Register to reply

Right to vote = minimum of $1.00 federal tax.

by WhoWee
Tags: $100, federal, minimum, vote
Share this thread:
daveb
#19
Feb10-12, 08:43 AM
P: 925
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Can they write a check for $1.00?
Probably...so all those 50% of people who pay no taxes....you'd be happy if they pay $1 then?
WhoWee
#20
Feb10-12, 08:52 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by daveb View Post
Probably...so all those 50% of people who pay no taxes....you'd be happy if they pay $1 then?
Is it an unreasonable standard?
lisab
#21
Feb10-12, 09:37 AM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,985
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Is it an unreasonable standard?
What is the purpose of this "standard"?

I suspect you're going to say something like, if they're invested in the system they will be more "responsible" with their votes. But do you really think $1 is enough? If not, how much do you think this poll tax voting fee should be?
WhoWee
#22
Feb10-12, 09:55 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by lisab View Post
What is the purpose of this "standard"?

I suspect you're going to say something like, if they're invested in the system they will be more "responsible" with their votes. But do you really think $1 is enough? If not, how much do you think this poll tax voting fee should be?
It's not a poll tax - it's a test, a standard, or a measurement - take your pick. If you contribute to the tax base you would have a say in how the funds are allocated. If you don't contribute to the tax base - you wouldn't have a voice on how funds are allocated. A mere $1.00 in taxes paid qualifies you to vote.
Office_Shredder
#23
Feb10-12, 10:02 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,500
How is demanding money for voting not a poll tax? You're playing a terrible game of semantics.


And would this one dollar ignore the fact that a lot of people get a federal tax credit even if they aren't paying income tax, or would they need to give the whole tax credit back?
Oltz
#24
Feb10-12, 10:11 AM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Office_Shredder View Post
How is demanding money for voting not a poll tax? You're playing a terrible game of semantics.


And would this one dollar ignore the fact that a lot of people get a federal tax credit even if they aren't paying income tax, or would they need to give the whole tax credit back?
That was my question Net Federal Tax ? or just $1 ?

What if a state say Cali wants to let everyone in the state vote could they then pay 1 per person to the fed Gross and call it square?

Sounds like it would need to be Net of course then what do you do for local or state elections.

I am all for making sure the majority of voters are tax payers because lets face it as soon as the majority are tax recipients the payers will not have money for long. IMO

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.

- Alexander Fraser Tyler,'The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic'.
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

- Alexis de Tocqueville:
WhoWee
#25
Feb10-12, 10:11 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Office_Shredder View Post
How is demanding money for voting not a poll tax? You're playing a terrible game of semantics.


And would this one dollar ignore the fact that a lot of people get a federal tax credit even if they aren't paying income tax, or would they need to give the whole tax credit back?
A poll tax is a fee charged to vote - quite different.

There are three possible categories of persons in this conversation.
1.) People who pay $1.00 or more per year in net federal income taxes.
2.) People who pay $0.00 in federal income taxes and receive $0.00 federal income tax return - don't contribute and don't receive.
3.) People who do not pay $1.00 in federal income taxes but receive assistance from a program they did not contribute to (not Social Security or Medicare or VA-contribution was service to country).
Oltz
#26
Feb10-12, 10:18 AM
P: 12
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
A poll tax is a fee charged to vote - quite different.

There are three possible categories of persons in this conversation.
1.) People who pay $1.00 or more per year in net federal income taxes.
2.) People who pay $0.00 in federal income taxes and receive $0.00 federal income tax return - don't contribute and don't receive.
3.) People who do not pay $1.00 in federal income taxes but receive assistance from a program they did not contribute to (not Social Security or Medicare or VA-contribution was service to country).
So medicade, Welfare, Section 8 and those with Negative burdens due to deductions and credits ie Children.(taxes are still owed on Unempolyment)

Those who come out even or who only recieve "earned" benefits (Va,SS,medicare) can choose to pay $1 for the right to vote.

Another effect would be to substantially reduce voter fraud not only would ID be required but maybe a tax reciept. Although voter intimidation will be the cry.
WhoWee
#27
Feb10-12, 10:27 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Oltz View Post
So medicade, Welfare, Section 8 and those with Negative burdens due to deductions and credits ie Children.(taxes are still owed on Unempolyment)

Those who come out even or who only recieve "earned" benefits (Va,SS,medicare) can choose to pay $1 for the right to vote.

