August 5

Two questions. Thanks in advance. (Question 1) For a bill to "pass" in the U.S. House of Representatives, the bill needs _____ votes. (What number? Or what percent?) (Question 2) For a bill to "pass" in the U.S. Senate, the bill needs _____ votes. (What number? Or what percent?) Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simple majority in both cases.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sort of figured. But, it's not a set number ... like, say, 51 ... correct? If all 100 senators show up and vote, the bill needs 51 votes to pass. Let's say that -- for whatever reason -- only 80 senators are present. Then, they need "only" 41 votes to pass ... ? Is that the idea? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, subject to the requirement for a quorum. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For bills subject to the current US Senate rules on the filibuster, 60 votes are required to move the bill to an up or down floor vote. The Senate rules are in neither law nor the Constitution and are subject to change. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind the tiebreaking power of the Vice President, who serves as presiding officer of the Senate and has the power to cast tiebreaking votes, whether the initial count is 50-50, 45-45, or whatever. Cullen328 (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Representatives normally has 435 voting members. One member got killed in car car crash earlier today, so it is 434 at the moment. House members may miss votes due to illness, weddings or funerals. The bottom line is that it is a 50% plus one vote of members present and voting. Thsre is no filibuster in the House of Representatives. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Cullen, the nominal numbers are 50% +1 votes among the members present to vote at that moment. That number varies depending on the number in the room. In the Senate, for many votes, this is 60% +1 votes, and that is because of a concept known as the filibuster, since while it takes 50% +1 votes to pass a bill, it takes 60% +1 votes to end debate on a bill, so if you can't get 60% +1 to vote to end debate, you can't ever get to the actual vote. In practice, many votes are done by unanimous consent, in which the chair proposes to pass a motion by consent, and if no one calls for the vote, the motion passes. But for formal votes, it is always 50% +1 to pass (and 60% + 1 in the Senate to break the filibuster). Since, on any given day, not all members may be present (due to illness, death, not feeling like showing up, etc. etc.) the actual number will vary. --Jayron32 12:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical nitpick: a majority is 50% + ½, not 50% + 1. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many Congressmen are you aware of who are cut in half? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are 435 voting members, 50% is 217½, so 50% + ½ = 218. This constitutes a majority. I think Congress members, bisected or not, cannot cast half votes, so under a 50% + 1 rule only 219 or more would be needed for passage.  --Lambiam 11:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The basic question really is how the government defines it. As noted here,[2] the government doesn't explicitly discuss percentages, it simply states what a majority is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the explanation confusing, then replace the "50% +1" with "the next highest whole number of humans strictly greater than 50%" and the "60% +1" with "the next highest whole number of humans strictly greater than 60%" and it should fix your confusion. --Jayron32 15:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, the legislators have to be physically present in the room? They can't email or telephone or fax or zoom or send a written message or whatever? They must physically show up? There's no alternatives at all ... for, say, a Senator in bed in the hospital (who still wants to vote)? Or some such? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally yes. Only very recent (since 2020) have they allowed committee meetings and testimony via zoom meeting; for actual honest to God votes, you have to actually honest to God be in the room to vote. No remote voting, no voting by proxy. There was a TEMPORARY measure, in the House of Representatives only, that allowed proxy voting during the pandemic, but AFAIK, they are back to normal operations. See [3] --Jayron32 18:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I could be wrong about that being rescinded. The most recent report was that the measure was extended to February 2022, I can't see if it was left to expire, or if it is still in effect. This says the most recent extension was to expire on February 13, 2022. No idea if that took place. I also don't believe the Senate every passed a similar rule; I think they still require in-person voting. --Jayron32 18:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This says it was extended to March 30, 2022. Still looking to see if it was extended again. --Jayron32 18:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This says the most recent extension was set to expire on June 28, 2022, and it was expected to expire for good at that point. Still looking. --Jayron32 18:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make that August 12. So it is still allowed, but every extension has been more and more controversial. We'll see if it makes it past that point. --Jayron32 18:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another related thought: the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Does or does not that law apply to Congress and/or the federal government? I imagine, "yes". Can't a "disabled" senator or representative ask for "reasonable accommodations"? For example, "I am sick/disabled and confined to my hospital bed ... it is a reasonable accommodation to let me vote by phone, email, zoom, etc." ... no? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're playing too much of the "what-if" game. The normal rules for both Houses of Congress are that one must be present bodily, in the chamber, in order to vote. The House of Representatives (but NOT the Senate) instituted a temporary rule to allow remote voting and committee meetings in light of the COVID pandemic, but the rule was temporary, and though it was renewed a few times, is set to expire August 12. Those just are the rules. Each House of Congress is given very broad powers to set their own rules of order, so while they could do a literal infinite number of improbable things in the future, we can only reliably tell you what the rules are not what they could be. And, the rules are (excepting the temporary rule in the House), in order to vote, your ass needs to be in the chamber. --Jayron32 15:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... but ... I am sure that a federal law "trumps" a Congressional "rule" / procedure. In other words ... when Congress establishes a rule/procedure, it cannot violate federal law. I can see that they (the Senators, etc.) might be crafty ... "craft" the ADA law ... and, somehow, have it not apply to them. That was the gist of the question. If (?) the ADA applies to Congress, I am sure that the "disabled" Senators and Reps -- if they wanted -- could ask for "reasonable accommodations" ... for example: Let me vote by phone, email, zoom, etc., because I have a disability that prevents me from physically attending the vote session. Seems like a no-brainer. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again. We're talking "could" things happen. The future is always filled with any infinite number of possibilities. Congress does not currently make such accommodations, and no court of law has yet determined that its operating procedures are in violation of any federal law. Unless and until that happens, your question is unanswerable. --Jayron32 15:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Anything "could" happen, in the future. That does not render the question unanswerable. Pretty simple and basic question: does/does not the ADA apply to the federal government / to Congress ... ? Or is there some special "carve-out" ... where they shed any liability / accountability ... as they are (very) well-known to do? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for the claim that royals may not marry in registry offices? The Queen seems to think they're legally married, and has even recently expressed a wish that Camilla be known as Queen Camilla when the time comes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be getting confused with the requirement that people at or near the top of the line of succession require the Queen's permission to marry. But once that is granted, they can marry in any legally acceptable way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major legislative bodies usually consider it essential to their function the the legislator be physically present at the assembly, for a great many reasons (some historical, some procedural, some practical, not least of which is that it's hard to negotiate with a flake). For an elected representative in the U.S., being present at the so-called People's House at least on occasion is also considered essential, as it is effectively the place where the public can petition them in person when they're not at their district office or on campaign. While it's easy nowadays for a sick/disable representative to cast a remote vote, a counterargument is that allowing any type of remote voting would encourage abuse of the system (and if you think legislators wouldn't pretend to be sick to effect a vote or quorum, you don't know how to legislate), and that missing any votes (or even all votes) doesn't necessarily result in you being fired or in any reduction in pay (arguably legislators cannot be impeached and cannot be blocked from the chambers for political action like missing votes, though of course they can be denied party leadership and committee roles). So unless there is something that comes down to discrimination against a protected class (so if Tammy Duckworth were hypothetically blocked from breastfeeding in the Senate to cast her vote, say), I don't think any ADA argument that a disabled legislator must be allowed to vote remotely would fly. However, as long as no large mass in the Senate abuses the COVID exceptions (and I doubt it, but anything's possible), they could be extended indefinitely. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any country that have some sort of "living" tax?

