Right to vote = minimum of $1.00 federal tax.

  • News
  • Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Minimum
In summary, the author is proposing that only federal income taxpayers (minimum $1.00) be allowed to vote, and they express outrage at the suggestion. They also suggest disenfranchising blacks and women, and say that most retired people pay taxes. It is suggested that the Occupy Movement needs some direction, as their ideas seem to be moving in a negative direction.
  • #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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


WhoWee said:
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.

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.
 
  • #3


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

Your idea would be welcomed in any Occupy group searching for consensus. This does not mean that the group would accept it, however. If you are seriously proposing that idea, why not propose it? That step is one of the essential ingredients in our participatory democracy.
 
  • #4


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

Are you suggesting that retired people should not be allowed to vote?
 
  • #5


JonDE said:
Are you suggesting that retired people should not be allowed to vote?
Most retired people pay taxes. IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • #6


Evo said:
Most retired people pay taxes.
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.

Also, many people who get earned income tax credits are in that situation for a reason - and no right-winger will ever acknowledge the need for such an offset, though they will gleefully accept offsets and tax-deductions for the rich. Who are these people? Do they all expect to hit it rich and be millionaires in a few years? It doesn't happen that way, boys and girls.
 
Last edited:
  • #7


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.

Are you saying all blacks and all women don't pay taxes and shouldn't vote? Since that was your reply to the previous post. I know I will be labeled a right wing extremist, but I would like to get back to the system that only property owners can vote. Why should we allow those who own no property to vote on confiscating other peoples property? If we look back at the history of the US, when property qualifications were required to vote our government was limited, as soon as the progressives brought us the democracy argument that everyone should vote, our government has grown in numbers only the most 'educated' can 'understand'.
 
  • #8


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.

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?
 
  • #9


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

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...
 
  • #10


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...

Just throwing out ideas for the Occupiers - they seem to need some direction.
 
  • #11


WhoWee said:
Just throwing out ideas for the Occupiers - they seem to need some direction.

It appears that you have either overlooked or avoided paying attention to the information contained in post #11 here, namely, that the Occupy Movement is indeed beginning to find its "direction".
 
  • #12


Evo said:
Most retired people pay taxes.
Define "retired people". How many are there? How many of them pay taxes?
 
  • #13


WhoWee said:
I wonder if they'll adopt my idea that only (federal income) taxpayers (minimum $1.00) should be allowed to vote?
Why do you think this is a good idea? As it is now only about 50% of eligible voters vote.
 
  • #14


Wait, why is more voters better? I'm often in the minority, so I'm not all for the majority making decisions for me.
 
  • #15


Pythagorean said:
Wait, why is more voters better?
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.
 
  • #16


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.

I missed the part about it being for the few,by the few, against many at the expense of the few. And I suppose that including as many people to the process as possible would make things simpler if the aim is to control rather than to improve, which seems to me the progressive view from Teddy on.

Mege:
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?

That is funny. :D
 
  • #17


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

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?
 
  • #18


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?

Can they write a check for $1.00?
 
  • #19


WhoWee said:
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?
 
  • #20


daveb said:
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?
 
  • #21


WhoWee said:
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 [STRIKE]poll tax[/STRIKE] voting fee should be?
 
  • #22


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?

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.
 
  • #23
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?
 
  • #24
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?

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 let's 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:
 
  • #25
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 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).
 
  • #26
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).

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.
 
  • #27
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 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.
 
  • #28


ThomasT said:
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.
 
  • #29
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 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:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
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)?
 
  • #31
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.

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).
 
  • #32
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)?

I don't believe those are issues in the context of this thread?
 
  • #33
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.

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.
 
  • #34
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #35
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.

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)."
 
<h2>1. What is the "Right to vote = minimum of $1.00 federal tax" concept?</h2><p>The "Right to vote = minimum of $1.00 federal tax" concept refers to a proposal that suggests implementing a minimum tax requirement for citizens in order to exercise their right to vote in federal elections. This idea has been proposed by some individuals as a way to promote civic responsibility and discourage uninformed or apathetic voting.</p><h2>2. How would this concept be implemented?</h2><p>If this concept were to be implemented, it would require a change in federal law. This could potentially involve amending the Constitution or passing a new law in Congress. The specifics of how the minimum tax requirement would be enforced and collected would also need to be determined.</p><h2>3. What are the potential benefits of this concept?</h2><p>Proponents of this concept argue that it could encourage citizens to become more informed about political issues and candidates, as well as promote a sense of responsibility and investment in the democratic process. It could also potentially generate revenue for the government.</p><h2>4. What are the potential drawbacks of this concept?</h2><p>Opponents of this concept argue that it could disenfranchise low-income individuals who may not be able to afford the minimum tax, thereby limiting their right to vote. It could also create a barrier for young or first-time voters who may not have a steady income or tax liability yet.</p><h2>5. Has this concept ever been implemented before?</h2><p>No, this concept has not been implemented in the United States before. However, some countries, such as Belgium and Greece, have implemented a form of mandatory voting where citizens face penalties for not voting. This is different from the proposed minimum tax requirement for voting.</p>

1. What is the "Right to vote = minimum of $1.00 federal tax" concept?

The "Right to vote = minimum of $1.00 federal tax" concept refers to a proposal that suggests implementing a minimum tax requirement for citizens in order to exercise their right to vote in federal elections. This idea has been proposed by some individuals as a way to promote civic responsibility and discourage uninformed or apathetic voting.

2. How would this concept be implemented?

If this concept were to be implemented, it would require a change in federal law. This could potentially involve amending the Constitution or passing a new law in Congress. The specifics of how the minimum tax requirement would be enforced and collected would also need to be determined.

3. What are the potential benefits of this concept?

Proponents of this concept argue that it could encourage citizens to become more informed about political issues and candidates, as well as promote a sense of responsibility and investment in the democratic process. It could also potentially generate revenue for the government.

4. What are the potential drawbacks of this concept?

Opponents of this concept argue that it could disenfranchise low-income individuals who may not be able to afford the minimum tax, thereby limiting their right to vote. It could also create a barrier for young or first-time voters who may not have a steady income or tax liability yet.

5. Has this concept ever been implemented before?

No, this concept has not been implemented in the United States before. However, some countries, such as Belgium and Greece, have implemented a form of mandatory voting where citizens face penalties for not voting. This is different from the proposed minimum tax requirement for voting.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
765
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
95
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
85
Views
11K
Replies
3
Views
785
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
61
Views
8K
Back
Top