« previous   misc   next »

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?


By Greatest I am   Follow   Sun, 10 Feb 2013, 10:22am PST   3,375 views   98 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)  

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today’s terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.

There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.

Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.

This is counter to the taxpayer’s wishes.

Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?

If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.

Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?

Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?

Regards
DL

« First     « Previous     Comments 59-98 of 98     Last »

Kevin   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 6:37am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 59

I'm glad that, as a society, we decided that things like poll taxes were an awful idea many many years ago.

If you want to live in a country where all political power is in the hands of the wealthy elite, please move to China, and leave my country alone.

Quigley   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 7:06am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 60

The Romans had a republic too, and only wealthy landowners had a voice. Result: slavery, oppression, and no rights for the common man. Slaves could be killed at a whim, and their deaths were great sport for the arena.
Armed revolt couldn't stop this. The power was too concentrated in the hands of the landed class, and they saw their own privileged lifestyles as preferable to justice.
Ironically, the end of the Roman brutality was brought about by a new form of populism that organized citizens and slaves, uniting them together as brothers and sisters to form a new force: not of violence, but a force of Peace. Christianity slayed the eagle and brought a measure of justice to Rome.

In this tradition, we should remember that might does not make right, and that men are brothers under a higher authority. Thus we seek justice and we do not deify government, but use it as a tool for justice and unity.
Or at least, that's how it ought to be.

thomaswong.1986   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 12:56pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 61

Greatest I am says

Try oligarchy.

I really dont know what old George Carlin is talking about.. from what experience is he

talking from ? guy goes around comedy joints each night and makes some giggle and

laugh...

but seriously.. between all the pot and coke he done in the 60-70s.. he really never had a

real job or understand how economics works... he is a product of his hippie generation

that dropped out and protested against the "system".. and was never was part of the

main street economy.

He was funny many years ago... but you realize how sad these people are who wasted over 30-40 years

of their lives.. Yes..dont go to school like Carlin, dont have a job/career.. who become a

bitter old man, dreaming up scary oligarchy for screwing them over.

Homeboy   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 3:12pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 62

Greatest I am says

The current system seems to allow for some fairly obvious abuse. For example, some politicians attempt to buy votes by expanding the welfare state massively - inventing new ways of buying voters' loyalty with tax credits and other hidden taxpayer’s money.

That's not abuse. Many people believe the government should provide help for those who need it rather than letting people starve or die from disease or injury. If voters put politicians in power who enact social programs, that is simply an example of people electing representatives who share their political views, not abuse.

Tax credits? Hmmm....I think most of the money given away in tax credits goes to giant corporations. So if you want that to stop, it would probably be more effective to disallow wealthy people from voting, not poor people.

Greatest I am says

Maybe those who get benefits should be excluded from voting because they are only voting for your money and negating your vote. If you happen to be a taxpayer.

So then I guess you believe that everyone who works anywhere in the finance industry, and their families, should not be allowed to vote. They are arguably the ones who have benefited the most from government policy. Oh, and I assume you don't think anyone in the armed services should be allowed to vote. Their salaries and benefits are all provided by the government.

Greatest I am says

My basic view is what the law of the land in many countries in the past was; no taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation through a vote.

Um, no - that's the opposite of what it means. It's "no taxation without representation". What you are describing is "no representation without taxation", which isn't actually a thing.

IOW, if you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.

The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

Obviously you are not a student of history. Sophistry as a means of disenfranchising voters is nothing new. Very similar arguments to the ones you are making were made in the South as an excuse to exclude black people from voting. Poll taxes and literacy tests were justified with the "logic" that they were improving the political system. But of course the real reason was to keep wealthy white men in power. There are lots of ways to disenfranchise a group of voters: Brute force, more subtle intimidation, redistricting, or laws that have the effect of skewing the voting pool. The real reason behind it is always a privileged group trying to hold on to their power. You're a bit late to the party. That stuff was already tried and failed.

Homeboy   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 3:21pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 63

HeadSet says

'Scum imbeded a chart above that shows entitlements are loaded mainly among the elderly, disabled, and working households.

