Forum user to vote for Sumar 'holding their nose'
A forum user who has moved away from the left explains why they will vote for Sumar: the minimum wage, basic income, and stopping the right weigh more.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Why Vote for Sumar Even If You Dislike the Left
Why would someone who admits to having moved away from the left—due to feminism, or what they call 'communist nonsense'—end up voting for Sumar? The answer, as of this discussion, is not romantic. It's a calculated vote: two specific policies and a antiestéticar stronger than any electoral program.
The two policies are the Minimum Wage (SMI) and the Minimum Vital Income (IMV). The argument is that they were pushed through despite the PSOE, not thanks to them. And the antiestéticar acts as a cordon sanitaire: what might come from the other side. Everything else, including the voter's own ideology, takes a back seat.
SMI and IMV: The Floor That Changes Negotiations
The economic reasoning presented is simple and direct: if there is a guaranteed income to fall back on when work is scarce or employment is exploitative, the worker negotiates from a different position. Under that logic, they argue that the IMV is not a subsidy that 'disincentivizes' but a safety net that allows one to reject terrible conditions without ending up on the street.
If that's good, one might ask, why not raise it to 3,000 euros and give it to everyone? The arithmetic of absurdity is thrown out as a trap. Countering the objection, the voter asserts that those who received the IMV and undeclared income simultaneously were made to return every cent with interest.
Sumar's Black Hole: The Inheritance Tax
Here lies the sustancia ilegal, and it's not small. The real brake on voting is not feminism or fiscal policy in general. It's the inheritance tax. Asturias appears in their account as a textbook case: properties valued far above their cadastral value and unpayable tax bills for those inheriting the house they live in.
The summary from someone who has experienced it is harsh: 'they value your house however they want... and hit you with an impressive bill... many people like that.' The recurring solution proposed is total exemption for the primary residence. And that same fiscal pressure, according to the voter, is what moved votes towards Ciudadanos, PP, and Vox in Andalusia. Sumar carries that burden.
The Unresolved Debate: Does the SMI Raise Prices?
The classic objection arises quickly: if you raise the minimum wage, you pass the cost on to prices. If the SMI rises and living costs rise equally, you've gained nothing. The response relies on a figure the voter cites: Spain is growing at 2.6% while Germany stagnates at 0.2%. The counterargument comes swiftly and hits a nerve: a good part of that growth is new population, not productivity.
Housing and Usury: The Case That Summarizes the Vote
The episode used as evidence is not a manifesto. It's an eviction notice. According to the account shared in the thread, an 87-year-old woman sees a fund buy her home at a bargain price and raise her rent to 1,700 euros, a 300% increase, after she had paid rent her whole life.
Another participant argues that spending 5% of GDP on defense—or even 3%—would condemn the country to poverty, and that money comes at the expense of trains and roads.
In the end, the question isn't who you vote for, but what you hold your nose for. The voter claims to have found the reason by reading those who challenge them.
Why would someone who admits to having moved away from the left—due to feminism, or what they call 'communist nonsense'—end up voting for Sumar? The answer, as of this discussion, is not romantic. It's a calculated vote: two specific policies and a antiestéticar stronger than any electoral program.
The two policies are the Minimum Wage (SMI) and the Minimum Vital Income (IMV). The argument is that they were pushed through despite the PSOE, not thanks to them. And the antiestéticar acts as a cordon sanitaire: what might come from the other side. Everything else, including the voter's own ideology, takes a back seat.
SMI and IMV: The Floor That Changes Negotiations
The economic reasoning presented is simple and direct: if there is a guaranteed income to fall back on when work is scarce or employment is exploitative, the worker negotiates from a different position. Under that logic, they argue that the IMV is not a subsidy that 'disincentivizes' but a safety net that allows one to reject terrible conditions without ending up on the street.
If that's good, one might ask, why not raise it to 3,000 euros and give it to everyone? The arithmetic of absurdity is thrown out as a trap. Countering the objection, the voter asserts that those who received the IMV and undeclared income simultaneously were made to return every cent with interest.
Sumar's Black Hole: The Inheritance Tax
Here lies the sustancia ilegal, and it's not small. The real brake on voting is not feminism or fiscal policy in general. It's the inheritance tax. Asturias appears in their account as a textbook case: properties valued far above their cadastral value and unpayable tax bills for those inheriting the house they live in.
The summary from someone who has experienced it is harsh: 'they value your house however they want... and hit you with an impressive bill... many people like that.' The recurring solution proposed is total exemption for the primary residence. And that same fiscal pressure, according to the voter, is what moved votes towards Ciudadanos, PP, and Vox in Andalusia. Sumar carries that burden.
The Unresolved Debate: Does the SMI Raise Prices?
The classic objection arises quickly: if you raise the minimum wage, you pass the cost on to prices. If the SMI rises and living costs rise equally, you've gained nothing. The response relies on a figure the voter cites: Spain is growing at 2.6% while Germany stagnates at 0.2%. The counterargument comes swiftly and hits a nerve: a good part of that growth is new population, not productivity.
Housing and Usury: The Case That Summarizes the Vote
The episode used as evidence is not a manifesto. It's an eviction notice. According to the account shared in the thread, an 87-year-old woman sees a fund buy her home at a bargain price and raise her rent to 1,700 euros, a 300% increase, after she had paid rent her whole life.
Another participant argues that spending 5% of GDP on defense—or even 3%—would condemn the country to poverty, and that money comes at the expense of trains and roads.
In the end, the question isn't who you vote for, but what you hold your nose for. The voter claims to have found the reason by reading those who challenge them.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (129 replies).
More summaries
-
GDP Grows, But Per Capita Income is Spread Thinner
GDP growth outpaces inflation and pensions are paid, yet per capita GDP falls as the pie is divided among more people. The calculation that confounds.
-
Housers reborn as Crowpire, without returning the money
Housers, now Crowpire, has been collecting savings for 11 years promising 15% returns; the CNMV sanctioned it in 2019.
-
Euthanasia in Old Age: Autonomy vs. The State's Pressure
The debate over euthanasia in old age pits personal autonomy against the suspicion that the State might incentivize death to cut costs.
-
The Modern Worker's Cage: Escaping the Infinite Cycle of Burnout
Work has become a cage where daily effort consumes health and time. Discover why we push ourselves so hard and how to break the cycle.
-
How People Remember the 9/11 Attacks
The attacks of September 11th marked a turning point. Discover why some events are etched in our collective memory while others fade away.
-
Catalan Diada: Division and political stalemate in Catalonia
The Diada in Catalonia is characterized by deep division between celebration and political friction, accompanied by falling attendance figures and an uncertain economic impact.