's right, inflation exists entirely to help the non-wealthy.

      Your specified beef wasn't even with inflation, though that's what you blamed. It was with wages not keeping up quickly enough. That very clearly says that the problem is with wages not with inflation.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @04:01AM (19 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @04:01AM (#783008)

        I am quite clear on the effects of inflation. Where I live the prices of everything that matteres (food, energy, rent) had doubled or its lowered in quantity/quality to equal out to a doubling since 2008. Meaning my friends living off wages had to move into smaller apartments, get another job, etc. This tells me the true inflation rate has been closer to 8% rather than the claimed 2%: https://i.ibb.co/GTLWp8c/inflation.png [i.ibb.co]

        Shadowstats gives a slightly lower ~ 6%, which I am willing to accept is more accurate than my hand-wavy "doubling": http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts [shadowstats.com]

        Finally prices are starting to drop back, which is a godsend to anyone living off of wages. Wages never keep up with inflation, it just doesnt happen.

        It forces the rich to keep their money constantly moving and making more of itself or watch it decrease in value.

        It forces people to invest money in projects that they otherwise wouldn't (malinvestment), and buy crap they don't need (produces waste and needless pollution), and fail to save for a rainy day.

        The best lesson I've learned about inflation comes from buying crypto years ago, when you expect your money will retain or even increase it's value, you are so much more careful about what you spend it on. This is a good thing.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 07 2019, @05:03AM (18 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 07 2019, @05:03AM (#783039) Homepage Journal

          Yes, malinvestment like your home loan, your car loan, your small business loan, your VC startup cash, and things like that. If you have a problem with the rate of wage increases, you fix the rate of wage increases. It's not a difficult concept. See a problem, solve that problem, utterly lack a problem. It's much better than see a problem, blame something else, monkey with something else, fuck things up for everybody.

          Oh, and splain to me how growing your worth by investing is failing to save for a rainy day, please. My math skills aren't up to crypto design standards but even I can figure out that $profit + $amount is always greater than $amount. Stuffing your money in a mattress is the worst possible thing you can do with it from the perspective of the overall economy and even more specifically from the perspective of everyone else who isn't wealthy. Yet here you are lauding it as a virtue.

          That's really the kind of nonsense I expect to hear from crypto/gold/whatever fans though and they're rarely worth conversing with, so I take back my request for an explanation.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @05:24AM (17 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @05:24AM (#783050)

            Yes, malinvestment like your home loan, your car loan, your small business loan, your VC startup cash, and things like that.

            So if it wasn't for inflation you wouldn't get a car or house or start a business? Would you still eat and buy clothes?

            If you have a problem with the rate of wage increases, you fix the rate of wage increases. It's not a difficult concept.

            So go solve it then? It is so easy... The real result is the entire idea of inflation is that the wealth will "trickle down", which is why it gets to wage-workers last. Any government attempt to correct this is going to lag (just look at their false calculations of inflation so they can scam people out of their social security).

            Oh, and splain to me how growing your worth by investing is failing to save for a rainy day, please.

            Your net worth doubles, and the price of everything doubles. It is a wash. The number got bigger which tickled your pleasure center and screwed over people without 401k's, but you are not actually wealthier.

            Sorry, I didn't go on. This is all well-covered and obvious territory.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 07 2019, @01:17PM (16 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 07 2019, @01:17PM (#783148) Homepage Journal

              This is all well-covered and obvious territory.

              Yes, it is. You appear immune to reason, logic, and math (like most crypto/gold/etc... people) though, so I won't further annoy you with them.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @07:01PM (15 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @07:01PM (#783296)

                You are the one who claims people would stop buying houses and transportation, etc if not for inflation.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 07 2019, @09:02PM (14 children)

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 07 2019, @09:02PM (#783371) Homepage Journal

                  Yes, I did notice your strawmen. They're simply not worth arguing with. Anyone who isn't actively and intentionally deceiving themselves saw right through those. Anyone who is isn't going to pay any more attention to what I have to say than you are.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @09:19PM (13 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @09:19PM (#783378)

                    How is it a strawman? You claimed it would be a malinvestment to take out a loan for a car without inflation. If that isn't what you meant, then what was it?

                    The truth is that is not a malinvestment if you can use the car to make more money than it takes to pay off the loan, or if having the car just makes you happy enough to pay for it. Now, in the absence of inflation you are definitely less likely to malinvest in a more expensive car than you need, etc. Which is a good thing.

                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 07 2019, @09:34PM (12 children)

                      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 07 2019, @09:34PM (#783387) Homepage Journal

                      If it wasn't a strawman, you have no clue about economics. Like none at all. All those things I mentioned would be malinvestments as seen by the people whose money is being lent by your definition; they should be saving in a vault instead of allowing their money to be used to build someone a home, buy someone a car, or start a new company.

