Right to vote = minimum of $1.00 federal tax.

*WhoWee*

Quote by ThomasT

The tax burden should be carried primarily by the people with the largest incomes, which it is. Seems fair to me. Additionally, it would be quite fair to tax income from dividends, interest, capital gains at much higher than current rates, imo.

Be careful what you wish for - it's not a very big leap from this point to a point where the Government grabs 30% of 401K's over some random level that sounds "rich" - maybe $100,000? That will also sound fair to the "poor" - won't it?

*WhoWee*

Quote by SixNein

Why not restrict voting rights to a privilege of conservatives?

That would not be reasonable - would it?

*WhoWee*

Quote by ParticleGrl

First, lets strip out the loaded word punish. Now, lets ask why tax investments? Because the alternative is to tax people without investments more. You have to get the money from somewhere.

Also- taxing investments like normal income doesn't hurt Grandpa- yes he is now realizing some capital gains, but he isn't drawing a salary now. Its not like he'll be pulling in millions in realized capital gains- so taxing like normal income won't leave most of his gains in a high marginal bracket. You can play games with the numbers and find situations where a retiree could pay less with capital gains taxed as normal income.

Do we really want the politicians plating any more games with the tax code - isn't it long and complicated enough?

*WhoWee*

Quote by MarcoD

I've been looking at this thread, wondering whether to respond since it is US local, but anyway, your 'feelings' just don't make sense.

Say someone is poor, he/she has two or three odd jobs, but doesn't make enough income to pay federal taxes. Then that person is generating wealth others profit off. So why take away his/her voting right? He/she is generating wealth/income for other people who are then taxed.

Looks to me that there's nothing wrong with the system. You're almost proposing a return to 'slavery' IMO.

Slavery (?) - your 'feelings' just don't make sense to me. If someone works two or three odd jobs they might make enough to pay $1.00 in net taxes - if they receive a redistribution of income taxes they probably don't?

As a business owner - I don't let the employees decide compensation and benefit levels - I base those decisions on the overall business plan/budget, the competitive market, and of course the Government's mandates.

*WhoWee*

Quote by MarcoD

Of course not. I am saying it really doesn't matter. If people make that small amount of money that they can't really pay federal taxes, then that only means that wealth was moved to higher-income individuals. I.e., you could tax taxi drivers more, but it would only mean you'ld end up paying more for getting around.

We're talking about $1.00 in federal income tax - not depending upon others for survival - self sufficiency and financial freedom.

*MarcoD*

Quote by WhoWee

As a business owner - I don't let the employees decide compensation and benefit levels - I base those decisions on the overall business plan/budget, the competitive market, and of course the Government's mandates.

As a business owner you're probably glad you're not taxed too much, and in case you own a factory, or small business, you're very glad your employees don't pay a lot in tax, otherwise their wages need to go up. It's good for everyone, except for the middle incomes. (Except for that more factories means more wealth for everybody, of course.)

*WhoWee*

Quote by MarcoD

As a business owner you're probably glad you're not taxed too much, and in case you own a factory, or small business, you're very glad your employees don't pay a lot in tax, otherwise their wages need to go up. It's good for everyone, except for the middle incomes.

I'm not certain the basis of your assumptions?

As a business owner, I can assure you the cost of payroll services, accounting, HIPPA/MIPPA/compliance (in my industry OSHA in others along with Workers
's Comp), training, benefits, matching taxes, and comforts are considerable.

phoenix:\\

Quote by WhoWee

I stipulated a payment of $1.00 in federal income taxes - and you express outrage?

As for your comments about women and black people - what is the purpose and what is the basis of your attack and devisive rhetoric?

Slippery slop logic primarily in his post.

The system needs to be fixed, but in terms of voting procedures go, that idea isn't smart. It disallows some individuals to vote and holding down 3 meager jobs whilst supporting a family =/= being able to pay federal income tax. No. 1 reason why the government is allowing much leeway to those suffering in financial obligations.

jtbell

Quote by ParticleGrl

Also- taxing investments like normal income doesn't hurt Grandpa- yes he is now realizing some capital gains, but he isn't drawing a salary now. Its not like he'll be pulling in millions in realized capital gains- so taxing like normal income won't leave most of his gains in a high marginal bracket. You can play games with the numbers and find situations where a retiree could pay less with capital gains taxed as normal income.