Homeboy must believe that black people predominantly are the ones who do not pay taxes, else why his "Jim Crow" comment?

A. "imbeded" is not a word.
B. What you have written is what we call a "strawman" argument, and is not valid. So your pitiful and juvenile attempt to paint me as a racist is a failure.
C. Fuck you.
D. Welcome to ignore-town. Population: you.

curious2   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 3:34pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 64

Homeboy says

D. Welcome to ignore-town. Population: you.

Don't worry Headset - Homeboy ignores me too, and a half dozen others. He's addicted to Ignorital(tm) pills, and believes the advertising claims that ignorance is bliss.

Vaticanus   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 10:21pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 65

@homeboy

It is abuse to take from someone who is unwilling to give without coercion and give that money or property to someone else. Some people think that Democracy is immune from abuse, but any time a majority votes away the life, liberty or property of another innocent person or group of people, it is then that democracy reveals its true colors: dictatorship under the guise of "majority". If the majority be wrong, it is no better than an oppressive dictator or tyrannical monarch. That is why the Constitutional Republics are established to limit the power of government to oppress even by "majority".

Greatest I am   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 10:57pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 66

Dan8267 says

Greatest I am says

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Anyone who has to obey the law should have a say in what the law is.

My basic view is what the law of the land is; no taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation through a vote. IOW, if you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.

The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

Tax is a payment but do not fixate just on that.
Payment can be made in various ways so do not think I am going after the poor. In the case of Vets, representation can be earned by serving to protect the country. Those who sometimes pay taxes and at other times take taxes would have to be looked at once a standard is set. If a person pays 15 years out of 20 for instance, he would vote. Someone who only paid 5 years out of 20 and was on the dole or public purse for 15 may not get a vote.

The point is that when more and more fall into the poor categories, their vote can and is bought by the unscrupulous politicians who are elected by promises of a raise in welfare checks.

The rich are getting richer and the poor better off and the middle is squeezed by both side and any election basically becomes a war against the middle thanks to the fact that politicians are owned by the rich.

This is unjust and unsustainable and must end.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 11:01pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 67

Kevin says

I'm glad that, as a society, we decided that things like poll taxes were an awful idea many many years ago.

If you want to live in a country where all political power is in the hands of the wealthy elite, please move to China, and leave my country alone.

If you believe that our political power is not in the hands of the wealthy elite then as Carlin says, you are dreaming in your sleep.

When was the last time someone was elected who did not have many millions of dollars at his disposal?

Regards
DL

HeadSet   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 11:02pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 68

curious2 says

Don't worry Headset - Homeboy ignores me too

Thanks, but I not worried, as I expected he would answer my post with a name calling rant. After all, the typical Homeboy post is heavy on anger and low on facts.

CaptainShuddup   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 11:03pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 69

Greatest I am says

My basic view is what the law of the land is; no taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation through a vote. IOW, if you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.

Didn't suffrage resolve all that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage

You elitists should read the "Wealth, tax class, social class" and "Knowledge" closely. It sounds like this is what you would like to revert to. And if 90% of your constituents even realized this, they would quake in fear at the mere mention of Obama and Change.

Greatest I am   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 11:04pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 70

Quigley says

The Romans had a republic too, and only wealthy landowners had a voice. Result: slavery, oppression, and no rights for the common man. Slaves could be killed at a whim, and their deaths were great sport for the arena.

Armed revolt couldn't stop this. The power was too concentrated in the hands of the landed class, and they saw their own privileged lifestyles as preferable to justice.

Ironically, the end of the Roman brutality was brought about by a new form of populism that organized citizens and slaves, uniting them together as brothers and sisters to form a new force: not of violence, but a force of Peace. Christianity slayed the eagle and brought a measure of justice to Rome.

In this tradition, we should remember that might does not make right, and that men are brothers under a higher authority. Thus we seek justice and we do not deify government, but use it as a tool for justice and unity.

Or at least, that's how it ought to be.

This is a political issue.

Shove you genocidal son murdering prick of a God into a religious debate.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 11:13pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 71

CaptainShuddup says

Greatest I am says

My basic view is what the law of the land is; no taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation through a vote. IOW, if you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.

