This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My Florida Ballot
Early voting starts in my state. Mid-terms have arrived. Here is what I'm voting for, and why:
Governor - Byron Donalds: I largely agree with most positions more than I disagree. I support police, and cracking down on criminality, I oppose most gun control. To keep a long story short, im about 60/40 as far as agreeing with Republicans/Democrats respectively. And will vote R if I must choose. This will be the same for the other smaller representees.
-Edit- Senate - Ashley Moody: Same reasons as Byron
Supreme Court - Carlos G. Muñiz: Keeping him.
CFO - Blaise Ingoglia: I did a little digging, he seems more effective at managing spending for the state. So I'm going with him.
Commissioner of Agriculture - Wilton Simpson: Unfortunately, I dont know the first thing about argiculture. But just looking at the perspective candidates websites. Wilton claims to have done some nice things, like providing for those in need via a Farming Feed initiative, and preventing medicine from getting water systems. Assuming this is true. He has my vote. I also went and checked what stuff he has voted for on Ballotpedia, most of it seems pretty good. He voted for things related to childrens welfare and having standards for education systems. I trust him. His oppononent, Joey, doesnt even have anything he has done on his website.
Attorney General - James Uthmeier: He was under DeSantis, and as an Attorney General he basically will over see the state legal system and such. I trust him to enforce the laws we have on the book and help police crack down on bad behavior.
Amendment 1 : I'm largely for increasing funding for emergencies, Florida tends to have a lot of natural disasters, so I dont see the argument against this just off intuition. So I'll vote yes.
Amendment 2 : Again, I unfortunately don't know much about agriculture, but it basically says that certain equipment wont get taxed. Im going to go with yes for this as well. But if anyone know a lot about agriculture, I'd like an argument as to why. Farming tends to be an expensive endeavor from just doing brief research, so I'm gonna vote to save the farmers a few dollars.
Amendment 3: I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, I kinda understand the fundamental argument for Taxes: someone needs to pay for government services. And from what I can tell, this bill will tax people the more expensive their houses become. It essentially reads as a progressive tax but for property. I tend to sympathize with progressive tax systems in general, so I don't have a problem with this. But it does seem unfair to those who bought their house for $100,000, but now pay more tax because that house is worth $300,000 they didn't exactly choose that, on the other hand for many this might have been a desired outcome. There are also those who would plan on just living in the house forever without selling so for those accruing a higher price on the house isn't very relevant. There is also the problem of landlords passing the tax on the current renters. I dunno, I'm still thinking on this, opinions are welcome.
Let's break down Amendment 3. The average Florida home value is about $375,000, and the current exemption amount is $50,000. It's my understanding that the tax rate is approximately $750 for each $50,000 in value, so as it stands the average taxpayer would pay $4,875 per year on the average home. If the bill passes, full implementation would reduce this amount to $1,875. A 61% decrease in property taxes for the average homeowner does not seem fiscally responsible, especially since the bill also caps annual increases on non-homestead property at 5%, down from 10%. I honestly don't see how local governments can handle that kind of decrease, and there's no mechanism in place to replace the funding.
Landlords can't claim a homestead exemption, so this wouldn't affect renters at all.
Florida seems to collect those property taxes and then disburse them back to the local governments. The state itself seems to be doing very well, fiscally. $3.8bn budget surplus, paying off debt ahead of schedule, well funded Rainy Day Fund. They also seem to get most property tax revenue from rental properties and second homes, which don't get the homestead exemption.
Might be they actually can just eat the loss in revenue to reward the people who actually live there. Perks of a competent government.
More options
Context Copy link
If Florida works like most states, taxing jurisdictions work out how much they want to raise, and then convert it into a millage rate. My gut feeling is that the null hypothesis should be that the total amount of property tax will stay the same and the millage rate will increase to compensate for the reduced base - not that millage rates will stay constant and spending be cut.
That would make the amendment a cleanish transfer from businesses, landlords and owners of expensive homes to owners of cheap homes - which you would expect to be popular. That said, supporters and opponents of the amendment seem to be campaigning as if it is a tax cut.
I misread the bill and thought that would be blocked: It's assessment increases that are capped at 5% per year, but that capped value can be taxed at any rate. That seems quite plausible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link