Quote by WhoWee

Do we really want the politicians plating any more games with the tax code - isn't it long and complicated enough?

Uh... wouldn't taxing capital gains the same as earned income simplify the tax code?

*WhoWee*

Quote by phoenix:\\

Slippery slop logic primarily in his post.

The system needs to be fixed, but in terms of voting procedures go, that idea isn't smart. It disallows some individuals to vote and holding down 3 meager jobs whilst supporting a family =/= being able to pay federal income tax. No. 1 reason why the government is allowing much leeway to those suffering in financial obligations.

Why don't you support your comments - or label as opinion?

*WhoWee*

Quote by jtbell

Uh... wouldn't taxing capital gains the same as earned income simplify the tax code?

I responded to this comment by PG:
"You can play games with the numbers and find situations where a retiree could pay less with capital gains taxed as normal income. "

Does that sound like an attempt to simplify?

phyzguy

What if I paid $1 million dollars in federal taxes last year, then lost my job so I have no income and pay no taxes this year. Does it make sense that I shouldn't be able to vote?

jduster

Quote by WhoWee

I wonder if they'll adopt my idea that only (federal income) taxpayers (minimum $1.00) should be allowed to vote?

$1 is an arbitrary number, the value of which will change over time. How would you index this figure, as in 50 years, $1 will likely be worth 50 cents? What is the significance of $1? Is it supposed to be a token number?

Could a felon vote if he has a job? Could a 12 year old vote if he has a job? Even jobless people could donate $1 to the IRS, no?

Above all, what good purpose would this acheive?

*WhoWee*

Quote by phyzguy

What if I paid $1 million dollars in federal taxes last year, then lost my job so I have no income and pay no taxes this year. Does it make sense that I shouldn't be able to vote?

Should we assume you spent all of your money and no have no other means of support for yourself - isn't unemployment subject to income tax?

*WhoWee*

Quote by jduster

$1 is an arbitrary number, the value of which will change over time. How would you index this figure, as in 50 years, $1 will likely be worth 50 cents? What is the significance of $1? Is it supposed to be a token number?

Could a felon vote if he has a job? Could a 12 year old vote if he has a job? Even jobless people could donate $1 to the IRS, no?

Above all, what good purpose would this acheive?

I thought my Post #73 was clear?

"We're talking about $1.00 in federal income tax - not depending upon others for survival - self sufficiency and financial freedom."

Also Post #35 referred back to Post #25
"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).""

*ThomasT*

Quote by Pengwuino

Why? Why punish investments? Why punish retirees who prudently invested in the economy and saved instead of spent? Why punish people that save so they don't need to be a burden on society in their old age? Who do you think actually benefits from dividends, interest, and capital gains?

Investments are not only for billionaires.

I meant that it would, imo, be fair to tax the largest dividend, interest, and capital gains incomes at much higher than current rates.

SixNein

Quote by WhoWee

That would not be reasonable - would it?

The whole idea you have is unreasonable and in my opinion extreme. You are proposing to create a hierarchical society where the government only represents people who have x amount of income where x is high enough to be taxed at least 1 dollar by federal income tax standards. Have you even considered just how many latent functions such an action would carry? Such an idea is essentially replacing democracy with plutocracy.

I suppose the people who don't get to vote would still have to pay other taxes right? But they don't get any kind of representation.

In my opinion, this sounds like libertarian hogwash.

Similar discussions for: Right to vote = minimum of $1.00 federal tax.
Thread	Forum	Replies
What is the Federal Reserve?	Social Sciences	17
11/25/09 PHD comic: 'Federal Mandate'	Science Comics	1
The Federal Insurance Office	Current Events	9
Federal Reserve	Current Events	73
Federal Tax on Cigarettes	Social Sciences	3

phyzguy	What if I paid $1 million dollars in federal taxes last year, then lost my job so I have no income and pay no taxes this year. Does it make sense that I shouldn't be able to vote?