Didn't suffrage resolve all that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage

You elitists should read the "Wealth, tax class, social class" and "Knowledge" closely. It sounds like this is what you would like to revert to. And if 90% of your constituents even realized this, they would quake in fear at the mere mention of Obama and Change.

Suffrage is defined as; "is the right to vote gained through the democratic process."

The democratic process has to be paid for and it is the taxpayer that pays for it and not the taxtakers.

Taxation and representation go hand in hand. You pay not tax, you do not get representation.

Regards
DL

CaptainShuddup   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 11:22pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 72

Greatest I am says

Taxation and representation go hand in hand. You pay not tax, you do not get representation.

And can you point me to where it is worded as such, anywhere?

Greatest I am   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 11:39pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 73

CaptainShuddup says


171 threads

I just wrote it. Refute the logic if you can.

Remember math and equations?

Taxation = representation
Representation = taxation

No tax paid = no representation
No representation = no taxation

The U S went to war against the Brits to keep the last in play.
We have thrown away what we went to war to gain.

Regards
DL

Dan8267   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 11:44pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 74

Greatest I am says

Taxation = representation

"No taxation without representation" does not imply "no representation without taxation". Honestly, this is elementary logic.

No cat has to take a bath without getting catnip does not imply that a cat cannot have catnip without taking a bath!

david1   Tue, 12 Feb 2013, 11:59pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 75

Dan8267 says

Honestly, this is elementary logic.

Exactly as I said.

http://patrick.net/?p=1221750&c=934214#comment-934214

Anyone else getting a Shrek vibe from this fellow?

Greatest I am   Wed, 13 Feb 2013, 12:52am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 76

Dan8267 says

Greatest I am says

Taxation = representation

"No taxation without representation" does not imply "no representation without taxation". Honestly, this is elementary logic.

No cat has to take a bath without getting catnip does not imply that a cat cannot have catnip without taking a bath!

Two fools in a row I see.

Representation has to be paid for. Right?
We do pay politicians and pay for our political systems. Right?

How can we if taxes are not collected to pay for these?

No taxation or if we only have tax takers means that we have no systems or politicians.

Refute this either of you or tuck tail.

There are three of you now so between you you might come up with an argument against instead of stupid denials.

Regards
DL

Homeboy   Wed, 13 Feb 2013, 4:01am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 77

Vaticanus says

It is abuse to take from someone who is unwilling to give without coercion and give that money or property to someone else. Some people think that Democracy is immune from abuse,

I never said Democracy is immune from abuse. I don't think what we have is a democracy anyway. What I said was, the specific examples Greatest mentioned, i.e. welfare and tax credits, are not an "abuse" of the U.S. political system.

Homeboy   Wed, 13 Feb 2013, 4:07am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 78

Greatest I am says

Two fools in a row I see.

Representation has to be paid for. Right?

We do pay politicians and pay for our political systems. Right?

How can we if taxes are not collected to pay for these?

No taxation or if we only have tax takers means that we have no systems or politicians.

Refute this either of you or tuck tail.

There are three of you now so between you you might come up with an argument against instead of stupid denials.

Regards

DL

3 people correct you and your response is personal insults? The U.S. did not have a national income tax until 1862. By your "logic", the United States had no systems or politicians until 1862. Is that true?

Also, don't insult people and then close your post with "regards", you imbecile.

CaptainShuddup   Wed, 13 Feb 2013, 4:14am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 79

Shut the fuck up Homeboy.

regards

Homeboy   Wed, 13 Feb 2013, 4:25am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 80

Such a clever boy.

CaptainShuddup   Wed, 13 Feb 2013, 4:29am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 81

Just yanking your chain.
I wouldn't be surprised if GAI is a post bot.
Anyone that would waste more than two responses to him is a fool.
I don't think he has a stance on anything, he just likes to look for a rise out of people, with his topics he picks. There is no arguing with someone when that is the motive.

