September 2024 Newsletter

Taxes, Voting, and Lying 💰✅🤥

Hello Readers,

I will be discussing a few divisive topics this month, so brace yourselves!

Paying Taxes and Voting

Should everyone vote? A better question may be: should we want everyone to vote?

In case it somehow escaped your attention, the U.S. has an important federal election coming up in November. "The most important election in U.S. history." Sure, just like all the rest of them.

I won't share my chosen candidate because you don't care, nor should you. I write apolitical fiction books (perhaps a few political slants are found here and there, to be fair), so attempts to persuade you would be off-brand. However, within this newsletter, I tend to dabble in cultural topics that intertwine with politics.

A significant part of the American election process in my lifetime has been the "get out the vote" initiative. "Rock the Vote" is the most memorable, where MTV had musicians and celebrities pandering to disaffected teens and twenty-somethings to get up from their waterbeds and beanbags and vote. There have been variations on this for decades, going hand in hand with the "I Voted!" stickers one can proudly wear the remainder of election day to flex one's democracy participation creds.

I always wondered why this was necessary. Voting is a privilege; it is a voice in determining the direction of the government, and therefore, society.

There is inherent value in voting, so why sell it?

The contrarian in me tends to think that maybe everyone shouldn't vote. Perhaps voting should be limited to taxpayers.

Gasp! You elitist! Disenfranchising the poor!

I hear that criticism. I'm just throwing the concept out there for consideration without any intent to recruit fellow voters or petition my representatives to revoke the rights of non-working voters. Stripping away an existing right would be ugly and unpopular.

This opinion is centered on the belief in fairness and having skin in the game when deciding how our collective resources are allocated. Should I be able to approve a spending increase for an initiative I don't have to pay for?

Keep in mind that the economic bar for voting would be quite low. Eighteen-year-old me back in the 1980s working crummy minimum wage jobs would have been eligible because I did pay taxes on my four-figure annual salary.

(Please don't inundate me with exceptions, i.e., people who are disabled, elderly, etc. I get it; certain groups are unable to work, and that should be taken into account.) 

Reduce the concept to the micro level. Let's say I live in a household with a spouse and three kids; the parents work, and the three kids do not. Should we all get an equal say in the budget?

Should the kids be able to vote 3-2 to approve the purchase of a new swimming pool and say, "Go pay for that; we would like it completed by spring so the pool parties can commence. Speaking of that, we are voting to increase the family party budget to cover five pool parties, to include snacks, drinks, and a D.J." It would result in a tyranny of the dependents and eventual bankruptcy.

Take a look at this map below from 2012:

This graphic is mind-blowing. The country's direction is being determined by those who do not work.

A taxpayer-only election is a conservative landslide. Even California would go red if only taxpayers voted (are you okay, Iowa?) I will leave it to you to ponder why those paying into the system have different priorities.

The Death of Context

A trend that has gained momentum in the past decade is the taking of speech out of context. It has become more and more acceptable, with the media regularly peddling out-of-context sound bites as the truth.

Let's say I post this on social media:

"A pack of wandering dogs keeps knocking my trash cans over and making a mess. These dogs are a menace to our neighborhood!"

Imagine that a neighbor who dislikes me decides to take the second sentence out of context and post what an awful human being I am. "Conway posted that dogs are a menace to our neighborhood!"

After all, her kids love their family pets, her pets are her fur babies, and she can't imagine making it through a grocery store visit without bringing her emotional support Yorkie.

Next, everyone piles on because nobody would ever think to look at my original post to verify that I am a monster who despises man's best friend (OMG, dogs are woman's best friend too, misogynist!).

My policy is to always go to the source material. If a politician or celebrity supposedly says something outlandish, I go directly to the video or a trusted transcription. The allegedly offensive statement is nearly always found to be benign because it is part of a larger dialogue that was not communicated. Most of the time it was not communicated on purpose.

Most of this intentional miscontexting (did I just make up a word?) occurs when the messenger is disliked, and the statement reinforces an existing negative stereotype. This is especially true with politicians, celebrities, and athletes; an eagerness to dunk on them supersedes the need to be truthful. It is knowingly embracing misinformation to fuel a bias.

Out-of-context posting is just a passive form of lying. Never trust politicians, media sources, or social media connections purposely or even negligently engaging in this.

Alright, enough soapboxing; have a great month, and I will see you in October!

Take care,

---

---

---

---