Another effect would be to substantially reduce voter fraud not only would ID be required but maybe a tax reciept. Although voter intimidation will be the cry.
I can't think of a better way to keep politicians from trying to buy votes from dependent populations. Someone suggested in another thread the Government can give people whatever they want - if they just print money - IMO - that's not sustainable. If giving people noney to subsidize their housing, provide food, provide college loans, provide cell phones, provide medical care, provide income subsidies, provide utility subsidies, etc. are the "right" thing to do - then it will be done. My contention is the programs might be managed better if the people paying the bills are making the decisions - I don't let my kids make our household spending decisions and certainly not with my credit card in hand.
Evo
#28
Feb10-12, 10:37 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,523
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Define "retired people". How many are there? How many of them pay taxes?
I don't have time to dig it up, so I'll say IMO.
Ryan_m_b
#29
Feb10-12, 10:48 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,462
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
I can't think of a better way to keep politicians from trying to buy votes from dependent populations. Someone suggested in another thread the Government can give people whatever they want - if they just print money - IMO - that's not sustainable. If giving people noney to subsidize their housing, provide food, provide college loans, provide cell phones, provide medical care, provide income subsidies, provide utility subsidies, etc. are the "right" thing to do - then it will be done.
The obvious contention is that people have different ideas about what "right" means. I'd have no problem living in a society where GMI or BIG programs were implemented so long as they increased the prosperity (linked to this would be some sort of empirical, workable GNH metric) of the nation in a variety of areas. As we're discussing in another thread increased automation and unemployment might necessitate such a system.
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
My contention is the programs might be managed better if the people paying the bills are making the decisions - I don't let my kids make our household spending decisions and certainly not with my credit card in hand.
The analogy between state/citizen and parent/child here would be that children do not necessarily have the means to earn money for themselves and so are given allowances. On top of that they do have some say in how things happen in the household unless you live in a particularly draconian manner; I don't know what you're like as a parent but if one of your children asks nicely to change the channel you don't disagree simply because they don't pay the bills.
turbo
#30
Feb10-12, 10:56 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Some people are retired due to age, and some to disability or illness. SS and SSDI are both subject to Federal income tax. The notion that retirees don't pay income tax is laughable, as is the thought that if their tax burden is zero, they should not be allowed to vote for candidates in the government that they have financed and helped to build all their lives. Why disenfranchise people based on their wealth (or lack of)?
WhoWee
#31
Feb10-12, 11:03 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
The obvious contention is that people have different ideas about what "right" means. I'd have no problem living in a society where GMI or BIG programs were implemented so long as they increased the prosperity (linked to this would be some sort of GNH metric) of the nation in a variety of areas. As we're discussing in another thread increased automation and unemployment might necessitate such a system.

The analogy between state/citizen and parent/child here would be that children do not necessarily have the means to earn money for themselves and so are given allowances. On top of that they do have some say in how things happen in the household unless you live in a particularly draconian manner; I don't know what you're like as a parent but if one of your children asks nicely to change the channel you don't disagree simply because they don't pay the bills.
With the parent analogy, if the child wants a pet - the idea will be discussed, costs will be evaluated, care will be considered, responsibilities will be negotiated (typically it's my job to pay and care for it and the kids' job to play with it) and we will decide as a family. If my daughter wants new boots because she's tired of the color of the ones I bought last week or because she traded them to a friend for a Big Time Rush shirt - we're not going to make her request a top priority (providing she has alternative footwear - not sending her to school barefoot).
WhoWee
#32
Feb10-12, 11:08 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
Some people are retired due to age, and some to disability or illness. SS and SSDI are both subject to Federal income tax. The notion that retirees don't pay income tax is laughable, as is the thought that if their tax burden is zero, they should not be allowed to vote for candidates in the government that they have financed and helped to build all their lives. Why disenfranchise people based on their wealth (or lack of)?
I don't believe those are issues in the context of this thread?
Pythagorean
#33
Feb10-12, 11:11 AM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,287
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is that stuff about a country for, by and of the people. But then I suppose that excluding as many people from the process as possible would make things simpler if the aim is to control rather than to improve.
All that sounds nice, but if youll read your post, you haven't made an argument or showed evidence why it's better.

It look like thermal noise to me with so many people having control. They fight each other and have no net direction. That is not progress.

Even having two strong parties, a lot of time and energy is wasted bickering, and the end result is often the same: everybody in power has people who helped them get there, and those people interests are in competition with the peoples.
turbo
#34
Feb10-12, 11:16 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
I don't believe those are issues in the context of this thread?
If a person is just scraping by on SS checks, you would disenfranchise them because they didn't have to pay Federal income taxes. It seems like this issue is quite germane in the context of this thread. Poll taxes are unconstitutional and illegal. Disenfranchising the elderly and the poor because they haven't had to pay income taxes is shameful. The income tax code is somewhat progressive for a reason.

The poor and those on fixed incomes pay taxes every day, including taxes passed on in the costs of products by manufacturers, food processors, fuel companies, etc. Life is not a zero-sum game.
WhoWee
#35
Feb10-12, 11:24 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
If a person is just scraping by on SS checks, you would disenfranchise them because they didn't have to pay Federal income taxes. It seems like this issue is quite germane in the context of this thread. Poll taxes are unconstitutional and illegal. Disenfranchising the elderly and the poor because they haven't had to pay income taxes is shameful. The income tax code is somewhat progressive for a reason.

The poor and those on fixed incomes pay taxes every day, including taxes passed on in the costs of products by manufacturers, food processors, fuel companies, etc. Life is not a zero-sum game.
I commented on this in Post #25: my bold

"There are three possible categories of persons in this conversation.
1.) People who pay $1.00 or more per year in net federal income taxes.
2.) People who pay $0.00 in federal income taxes and receive $0.00 federal income tax return - don't contribute and don't receive.
3.) People who do not pay $1.00 in federal income taxes but receive assistance from a program they did not contribute to (not Social Security or Medicare or VA-contribution was service to country)."
daveb
#36
Feb10-12, 12:01 PM
P: 925
Just out of curiousity (because I haven't looked at his returns) did Romney pay any income tax, or was it all Capital Gains tax?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
What is the Federal Reserve? Social Sciences 17
The Federal Insurance Office Current Events 9
Federal Reserve Current Events 73
Federal Tax on Cigarettes Social Sciences 3