Rivalarrival

But it’s very difficult for a lot of people.

It is, indeed, but the proper solution here is to lift them up to the bar, not lower the bar down to them.

Lack of ID prevents you from getting and keeping a job, attending school, accessing the banking system, getting a PO box, getting licenses. Being unable to vote is the least of your problems.

The proper solution is not to figure out how to make voting accessible to those without an ID. The proper solution is to get them an ID.

Yes, there are people who can't obtain an ID card, for whatever reason. A European citizen who couldn't obtain an ID card would have the exact same problems voting that an American citizen does. I don't have a systemic solution for that. This would seem to be something that would need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, possibly involving the judicial system and a court order. It also doesn't seem to be a particularly common problem. I'd bet all the money in my pockets that OP does, indeed, have some sort of ID card.

We have a remedy for this: Provisional ballots. Cast your vote now, and resolve any clusterfuck with registration later.

What I'm describing has been federal law for over 30 years. The European criticism about ID cards is nonsensical. Every time you obtain, renew, or amend your drivers license or ID, you update your voter registration.

Remember the context of my comment: I am replying to European criticism of registration. The European approach is for everyone to obtain a government issued ID card and present it at the polling station. The NVRA already does this. We have already adopted the European solution to this problem.

being hit with a tax that basically kills any chance of renting out something.

That is exactly what should happen. It should be practically impossible for an owner to "rent" a property for enough to justify doing it. Landlords should be heavily pressured to convert tenants to buyers.

"Renting" should be confined to commercial activities, not residences. You want to rent out space for a shop, warehouse, office, factory, no problem. This is only for residential property that you are not living in. It should not be economically feasible to rent out such property as an investor, because that practice strips tenants of equity and is the leading factor driving people into poverty.

Go ahead and use your property to generate an income, but do it by charging interest on a loan, not rent.

The entire concept of rent needs to die in a fire. It is inherently exploitative. There is no way to redeem it.

Rent needs to be replaced with "private mortgages" or other approaches that return equity to the occupant.

Individuals that need the flexibility of temporary, short-term housing can use "land contracts" rather than exploitive rental agreements. Land Contracts have fixed payments for the life of the agreement: no annual rent hikes. The occupant is considered an "owner" rather than a "tenant", but only begins gaining equity after three years. The occupant is free to walk away before three years, or renegotiate after.

How do we eliminate renting? We make it less lucrative than other investment options. We increase the tax rate on residential properties to be extremely high. But, we also create a tax exemption for owner-occupants, so your effective tax rate is actually lower on your own home. Landlords are forced to choose between a small return on a rental, or a larger return on a private mortgage or land contract.

With that simple change, landlords will be fighting tooth and nail to convert "tenants" into "buyers", so they don't have to pay the excess taxes.

Beyond renting, with this change, lenders are motivated to work with borrowers rather than resort to foreclosure. As soon as the bank initiates foreclosure proceedings, they are on the hook for the increased tax rate.

Shouldn't be an amendment, but we should impose a "securities" tax to achieve something like the $1 million limit on personal wealth.

An annual, 1% tax on stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other financial instruments, payable in shares of that security. (Which will then be slowly liquidated on the open market, such that the liquidated shares never comprise more than 1% of traded volume in any given time period)

The first $10 million directly held by a natural person are exempt from this tax.

Wealth isn't problematic in and of itself. The issue is when wealth is used primarily to purchase wealth-generating assets, rather than the products and services that generate wealth for workers.

This, but unironically.

NBC. Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. They probably meant "atomic", but the military doesn't use that term anymore.

The US has no biological or chemical weapons (aside from irritants like pepper spray or mace). They do have protective equipment and procedures for operating in an NBC environment.

As for nuclear, the entire world is pretty sure that nuclear leads directly to mutually assured destruction, so it's not really a viable threat anymore.

Tell him to change his name to "Without Prejudice Bob Smith".

Tax discounts to lower rent prices only incentivize the worst, most negligent slumlords, in a race to the bottom for housing quality. Rent controls and discounts on taxes for below-market rents exacerbate the major problems with renting.

Jacking up taxes jacks up rental prices.

It does. But, if nobody will be renting; nobody will be paying those jacked up prices. Read my comment again: I am trying to eliminate the concept of renting, and replace it with a much more equitable approach.

I want to replace "renting" with "land contract".

A land contract is a type of purchase agreement that starts off similar to a rental. They aren't used very often because they are somewhat complex, and they put a lot of power in the hands of the buyer/tenant rather than the seller/landlord. Land Contracts have a fixed monthly price: there is no year-to-year price hike.

Most importantly, they gain equity for their tenant/buyer.