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @10:26PM (11 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @10:26PM (#783411)

                        All those things I mentioned would be malinvestments as seen by the people whose money is being lent by your definition

                        Yes, taking a loan gets more expensive. They just have to charge higher interest rates on the loan and/or be more careful about who they loan to to make the risk of people not paying worth it (ie, not a malinvestment). It is very simple and happens all the time even in the case of different degrees of inflation.

                        How do you keep saying I have "no clue about economics" without realizing that?

                        they should be saving in a vault instead of allowing their money to be used to build someone a home, buy someone a car, or start a new company.

                        Not if they can make more loaning it out or starting a new company. They will need to charge higher interest rates, only loan to high quality applicants, and only invest in really good ideas. These are all good things, ie avoiding malinvestment and waste.

                        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 07 2019, @11:06PM (10 children)

                          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 07 2019, @11:06PM (#783437) Homepage Journal

                          No, taking a loan gets all but impossible not more expensive. Saved money can't be loaned out no matter how high the interest rates because it's not there for the banks to loan. And yes, I'm well aware of fractional reserve banking. They still need that fraction to exist.

                          This means the poor you're so worried about don't get to own a new car. Ever. They're stuck renting their entire lives because they can't save enough to matter and pay rent at the same time. College loans? Yeah, those are gone too. You really need to look into how things were for the poor before inflationary currency was a thing. It'll give you a good idea of what things would look like in a future without it.

                          --
                          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @12:38AM (9 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @12:38AM (#783485)

                            Saved money can't be loaned out no matter how high the interest rates because it's not there for the banks to loan.

                            This is lack of liquidity, not deflation. You can have the currency appreciate but still enough money to around for people to spend *when it makes economic sense* for them to do so.

                            Now, if you have collusion between banks to cause boom-bust cycles by calling in loans and withholding new loans to purposefully cause defaults, you will get the problem you mention. This is not a problem with having a deflationary currency though (although you will get more demand for the currency as part of it). So in this case I believe you have confused cause and effect.

                            There is this quote, but admittedly ctrl-F-ing the supposed document is not revealing it (although similar discussion can be found on the bottom of page 569):

                            American Bankers Association, 1891, as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913
                            On September 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On September 1st wee will demand our money.
                            We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at out own price... Then the farmers will become tenants as in England.

                            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1913-pt1-v50/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1913-pt1-v50.pdf [govinfo.gov]

                            This means the poor you're so worried about don't get to own a new car. Ever.

                            I've never owned a new car and would never want to, although I could if I wanted. It is a totally wasteful activity, exactly the type of stuff that should not be happening.

                            They're stuck renting their entire lives because they can't save enough to matter and pay rent at the same time.

                            The people I know who rent largely have higher quality of life than those who are stuck paying off a loan from the bank for the same income. Once real estate prices start dropping and states start trying to lock people in to pay off pensions, its going to move even more in that direction. The freedom to leave easily will be worth so much more.

                            Even owning outright is getting ridiculous with the property taxes in some areas. I was considering buying a house/condo last year, but doesn't even feel like "owning" anymore when taxes alone are ~$4k/yr but renting would be only ~3-x more at ~$14k/yr (half that if you can split it). I am going to need to look out of state...

                            College loans? Yeah, those are gone too.

                            Possibly the biggest scam of them all. No one should be getting these. I say this as someone with a PhD, it was 98% a waste of my time. The entire academic system needs to be reset to something similar to how it was pre-WWII. Scholarships should replace the loans.

                            So all these advantages you claim are actually malinvestments.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @01:46AM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @01:46AM (#783510)

                              Some more evidence for that quote. Also from page 569:

                              In 1892, following the general run on the banks of the country, already described, gold began to disappear and go to Europe and the National Treasury was soon drained of its supply of gold. It was then charged and has never been successfully denied that this disappearance of "Old was part and parcel of a general conspiracy, framed and carried into effect by sinister interests in the land, to force the hands of Congress to repeal the purchasing clause of the Sherman law.

                              Also, interesting to read the discussion of tariffs back then when the US was basically as China is today (huge trade surplus, cheapest producer of many goods to Europe, etc).

                            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 08 2019, @01:53AM (7 children)

                              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday January 08 2019, @01:53AM (#783513) Homepage Journal

                              You can have the currency appreciate but still enough money to around for people to spend

                              Sorry, there's not a damned thing you can do to stave off deflation in your ideal world except print more money. You don't get to force people to save or invest as you think they should in a free society and I guarantee you they're never going to act like you think they should on their own.

                              Which makes the rest of what you said pointless to even read.