A living tax is a tax you pay just because you are alive instead of dead (and because dead people can't pay taxes, since they can't work more to get extra money to be taken away by the state).187.59.105.223 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with our Poll Tax article, though it doesn't list any current examples. Chuntuk (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the dead don't pay taxes, check out Inheritance tax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not paid by the dead; that's paid by the person who received the inheritance. --Jayron32 16:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No matter who writes the check, it's still deducted from the inheritance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the person who writes the check is the living person who inherits the money. And it doesn't have to come from the actual property inherited; the value is fungible. If I inherit a big stack of bills from my dead uncle, and I owe the government $100 for the inheritance, the government doesn't care if the $100 bill I owe them comes from my pocket or the big stack of bills. They just want me to give them $100. But it's still me paying, not my dead uncle. --Jayron32 18:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the person who writes the check is the living person who inherits the money: not true in the UK: according to this government page "Funds from your estate are used to pay Inheritance Tax to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). This is done by the person dealing with the estate (called the ‘executor’, if there’s a will)." and "Your beneficiaries (the people who inherit your estate) do not normally pay tax on things they inherit." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, in effect, it's the deceased who's writing the check (via the executor). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats different, because thats is paid just once. A tax paid by the dead would be impossible, even if you had a "living tax" of 50 dollars that is paid even by dead people (their sons pay for it), if a couple that had just one son dies, he would need to pay 150 dollars worth of "living tax" (his mother and father "living tax" + his own "living tax"), if this person, gets married and has a son, and he and his wife dies, this person would need to pay 150 (his father related taxes) + 50 (his taxes) + his mother related taxes, after some amount of time this would grow into some amount of money even bill gates would be unable to pay.187.59.105.223 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In America, at least, typically there's no inheritance tax unless the estate reaches some significant proportion, such as a million dollars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At my previous example, I was talking about a hypothetical "living tax" where everyone need to pay, even all the dead (they are paid by their sons).187.59.105.223 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

