Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights • Hacker News Board

Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights

#371

Post by lorecore » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 1:01 AM UTC

0xy wrote: post #180

taybin wrote: post #28

The thing about this that's so distasteful is that it removes the basis of enfranchisement from being the inherent worth of a human life and moves it more to "what have you done for me lately". It's pretty gross.

There's numerous examples of commune societies evicting people who refuse to contribute. The distasteful thing is people refusing to contribute to society, especially for long periods of time. I know many people who have various mental and physical disabilities (some severe) who insist on working. Some able-bodied people can't even match some with severe disabilities. It's sick.

Working a McJob to make some CEO and their investors rich is not a virtue. The Protestant work ethic really is a toxic ideology that can't die soon enough. It's the very basis of exploitation.

Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights

#372

Post by Ferret7446 » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 2:30 AM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #321

trollbridge wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 28% included payroll taxes, sales tax, property tax and so forth. If you don’t include those, it’s closer to 60%. Someone with 3 kids earning $26k gets about $10,000 in cash back per year (wiping out $2k in payroll taxes) and $12k of food stamps. Assuming they spend 100% of their cash on either taxable items with 8% sales tax or rent with comparable property tax, that’s still net minus -$5,280. If we include food…

Somebody with three kids earning 26k is in extreme poverty. If them being a net receiver of government funds is considered a bad thing.... Christ.

Is it not a bad thing in the general case? People who produce net positive value for society subsidize the unsustainable reproduction of those who are a net drain. It is a very sterile perspective, but reality doesn't care about empathy, and you can't feed people with good feelings.

Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights

#373

Post by Ferret7446 » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 2:36 AM UTC

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #331

simonsarris wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if, from first principles this is a non-starter in a democratic society. This is a strange phrase - initially you had to either own land (therefore pay tax) or else if you lived in a city and didn't own land but paid sufficient tax[1], to vote in the early United States. Only taxpayers voting was our first principles! We only changed it later. [1] I'm simplifying slightly because different states handled this…

Early democracies didn't allow everyone to vote - slaves typically had no voting rights (or any rights at all). However, we've progressed to understand that if you don't provide people with voting rights, they then have to resort to violence instead either through rebellion or insurrection etc. which is why it's considered a very good idea to let women or even people with different coloured skin to vote. The end-game…

> which is why it's considered a very good idea to let women

There's some revisionism going on here. Women did not want to vote. It was the feminism/communism movement that brought on women suffrage. Had the USSR not succeeded in planting this, we likely wouldn't have ever gotten it.

Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights

#374

Post by ndsipa_pomu » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 12:40 PM UTC

Ferret7446 wrote: post #373

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early democracies didn't allow everyone to vote - slaves typically had no voting rights (or any rights at all). However, we've progressed to understand that if you don't provide people with voting rights, they then have to resort to violence instead either through rebellion or insurrection etc. which is why it's considered a very good idea to let women or even people with different coloured skin to vote. The end-game…

> which is why it's considered a very good idea to let women There's some revisionism going on here. Women did not want to vote. It was the feminism/communism movement that brought on women suffrage. Had the USSR not succeeded in planting this, we likely wouldn't have ever gotten it.

I've never heard of that and would welcome some sources.

As I understand it, the Women's suffrage movement began mainly in Britain during the late 19th century. The USSR didn't exist until 1922, so I think you've been misinformed.

Arguably, voting rights for some women did exist before then, with Sweden in the 18th century probably being the first. There was also Lydia Taft who was able to vote in colonial America in 1756.

Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights

#375

Post by senordevnyc » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 1:59 PM UTC

vrganj wrote: post #355

senordevnyc wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 3500 billionaires in the world, and 30k centimillionaires.

And how many of them are leaders of the US tech industry with global tech empires? C'mon man, stop moving the goalposts.

Your comment that I responded to said this:

How much more evidence do we need that there is in fact a class war going on and the rich are winning?

You framed the goalposts in terms of "the rich", not "leaders of US tech industry with global tech empires".

Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights

#376

Post by 0xy » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 5:20 PM UTC

lorecore wrote: post #371

0xy wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's numerous examples of commune societies evicting people who refuse to contribute. The distasteful thing is people refusing to contribute to society, especially for long periods of time. I know many people who have various mental and physical disabilities (some severe) who insist on working. Some able-bodied people can't even match some with severe disabilities. It's sick.

Working a McJob to make some CEO and their investors rich is not a virtue. The Protestant work ethic really is a toxic ideology that can't die soon enough. It's the very basis of exploitation.

When you choose to not work as an able-bodied person you're really insisting that your community should be forced to give you resources while you contribute nothing.

Any collectivist commune would kick you out for this.

It's also interesting you use the McJob angle, because when you consider the price of a Big Mac, labor is by far the largest contributor of cost, not profit.

A Big Mac's cost is 30% labor, 25% ingredients and only 5% net profit. The remainder is operating costs. Seems like a pretty good deal for the people making the Big Mac, they're getting 6x more than the franchisee gets.

Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights

#377

Post by chriscrisby » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 3:39 AM UTC

kennywinker wrote: post #353

chriscrisby wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Top 50% of taxpayers paid about 97% of all federal individual income taxes. Therefore bottom 50% pay nothing or next to nothing.

So you’re counting by dollar amount. Because find me a person who thinks 25% of their income is “next to nothing” Meanwhile, a tax avoiding billionaire will double their net worth and take out an asset-backed loan of 100mil to live off and then pay ~0% of that in taxes.

It’s pretty easy to someone who can’t wait for tax time because they pay negative taxes.

Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights

#378

Post by UncleMeat » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

Ferret7446 wrote: post #372

UncleMeat wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody with three kids earning 26k is in extreme poverty. If them being a net receiver of government funds is considered a bad thing.... Christ.

Is it not a bad thing in the general case? People who produce net positive value for society subsidize the unsustainable reproduction of those who are a net drain. It is a very sterile perspective, but reality doesn't care about empathy, and you can't feed people with good feelings.

I do not agree that contribution to society is measured in dollars.