Kevin   Wed, 13 Feb 2013, 4:30am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 82

Greatest I am says

Kevin says

I'm glad that, as a society, we decided that things like poll taxes were an awful idea many many years ago.

If you want to live in a country where all political power is in the hands of the wealthy elite, please move to China, and leave my country alone.

If you believe that our political power is not in the hands of the wealthy elite then as Carlin says, you are dreaming in your sleep.

When was the last time someone was elected who did not have many millions of dollars at his disposal?

Regards

DL

To what office? At the state and local levels -- constantly. The vast majority do not. At the federal level? Less often, as a slight majority of congress are millionaires.

Now then, you are mistaking 'power' for 'elected office', which is a huge fallacy. In the US, lots of people without money have lots of power. Take unions, for instance. In countries ruled by, for, and of the elite, this doesn't happen. The leadership decides all policy, and everyone else can go fuck themselves.

CaptainShuddup   Wed, 13 Feb 2013, 5:14am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 83

Bite 'em in the ass GIA.

CaptainShuddup   Wed, 13 Feb 2013, 5:22am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 84

I'm starting to like this idea, most Patrenters wouldn't get to vote then.

gbenson   Wed, 13 Feb 2013, 5:52am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 85

KarlRoveIsScum says

This is the answer to the thread without a shadow of doubt.

Agreed.

The problem with any restriction on voting is you are undermining the ideal of a democratically elected representative government. If only the rich voted, all policies implemented would benefit the rich. Any group excluded will always get shafted by those in power. Thus all groups have to be allowed to vote. It's the 'great equalizer' and causes the pendulum of power to swing.

Let's say hypothetically that voter turnout of the poor suddenly spiked to 95% so that it significantly outnumbered the rich and even middle classes. Politicians that addressed the concerns of the poor would get elected. Government's priorities would likely change to education programs, job programs, and methods of addressing the problems of that voting block. In theory government would disproportionally lift people out of poverty, probably at the expense of the wealthy. But that voting block of poor would start to lose its power as they moved into the middle class. Their priorities (and voting habits) would change.

Now, lets look at reality. The rich are disproportionately represented in today's political system, and very nearly ALL of the gains realized in the economy since 2008 have been by the upper middle class. Most of the legislation still benefits the wealthy or large businesses. The poor are still poor, and the middle class is eroding at an alarming rate. There will be a breaking point that causes the pendulum to swing, not sure what the catalyst will be, but it's coming.

Reality   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 12:20am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 86

Quigley says

The Romans had a republic too, and only wealthy landowners had a voice. Result: slavery, oppression, and no rights for the common man. Slaves could be killed at a whim, and their deaths were great sport for the arena.

Slavery was practiced in Rome long before the Republic. The gladiatorial games heavily promoted and greatly expanded by the Roman Emperors like Nero came after the late Republic popularism (Marius to Caesar) and after the Imperial system replaced the Republic.

Armed revolt couldn't stop this. The power was too concentrated in the hands of the landed class, and they saw their own privileged lifestyles as preferable to justice.

Land ownership was not concentrated in the Republic phase of Rome. Land ownership became concentrated during the Imperial phase of Rome because of high inflation and high taxation on top of Roman military take-over of Egypt brought in government-subsidized grain bankrupting independent farmers. Hence the Emperors and governors threw the big parties at the Collosiums in order to keep the ex-farmers who lost their land fed, entertained and occupied. The Roman state became the biggest owner of slaves.

Ironically, the end of the Roman brutality was brought about by a new form of populism that organized citizens and slaves, uniting them together as brothers and sisters to form a new force: not of violence, but a force of Peace. Christianity slayed the eagle and brought a measure of justice to Rome.

In East Roman Empire, the Church became the new sponsor of the Empire. In the West Roman Empire, with Roman state religion of deifying (making god out of) the reigning emperor gradually losing its narrative power, even the leaders eventually realized that there's no point being the Emperor if Emperor is just some front-man for the Pretorium Guards and gets replaced every year by assassination. So Western Europe became a cluster of independent kingdoms after the 5th century, without the burden of an imperial system on top of them.

In this tradition, we should remember that might does not make right, and that men are brothers under a higher authority. Thus we seek justice and we do not deify government, but use it as a tool for justice and unity.

