civic participation tax credit

You can use the money saved by not having the ridiculous bureaucracy involved in national compulsory ID based voting restrictions. It'd be far cheaper.

Lol Hueys target demographic here don't pay taxes to get a credit.

Poor people pay tonnes of tax, at a higher rate than many of the richest of the rich and many multinational corporations in fact.

Right. And the Republicans also have been gerrymandering the Senate for years.

He's right. Poor people pay quite a bit in taxes.

Honestly I don't care how the person gets their money, hand them 50 dollars when they walk out of the booth, give a tax credit, or gold bullion.

Don't be mean to jaaash. He doesn't know any poor people. How could he possibly know how much taxes they pay

Ah yes, the old trusty conservative meme that the rich pay 90% in taxes and the poor are all freeloaders. In reality, our tax system isn't very progressive at all. Especially when you consider the fact that the bottom half have no disposal income at all.


(source)

Once again JAAASH proves he knows way less about the world than he thinks he does.

Third time I've voted in New Hampshire without ID, third different set of paperwork to fill out, just one page this time (3 for the primary a month ago). I believe (couldn't see to make sure) that they had a LIST of people that had voted previously with no ID. That might have cut down on the paperwork.

The lady peppered me with questions, which I don't think they're allowed to do, but I wasn't sure so I didn't call her on it:
"Do you have a driver's license? Any ID at all? Any papers with your name on them? How about in your car? Your car registration?"

poor people pay a flat tax on every gallon of gas they put in their car, and some to most bites of food they eat, drop of liquid they drink.

wouldn't a portion of the tax returning to people be a desired result for republicans?

You couldn't just provide ID? Or are you above that and too cool and "progressive" for identification?

Everyone make sure to follow the non-existent rules!

Repulbicans!: we want LESS government!

Sure, I could have. Why would I want to? Prior to the law passing, New Hampshire did a thorough check for in-person voter fraud and found none. This law was passed anyway, it serves no purpose other than to chew up time and money and perhaps trick some people into thinking they can't vote. I find that offensive.

I figure the more people like me, that refuse to show ID, the more time and money they'll spend double checking that I'm the person that voted. Perhaps eventually they'll realize it's a waste and repeal the law. I think that will eventually mean long term savings for the state, and no one will be accidentally deprived of the right to vote because they didn't understand the law.

Regarding costs:
There was one election where they took pictures of every person who didn't show ID. That meant buying a digital camera and printer for each polling station. That was $85k, somehow. They added a staff member to oversee it, I believe that was estimated at $45k per year. And apparently it's $2-3 to check that each person did vote.

This is a very small state. That's what, $60k+ per year to fix a non-existent problem. That's not good government.

But if one black person was deterred from voting, it was all worth it.

OK, so you are intentionally doing something that causes them to waste money on investigating fraud you say doesn't exist when that money could be going to other programs. Gotcha.

Voting hipsters itt

Do you have a link to this?

when i went to school in new hampshire, pretty sure i was the only black person in the state.

Again, long term savings. They're spending $60k on this each year. If enough people like me don't use ID, that number will go up. 5 years at say $80k is better than 20 years at $60k. Do you see why?

Yup, NHPR.

http://nhpr.org/post/cost-nh-voter-i...ments-roll-out

http://nhpr.org/post/state-begins-ta...t-voter-id-law

You may be one of those big government fans that just shrugs at that cost, but that's actual money for a small state. Could be used to help fix actual problems.

I've never seen a cost associated to the Attorney General's office.

Yes, but you are presupposing that they will just quit looking into fraud. I don't believe they would do this without mandatory ID laws being passed, which would then save all this money you want to save. Do YOU see why?

They aren't spending $60k per year looking into fraud. They're spending $60k per year looking into non-existent fraud, which has the side benefit of making voting more difficult for the poor. Before this law was passed, there were regular checks for in-person voter fraud in the state. Guess how many cases turned up?

1.

Some kid tried to vote as his father, had the same name. He was caught under the old system. Please note voter ID would not help in that case, what with him having the same name as his father.

I suppose to big government types, that seems like a good use of money. I feel like it could be better used elsewhere, and I'll do what I can to make the State realize that.