                              --
                              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @02:01AM (6 children)

                                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @02:01AM (#783519)

                                Sorry, there's not a damned thing you can do to stave off deflation in your ideal world except print more money.

                                I don't want to stave off deflation. You are still using that as a synonym of illiquidity, it isn't.

                                The actual relationship is: loss of currency liquidity is one cause of price deflation (and yes, this has been used in the past to scam entire nations). They are not one and the same as you seem to think though, and you have cause and effect reversed.

                                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 08 2019, @02:10AM (5 children)

                                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday January 08 2019, @02:10AM (#783524) Homepage Journal

                                  That's fine. s/deflation/nonliquidity/ and read it again. Saved money is not there to be used. You have a choice of continually printing more money or continually creating ever smaller denominations to compensate for some people being much, much better at acquiring currency than others. There is not a third choice.

                                  --
                                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @02:37AM (4 children)

                                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @02:37AM (#783530)

                                    That's fine. s/deflation/nonliquidity/ and read it again.

                                    I can't substitute and consider your argument sensical/relevant. Since they are two different things it totally changes the meaning of what you said.

                                    continually creating ever smaller denominations

                                    Not saying I agree with that dichotomy (haven't thought hard about it), but what is your problem with this? How is it a different problem from the need for ever larger denominations we are experiencing with inflation? Seems like a non-issue to me.

                                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 08 2019, @03:09AM (3 children)

                                      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday January 08 2019, @03:09AM (#783539) Homepage Journal

                                      The difference is with fiat currency you can control the level of inflation or deflation. Let either one get out of hand just for a moment and your entire nation is proper fucked for a long time. If you're going to talk economics you need to sit down, throw out everything you've heard from fiat haters and lovers both, and do your own critical thinking. And then do some more because your first thoughts will be incredibly naive and badly incorrect. Anything that requires a change in human nature, throw it the fuck out because you're not going to achieve that. Not ever. Anything you think you have down, consider how it's going to interact with every other aspect of the economy and people on the ground's lives. What you're all gung ho on right now would starve millions in what's currently the wealthiest nation on the planet.

                                      --
                                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @03:41AM (2 children)

                                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @03:41AM (#783548)

                                        Now you are conflating non-fiat with deflationary. I never mentioned fiat vs not regarding currency, in fact we are about to enter either a deflationary phase of a fiat currency (or, if the fed so decides to stop the rate hikes and asset dumping) see hyperinflation soon I expect.

                                        Anyway, I only advocated deflationary currency. You want to have a conversation about two other related, but different, topics without distinguishing between any of the three... Sorry, I think it is you who has muddled thinking on this topic.

                                        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 08 2019, @05:27AM (1 child)

                                          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday January 08 2019, @05:27AM (#783564) Homepage Journal

                                          It's an irrelevant distinction. Fiat currency is never deflationary on purpose. Everyone but a few nutters seems to understand why. But, hey, you can go on believing the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon too for all I care. Just don't try to convince me of any of it.

                                          --
                                          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @05:42AM

                                            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @05:42AM (#783568)

                                            Keep thinking simplistically that non-fiat = deflation = illiquid currency then. Also that people who can distinguish between the concepts and understand the true relationships and explain it to you are idiots then. There is no helping you I guess.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by RandomFactor on Sunday January 06 2019, @11:22PM

    by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 06 2019, @11:22PM (#782900) Journal

    Sales taxes are _highly_ regressive, in that the proportion paid by the poor is substantially greater than that paid by the right.

    Now that's a political Freudian slip if I've ever seen one.

    --
    В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 07 2019, @12:57PM (1 child)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 07 2019, @12:57PM (#783143) Journal

    While its helpful that food is generally not taxed, clothing and vehicles are.

    You do realize that sales taxes vary wildly among the states? For instance, clothing is taxed, here in Arkansas. Sales taxes can also vary pretty wildly within the same state. 6% in one county, over 10% in another county. As a rule, I can save money by shopping in Texas - but I spend money on gas to get to Texas.

    But, I agree, sales taxes suck. I think the municipalities should get all their money from property taxes. Land owners can usually afford to be taxed, more than non owners. And, yes, I realize that I've expressed a willingness to pay higher property taxes. Income and property taxes both can be better justified than sales taxes.

    • (Score: 2) by J053 on Tuesday January 08 2019, @01:26AM

      by J053 (3532) <dakineNO@SPAMshangri-la.cx> on Tuesday January 08 2019, @01:26AM (#783504) Homepage
      Also Hawaii - 4% nominal (actually, it winds up being 4.16% so the merchant doesn't have to eat much of it) General Excise tax on every transaction - food, clothing, medicine, everything. And it applies on each transaction (wholesale and retail), so it kind of stacks a bit like VATs do.