Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?


By Greatest I am   Follow   Sun, 10 Feb 2013, 6:22pm   2,551 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     Viewing Comments 59-98 of 98     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    41 threads
    2,655 comments

    59   2:37pm Tue 12 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    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.

  2. Quigley


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    49 threads
    1,758 comments
    Huntington Beach, CA

    60   3:06pm Tue 12 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    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.

  3. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    61   8:56pm Tue 12 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    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.

  4. Homeboy


    Follow
    Befriend
    39 threads
    3,546 comments

    62   11:12pm Tue 12 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    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.

  5. Homeboy


    Follow
    Befriend
    39 threads
    3,546 comments

    63   11:21pm Tue 12 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    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.

  6. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    112 threads
    4,261 comments

    64   11:34pm Tue 12 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  7. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,266 comments

    65   6:21am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    @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".

  8. Greatest I am


    Follow
    Befriend
    42 threads
    209 comments

    66   6:57am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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

  9. Greatest I am


    Follow
    Befriend
    42 threads
    209 comments

    67   7:01am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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

  10. HeadSet


    Follow
    Befriend
    4 threads
    1,487 comments
    Hampton, VA

    68   7:02am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  11. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    806 threads
    10,671 comments

    69   7:03am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  12. Greatest I am


    Follow
    Befriend
    42 threads
    209 comments

    70   7:04am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    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

  13. Greatest I am


    Follow
    Befriend
    42 threads
    209 comments

    71   7:13am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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

  14. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    806 threads
    10,671 comments

    72   7:22am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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?

  15. Greatest I am


    Follow
    Befriend
    42 threads
    209 comments

    73   7:39am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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

  16. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,024 threads
    12,535 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    74   7:44am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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!

  17. david1


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    9 threads
    790 comments
    33 male
    Fort Mill, SC

    75   7:59am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    Honestly, this is elementary logic.

    Exactly as I said.

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

    Anyone else getting a Shrek vibe from this fellow?

  18. Greatest I am


    Follow
    Befriend
    42 threads
    209 comments

    76   8:52am Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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

  19. Homeboy


    Follow
    Befriend
    39 threads
    3,546 comments

    77   12:01pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    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.

  20. Homeboy


    Follow
    Befriend
    39 threads
    3,546 comments

    78   12:07pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    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.

  21. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    806 threads
    10,671 comments

    79   12:14pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Shut the fuck up Homeboy.

    regards

  22. Homeboy


    Follow
    Befriend
    39 threads
    3,546 comments

    80   12:25pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Such a clever boy.

  23. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    806 threads
    10,671 comments

    81   12:29pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  24. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    41 threads
    2,655 comments

    82   12:30pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  25. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    806 threads
    10,671 comments

    83   1:14pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Bite 'em in the ass GIA.

  26. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    806 threads
    10,671 comments

    84   1:22pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

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

  27. gbenson


    Follow
    Befriend
    17 threads
    426 comments

    85   1:52pm Wed 13 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  28. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    3,948 comments

    86   8:20am Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  29. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    3,948 comments

    87   8:35am Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  30. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,024 threads
    12,535 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    88   9:54am Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  31. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,024 threads
    12,535 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    89   9:55am Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  32. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    806 threads
    10,671 comments

    90   9:55am Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  33. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,024 threads
    12,535 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    91   10:45am Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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?

  34. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    806 threads
    10,671 comments

    92   10:49am Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  35. Greatest I am


    Follow
    Befriend
    42 threads
    209 comments

    93   1:10pm Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    CaptainShuddup says

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

    Regards
    DL

  36. Greatest I am


    Follow
    Befriend
    42 threads
    209 comments

    94   1:13pm Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    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

  37. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    370 threads
    19,575 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    95   1:18pm Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected  

    Greatest I am says

    Taxation = representation

    Representation = taxation

    No tax paid = no representation

    No representation = no taxation

    Nominated.

  38. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    370 threads
    19,575 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    96   1:21pm Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected  

    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/

  39. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    3,948 comments

    97   1:37pm Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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!

  40. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,024 threads
    12,535 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    98   1:48pm Thu 14 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 209 milliseconds to create.