patrick.net

Interesting.

Would the citizen who pays no federal income tax, but does pay state sales tax, be allowed to vote in state elections but not Federal?

I presume also, you meant "net taxes." That is, the citizen who collects more in welfare than he pays in taxes would not vote. Same for the banker whose salary was completely financed by a government bailout.

Under such a "vote if taxed" system, it would appear that many upper income people may be disenfranchised. Not an issue for them though, as they would just buy off the elected official the real tax payers voted in. "Campaign bundling" and related bribery, you know.

Another issue is those who receive Social Security disabilty, VA disability, military retirement and other various government paid defined benefit retirements. Do they vote if their government check exceeds any Federal tax remitted?

How about the working couple with 5 kids in school? They pay local property taxes on thier modest house and car, but nowhere near what it costs for the city to educate their kids. Can this working couple vote in local elections?

The definition of 'good job' is where the sides diverge...

Greatest I am says

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

Greatest I am says

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

I find the notion that there are "types" or classes of citizens repulsive. It's antithetical to the egalitarian ideas we SAY we believe in.

Carry this to it's logical extreme. Anyone who "sucks on the government teat" would include retirees, politicians, military both active and not, and of course all Federal workers plus anyone in a Federal contracting position. Super-wealthy tax dodgers and people with hidden Swiss accounts, and of course major corporations in years where they were net zero or getting tax refunds, would be stripped of their right to contribute to PACs.

And the remainder would include "taxpayers" like Paris Hilton.

I reject the notion outright.

Terms you may not use in my presence to refer to me without expecting a punch in the nose:

Consumer
Taxpayer
Voter
Peasant
Target Demographic

The word I insist on is CITIZEN.

HeadSet says

How about the working couple with 5 kids in school? They pay local property taxes on thier modest house and car, but nowhere near what it costs for the city to educate their kids. Can this working couple vote in local elections?

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. 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.

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

Do you count sales tax?

Vicente says

I find the notion that there are "types" or classes of citizens repulsive. It's antithetical to the egalitarian ideas we SAY we believe in.

If we were an egalitarian society then we could not say that some contribute to the system and some do not.

Equal in law does not mean equal in all things.

As to your Vets etc, read the post above please.

You seem to think we live in democracies. Look again for the first time at our oligarchies.

Regards
DL

SoftShell says

The definition of 'good job' is where the sides diverge...

Greatest I am says

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

Exactly.

Regards
DL

tatupu70 says

Do you count sales tax?

Read post 4 please.

Those on the dole pay that tax with taxpayer's money.

Regards
DL

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Of course! Moochers shouldn't have any say in spending money that they did not contribute to.

If you're an Army Enlisted Man in a combat zone with a wife and kid, do you pay taxes?

Are you contributing?

How about the contractor who pays some taxes, but uses illegal immigrants off-the-books to work, and when they fall from the roof they are sent to the hospital to be paid for on the public dime? Should he have the right to vote given all the externalities he creates?

Make taxes optional. If you opt not to pay them, you get no use of government services.

Good luck protecting your wealth - that you don't want to pay the government, from me.

I'll just take it with no repercussions. The police won't protect you. The laws, sanctioned by the government you don't want to pay for, will not protect your property rights.

Maybe you are stronger, or smarter, or more well armed than I. Do you really think you are smarter, stronger, and more well armed than everyone?

zzyzzx says

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Of course! Moochers shouldn't have any say in spending money that they did not contribute to.

Some have an excuse and would vote even if not contributing and I exclude them from your "Moochers" but yes, the Moochesr are my target.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

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.

BULLSHIT!

The poor are not "getting richer", that would clearly show in data which it doesn't. The only people getting richer over recent decades are the rich. And "voting" had precious little to do with that, much more to do with purchased access and filling people's ears with noise about how deregulation and killing unions and perfect freedom for the CEO to rape and pillage would bring Utopia.

The problem is crystal clear, growth in productivity has not "trickled down". Perhaps some fatcat feet should be held to the fire over that.

thunderlips11 says

Are you contributing?

This is the question and standards would be set if the notion is taken up. Fairness is the key. The devil is in the details and I want to KIS.

The thing is that I see voting as a privilege and not a right. It must be earned.

Regards
DL

david1 says

Make taxes optional. If you opt not to pay them, you get no use of government services.

Be you a payer or a taker you cannot help but use the roads and sidewalks.

Voting is what the issue is about.

Regards
DL

The entire premise of this thread is moronic. Every person in the US pays taxes at all levels.

Vicente says

BULLSHIT!

Think globally. Not locally.
We are all in this together, alone.

http://www.jbkSRLYSojo

Regards
DL

Lower income people don't turnout anyway

Kevin says

The entire premise of this thread is moronic. Every person in the US pays taxes at all levels.

Sure but those on the public tit are paying with dollars that they have not earned and were earned by taxpayers.

Regards
DL

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. 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.

Reminds of the SAT:

You are saying No Taxation without representation = No representation without taxation.

That is a logical fallacy.

That is, the founders meant: you cannot tax me if I do not have a voice in government. They did not say, nor would they, that I cannot have a voice in government unless I pay taxes.