Or at least, that's how it ought to be.

Christianity did function as an alternative source of (moral) power besides the government. That's why Roman Emperors persecuted it and sought to exterminate it for nearly 300 years. They didn't give up and embrace Christianity until after the Crisis of Third Century that nearly destroyed the Roman Empire through massive infation. Embracing Christianity and dividing the empire into several parts bought an extra couple hundred years in the western half for the empire, and 1200 years for the eastern half.

Reality   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 12:35am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 87

Everyone of legal age should be allowed to cast a vote.

Eligible votes not cast during election should be available for auction, with 1/10 the proceeds going to the eligible voter giving up the vote and 9/10 going to the government, and that money should be the only source of income for the federal government, prohibiting it from raising other taxes and fees.

That way, the poor can get help much more efficiently and directly by selling their votes, and the rich with political ambitions can literally buy votes (but the power of the offices will be limited) . . . and if they want a program to conquer the moon or another country on earth they can pay for it!

The 1:9 split is so that the incentive to give up one's vote is not too high for the very poor, yet the cost of buying a vote is high enough that the middle class doesn't feel like their votes are worthless . . . and sufficient money needs to be found for defending such a very limited government without raising any taxes lest it replaced by something else.

Dan8267   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 1:54am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 88

Greatest I am says

Dan8267 says

Greatest I am says

Taxation = representation

"No taxation without representation" does not imply "no representation without taxation". Honestly, this is elementary logic.

No cat has to take a bath without getting catnip does not imply that a cat cannot have catnip without taking a bath!

Two fools in a row I see.

Representation has to be paid for. Right?

We do pay politicians and pay for our political systems. Right?

How can we if taxes are not collected to pay for these?

No taxation or if we only have tax takers means that we have no systems or politicians.

Refute this either of you or tuck tail.

There are three of you now so between you you might come up with an argument against instead of stupid denials.

Regards

DL

Wow, were to even begin with this crap?

Representation has to be paid for. Right?

You are welcomed to hold the opinion that representation is a product you buy and only those who buy it should get it. By that philosophy, bribing senators should be legal. Of course, that's essentially what lobbying is. So, if you want to live in a society where the Koch brothers own your ass and you are effectively a slave, your philosophy makes sense.

As a real American who believes in the philosophies, if not practice, of the founding fathers, I object to the philosophy you propose. I consider representation a right, not a product to be bought, in a republic. I base this conclusion on the principle that a people have the right to self-govern rather than have government imposed on them by outside interests. Either you agree with that principle or you don't. I'm not going to justify it here. All I'm going to say is that this principle is a hell of a lot more in keeping with the ideas of Western Civilization than your proposal.

We do pay politicians and pay for our political systems. Right?

Irrelevant. The payment for the mechanics of government is both utterly insignificant (accounts for like a few pennies of your income tax) and not related to the concepts of rights. There is no ethical justification for denying an elderly lady or a homeless man who has no income from exercising his or her right to vote. The very concept of the poll tax was discredited over a century ago.

How can we if taxes are not collected to pay for these?

Sorry, but my lolcat translator is on the fritz. Translate this into proper English.

david1 says

Anyone else getting a Shrek vibe from this fellow?

No taxation or if we only have tax takers means that we have no systems or politicians

No, based on the above sentences I'm getting a Basil Marceaux vibe. Shrek is a completely different kind of crazy.

Refute this either of you or tuck tail.

OK, let me dumb this down as much as possible.

Voting should be a right, not a privilege and certainly not a product. Poll taxes are Unconstitutional, and requiring a person to pay any taxes in order to vote is, by definition, a poll tax even if that tax isn't a tax on voting directly.

It is immoral, unethical, and bad for our society to prevent people without incomes (retirees, students, the unemployed, the disabled etc.) and thus without an income tax from voting. In fact, a family living at the poverty level (about $20k/yr) pay no income taxes. It would be wrong and dangerous to not allow these people to vote. When the only persons who have a say in government are the rich, then the government will look out for the interests of only the rich.

