- #1
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
I wonder if they'll adopt my idea that only (federal income) taxpayers (minimum $1.00) should be allowed to vote?
What an idea! Let's disenfranchise all the poor people! Next, let's disenfranchise all women and black people, too! That will set us back a century or so.WhoWee said:I wonder if they'll adopt my idea that only (federal income) taxpayers (minimum $1.00) should be allowed to vote?
WhoWee said:I wonder if they'll adopt my idea that only (federal income) taxpayers (minimum $1.00) should be allowed to vote?
WhoWee said:I wonder if they'll adopt my idea that only (federal income) taxpayers (minimum $1.00) should be allowed to vote?
Most retired people pay taxes. IMO.JonDE said:Are you suggesting that retired people should not be allowed to vote?
I am retired (disabled) and I pay taxes. It sucks to have to deal with right-wingers who assume otherwise, but that comes with the territory.Evo said:Most retired people pay taxes.
turbo said:What an idea! Let's disenfranchise all the poor people! Next, let's disenfranchise all women and black people, too! That will set us back a century or so.
turbo said:What an idea! Let's disenfranchise all the poor people! Next, let's disenfranchise all women and black people, too! That will set us back a century or so.
It is a fiction that people who pay nothing in Federal income taxes pay no income taxes. The people at the bottom pay the most regressive taxes of all. They cannot escape property taxes, fuel taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc, which flow directly to the income-tax burden of the wealthy. At some point, it would be helpful to get away from the invective and try to figure out how to simplify the tax code so that the burden is more evenly shared.
WhoWee said:I wonder if they'll adopt my idea that only (federal income) taxpayers (minimum $1.00) should be allowed to vote?
lisab said:Yeah...don't you just hate it when that old dusty, musty US Constitution gets in the way of "if I could run the world" ideas...
WhoWee said:Just throwing out ideas for the Occupiers - they seem to need some direction.
Define "retired people". How many are there? How many of them pay taxes?Evo said:Most retired people pay taxes.
Why do you think this is a good idea? As it is now only about 50% of eligible voters vote.WhoWee said:I wonder if they'll adopt my idea that only (federal income) taxpayers (minimum $1.00) should be allowed to vote?
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.Pythagorean said:Wait, why is more voters better?
ThomasT said: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.
Columbia already tried to offer a OWS class... and it got cancelled.
Maybe it was nixed because of lack of focus and a lot of shouting?
WhoWee said:I wonder if they'll adopt my idea that only (federal income) taxpayers (minimum $1.00) should be allowed to vote?
daveb said:I think is a ridiculous concept since there are some who make next to nothing but provide a valuable service (such as Peace Corps workers). Why should they not be allowed to vote?
WhoWee said:Can they write a check for $1.00?
daveb said:Probably...so all those 50% of people who pay no taxes...you'd be happy if they pay $1 then?
WhoWee said:Is it an unreasonable standard?
lisab said: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 [STRIKE]poll tax[/STRIKE] voting fee should be?
Office_Shredder said: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 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:
Office_Shredder said: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?
WhoWee said: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 said: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 receive "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 don't have time to dig it up, so I'll say IMO.ThomasT said:Define "retired people". How many are there? How many of them pay taxes?
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.WhoWee said: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 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.WhoWee said: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.
Ryan_m_b said: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.
turbo said: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)?
ThomasT said: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.
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.WhoWee said:I don't believe those are issues in the context of this thread?
turbo said: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.