".. some sort of "living" tax? .." is quite a broader question, probably they mean to say ".. some sort of "living" direct tax? .." .

Below given cases are just food for thought, I am not passing any judgement about goodness and utility of those mechanisms. (This is neither for supporting or condoning any sort of "living" direct tax either.)

• In broader sense, is not every human being bearing indirect taxes is not paying some tax for they being alive? except for those rural and tribal communities even remotely not part of formal economy.
• What happens when exchange rates fall in certain country?
• Creation of an economy which makes one pay for food and living place, is not that indirect tax on living?
• And what about visa fees on foreign nationals ?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a number of different concepts thrown together here, almost as if they are somehow related to taxation. First, exchange rates are not in any logical way related to taxes. Second, fees such as for a visa, are not taxes, either. Third, only in a hypothetical 100% nationalized (e.g., communist) economy would daily living expenses such as food and rent be in any way considered taxes. Finally, many people do not pay taxes because of low incomes relative to the minimum tax threshold. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article linked above and to an Amazon research, there's 'Todo Mafalda', Todo Mafalda Edición Especial Aniversario 1964-2014, Todo Mafalda ampliado by Quino, Colección Mafalda: 11 tomos en una lata (individual booklets in a can), all from Lumen. And there's 'Toda Mafalda' (different publishing house).

Is the content of these editions in any way different? All seem to promise the complete Mafalda. Is the difference just a question of binding? Bumptump (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a neurologically or psychologically provable connection between mathematics and music? 2A02:908:424:9D60:A0B6:8352:9046:577C (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could maybe start by reading Music and mathematics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read it yourself? There is nothing there expressly related to neurological or psychological aspects.  --Lambiam 01:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who wants to know. But maybe this question could spur some research and potential article improvement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't read the article properly, and therefore didn't know that there is nothing of relevance to the OP's question in it, you should not have linked to it. --Viennese Waltz 07:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters. The OP is a one-shot who probably won't be back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Do you mean, "a provable neurological or psychological connection"? You may find this article interesting: "Bach as mathematician". It has been observed that many mathematicians are also gifted musicians,^[4] but I am not sure the evidence is more than anecdotal. If true, the most likely connection is in that both draw on shared functionality in the brain.  --Lambiam 01:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Jackendoff wrote on the Generative theory of tonal music (though I know almost nothing about it). The Pythagoreans tried to reduce music to developments of a 3/2 ratio, while Western music of recent centuries is based on the 12 root of 2, which is ugly in some ways (since in a chord no note has a frequency which is a simple fraction of another note -- see Interval ratio), but allows some instruments to be played in any key. AnonMoos (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) One can obviously formulate nice mathematical theories of various types of music as well as looser cognitive theories (similar to but cleaner than models of natural language), but the former would not necessarily mean that music is computed by the brain in the same way as mathematics. They are clearly correlated in some way, and it's easy to find supporting studies for the general argument, but I would caution against drawing too firm of conclusions as in the case of connecting mathematics directly to language (say as with transformational-generative grammar, which had something of an implosion with counterpoint from advancement in neuroscience). Another interesting line of research is the correlation of music ability or music training with linguistic or mathematical success, the latter which is generally a mild effect if it exists after being controlled for the general fact that well-off stable families are more likely to boost their kids in both music and scholastics (see Slater et al 2014 for example). In writing this answer I saw a lot of cool stuff too on the effect of music (genre-specific) on studying (Magnus Carlsen notably (sometimes) listens to and mouths along with music during matches). Finally, when I got to college I hypothesized a correlation between STEM majors and perfect pitch, but it seems that hasn't been looked into (thus probably not notable to those who study the phenomenon). SamuelRiv (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another word of caution: studies demonstrating a neurobiological maths–music correlation, such as the so-called Mozart effect mentioned in the student paper^[5] linked to above, are generally not replication-proof.  --Lambiam 11:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]