Dan8267   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 1:55am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 89

Side note: The converse of this thread's proposal, anyone who pays taxes should get a vote, is something I agree with. But a statement can be true while it's converse is false and vice-versa.

CaptainShuddup   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 1:55am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 90

I think Liberals should make this their number 1 agenda.
Try telling the very people you want to protect from those mean ole Assholes over at FOX news, that you want to take their voting rights from them. But be honest and tell them it's for their own good, because they are too damn poor, fat, lazy, stupid to vote.
And since they don't have to pay taxes anyway.

They shouldn't have the right to vote in the first place.

Dan8267   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 2:45am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 91

CaptainShuddup says

I think Liberals should make this their number 1 agenda.

Try telling the very people you want to protect from those mean ole Assholes over at FOX news, that you want to take their voting rights from them. But be honest and tell them it's for their own good, because they are too damn poor, fat, lazy, stupid to vote.

And since they don't have to pay taxes anyway.

They shouldn't have the right to vote in the first place.

I've paid about 30 grand in federal income taxes alone every year for the past 15 years and I'm a liberal. Are you saying I shouldn't have the right to vote because I know that Fox News lies blatantly and with the skill of a young child?

CaptainShuddup   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 2:49am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 92

You shouldn't be able to vote if you don't own a home.
Only property tax payers should be able to vote.
And "Job Creators" they should also be able to vote.
In fact the more I think about redefining "Who gets to vote and who doesn't" the more I like the idea. It would just be another one of those things that the GOP would rip from the Liberals arm socket and beat them senseless over the head with it... AGAIN!!!

And I would bet you a million dollars Obama would sign it into law, but it would still be just the Republican's fault, somehow.

Greatest I am   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 5:10am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 93

CaptainShuddup says

Not my style to waste my time. They have been mentally bitten and that is what they do not like.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 5:13am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 94

KarlRoveIsScum says

You want a POLL TAX!!!

Move to China or England

You seem to think I am a Yank. Not so but you seem to have a poll tax even if you do not recognize it as such.

Regards
DL

iwog   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 5:18am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 95

Greatest I am says

Taxation = representation

Representation = taxation

No tax paid = no representation

No representation = no taxation

Nominated.

iwog   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 5:21am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 96

CaptainShuddup says

You shouldn't be able to vote if you don't own a home.

Only property tax payers should be able to vote.

And "Job Creators" they should also be able to vote.

In fact the more I think about redefining "Who gets to vote and who doesn't" the more I like the idea. It would just be another one of those things that the GOP would rip from the Liberals arm socket and beat them senseless over the head with it... AGAIN!!!

Written by a raving conservative asshole:

The Grand Old Republican Party Is Over

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/11/12/the-grand-old-republican-party-is-over/

Reality   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 5:37am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 97

Dan8267 says

Side note: The converse of this thread's proposal, anyone who pays taxes should get a vote, is something I agree with. But a statement can be true while it's converse is false and vice-versa.

Agree with you on that. Everyone old enough should have a vote. Seeing how many of us spending time here, it should be quite clear just how important political expression is. No point denying that to our neighbors, lest they find the expression in some other ways.

People should however be allowed to setup tables to buy votes at the polling stations, directly from other voters: here's $1000 cash, let me vote for you! That fee however has to be taxed at the highest marginal income tax rate or even a special high tax rate like 90%! So that the votes from the poor are not too easily bought and the middle class are not too easily cornered by the rich buying the votes of the poor.

Meanwhile, those never paying income tax will also get a taste of what it's like to pay taxes on income!

Dan8267   Thu, 14 Feb 2013, 5:48am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 98

Reality says

Dan8267 says

Side note: The converse of this thread's proposal, anyone who pays taxes should get a vote, is something I agree with. But a statement can be true while it's converse is false and vice-versa.

Agree with you on that.

Just to be sure, what I'm proposing means that the following people, who are not currently allowed to vote, should be able to:

1. Prisoners and convicted felons.
2. Foreigners (non-citizens) subject to American federal income taxes (quite a lot of them).

« First     « Previous comments    

Greatest I am is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net