Get that "the logic is clear" out of here.

KarlRoveIsScum says

if you pay sales tax, you pay tax!

so all felons who pay tax should vote?

what if you pay tax 3 or 4 times on the same money? should you get more votes?

Yes but that would be a hard sell. It would be more fair though.

Regards
DL

varmint says

Lower income people don't turnout anyway

Unless a raise is being offered by politicians.

Regards
DL

http://www.M1ypn0y32Ac

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

some contribute to the system and some do not.

Here's some that do not: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/102512%20-%20JobDestroyers3.pdf

I believe at one point in the united states only propertied landowners could vote. That did not work out too well as they were passing laws to everyone else's detriment.

KarlRoveIsScum says

Greatest I am says

Vicente says

BULLSHIT!

Think globally. Not locally.

We are all in this together, alone.

Regards

DL

Yeah this is cool , but who's plan was this? Is this the NWO at work?

Nobody asked me to be part of the experiment to give all the western wealth to developing nations?

A one world government is inevitable I think and who cares. We are controlled and if we are to be then that is the cheapest and best way to go. The economy and environment is at stake and soonest is best IMO.

As to Western wealth, relax. There is lot's to go around once the redistribution is set at whatever level the wealthy decide.

Regards
DL

KarlRoveIsScum says

Greatest I am says

Only fools would want to live in anarchy and chaos.

oh like Birthers!

No such thing in Canada.

Regards
DL

KarlRoveIsScum says

Greatest I am says

It would be more fair though.

I was joking you are not, that's worrying!

To clarify 100% of people pay sales tax except charities , government & military.

also every worker pays PAYROLL TAX

If I pay 10 g in taxes and someone else pays 10 million. It is quite fair for him to have a stronger voice than mine.

As to those on the public tit paying tax. Sure they do, with free money out of taxpayer's pocket.

This O P is all about value for dollar and both issues here speak directly to that.

I am willing to see an argument against. Not just a denial.

Regards
DL

finehoe says

Greatest I am says

some contribute to the system and some do not.

Here's some that do not: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/102512%20-%20JobDestroyers3.pdf

It will not open for me.

Regards
DL

dublin hillz says

I believe at one point in the united states only propertied landowners could vote. That did not work out too well as they were passing laws to everyone else's detriment.

Show your proof.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

dublin hillz says

I believe at one point in the united states only propertied landowners could vote. That did not work out too well as they were passing laws to everyone else's detriment.

Show your proof.

Regards
DL

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

http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/digitalmedia/us-voting-rights-timeline.pdf

dublin hillz says

Greatest I am says

dublin hillz says

I believe at one point in the united states only propertied landowners could vote. That did not work out too well as they were passing laws to everyone else's detriment.

Show your proof.

Regards

DL

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

http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/digitalmedia/us-voting-rights-timeline.pdf

Sweet. Thanks for this.

Regards
DL

KarlRoveIsScum says

Greatest I am says

If I pay 10 g in taxes and someone else pays 10 million. It is quite fair for him to have a stronger voice than mine.

We are talking about a vote not a voice.

Wealth is irrelevant.

Unless you are rich and can buy a candidate and or write your own laws, which corps do already.

No argument.
I have seen the rich intimidate their staffs and they get a stronger voice that way.

I still stand by my point because if we look at the big picture, we would all prefer to follow someone who has shown he is successful as compared to following those who are not.

Regards
DL

KarlRoveIsScum says

Greatest I am says

As to those on the public tit paying tax. Sure they do, with free money out of taxpayer's pocket.

? so you would take away the vote from anyone older than 65 as they receive entitlements?

If they paid their share and were not on the dole for most of their lives, I would not deny them their vote.

If on the dole for most of it then yes I would deny them.

With privileges or rights come responsibilities.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Ladies and Gentlemen - Mr. Jim Crow. He'll be here all week.

KarlRoveIsScum says

Greatest I am says

I still stand by my point because if we look at the big picture, we would all prefer to follow someone who has shown he is successful as compared to following those who are not.

Would you explain your point

It stands before you as it is clearly written.

Your own answer will prove it sound.

Who would you follow for economic guidance?

Those with wealth and taxpaying members of the country or those on the dole who have yet to show financial success?

Your answer makes my point.

Regards
DL

Homeboy says

Greatest I am says

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Ladies and Gentlemen - Mr. Jim Crow. He'll be here all week.

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. It nearly works. In fact left wing governments in many countries have a track record of spending vast amounts of money on welfare and ending up in financial trouble. It's an easy vote winner because there are a lot more poor and middle class people than there are rich people.

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.

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. 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

KarlRoveIsScum says

Greatest I am says

Those with wealth and taxpaying members of the country or those on the dole who have yet to show financial success?

That is not a democracy.

You are living in England about 500 years ago.

Democracy?

Try oligarchy.

http://www.acLW1vFO-2Q

Regards
DL

KarlRoveIsScum says

Greatest I am says

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.

NO! Something wrong with you!

Then follow the losers.

Regards
DL

Homeboy says

Ladies and Gentlemen - Mr. Jim Crow. He'll be here all week

'Scum embedded 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?