News Right to vote = minimum of $1.00 federal tax.

[WhoWee]

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

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Bobbywhy]

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.

 

[JonDE]

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?

 

[Evo]

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

Most retired people pay taxes. IMO.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Jasongreat]

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'.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[lisab]

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...

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Bobbywhy]

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".

 

[ThomasT]

Most retired people pay taxes.

Define "retired people". How many are there? How many of them pay taxes?

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[Pythagorean]

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

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[Jasongreat]

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

 

[daveb]

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?

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[daveb]

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]

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]

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?

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Office_Shredder]

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]

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:

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Evo]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Just out of curiosity (because I haven't looked at his returns) did Romney pay any income tax, or was it all Capital Gains tax?

 

[AlephZero]

I think this should be taken to its logical conclusion. In the UK, prisoners don't get the vote because the government makes decisions on law and order. By the same logic, sick people shouldn't get the vote because the government funds healthcare. No public sector workers (including the military) should get the vote for the same reason. Nor should anybody receiving a state pension.

The ideal position is clearly a system where the only voters are those who are completely unaffected by the outcome. In other words, the best system would be for the makers of reality TV programmes and talent contests to take over running the elections... Oh, wait. Maybe Fox News has done that already?

 

[turbo]

I think this should be taken to its logical conclusion. In the UK, prisoners don't get the vote because the government makes decisions on law and order. By the same logic, sick people shouldn't get the vote because the government funds healthcare. No public sector workers (including the military) should get the vote for the same reason. Nor should anybody receiving a state pension.

The ideal position is clearly a system where the only voters are those who are completely unaffected by the outcome. In other words, the best system would be for the makers of reality TV programmes and talent contests to take over running the elections... Oh, wait. Maybe Fox News has done that already?

Wholesale disenfranchisement efforts are already underway in many states where Tea-Party candidates have managed to get voted in. In Maine, the state's AG spearheaded a drive to ban same-day voter registration and early voting. That would have disenfranchised the working poor, who might have a tough time getting time off from one of the two or three jobs that they try to hold down, on election day. It would also disenfranchise many elderly people (especially women) who don't drive, don't own cars, etc. The AG spent who-know-how-many man-hours scouring voting records and he came up with a grand total of one person who may have been ineligible to vote 'way back in 2002. Yep! Voter fraud is rampant!

After Mainers passed a citizen's initiative in the fall rolling back the new laws, the AG said that more steps had to be taken to secure our elections. He didn't get real specific, but it appears he is poised to try to require photo IDs for all voters. Once again, there are many people who don't have cars or drivers licenses, or can't afford to take time off from work to head down to the nearest Department of Motor Vehicles office and cool their heels for hours trying to get a photo ID. Even if the ID was "free", there would be a built-in penalty in the form of transportation costs and lost work-hours.

The AG has already sent threatening letters to out-of-state students warning them not to vote here (their state of residence). Disenfranchising people who might be likely to vote Democratic is a constant theme here in Maine. It's likely to get worse.

 

[Pengwuino]

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.

And they are bombarded with federal aid, tax credits, and other government benefits. Have you ever seen some of the taxes poor people "pay"? I've seen people effectively receive a 50% raise based on all the benefits they receive from the government and pay 0 taxes. Millions of students around the country receive benefits from the government in the form of scholarships and state contributions to tuition and students are all typically part of the "poor". This idea that the poor are these downtrodden segments of society that, of only Big Oil and Big Pharma would give a break, would be comfortable, well-off members of society, is non-sense.

I don't consider this applicable to older citizens, though. My beef is with the younger poor.

I think the idea that you must pay taxes to vote is a bit silly, even if one could argue that it is morally just. I find that it's odd that our country was founded on the idea that people who pay taxes should be able to have a say in their government, and now we're to a point where people want to say that people who don't pay taxes should have a say in the government.

Personally I feel that the idea that citizens can even be put in the position to not have to pay a single cent in taxes is ridiculous and part of the reason everything has gotten out of control. I'd be fine if everyone paid even 2-5% in taxes, but when people are walking away with a profit when all the accounting is done with is just stupid.

Last night I was looking at another symptom of our ridiculous system. The University of Phoenix has a something like $12k/year tuition bill. As we all know, this money typically will come from the government (in fact, the employees are suppose to look for ways to get money from teh government for students), especially now that the feds want to take over student lending and we know how that's going to end. These kinds of companies, of course, provide awful educations for the most part, but we've built up a system that says this is okay. We have an entire political party whose main talking point is taking other people's money and giving it away to "improve" your life. It's always about helping you without much consideration for what's good for the country. So we have business like UOP that take advantage and become rich and give students a useless piece of paper. Sheesh.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If I don't vote, can I have all my income tax money back?

 

[turbo]

If I don't vote, can I have all my income tax money back?

Me too! I'd have an extra nest-egg to retire on. Let's see...I have paid income taxes and SS for the last 46 years... Give me back my taxes! Taxation is theft!

 

[Oltz]

Wholesale disenfranchisement efforts are already underway in many states where Tea-Party candidates have managed to get voted in. In Maine, the state's AG spearheaded a drive to ban same-day voter registration and early voting. That would have disenfranchised the working poor, who might have a tough time getting time off from one of the two or three jobs that they try to hold down, on election day. It would also disenfranchise many elderly people (especially women) who don't drive, don't own cars, etc. The AG spent who-know-how-many man-hours scouring voting records and he came up with a grand total of one person who may have been ineligible to vote 'way back in 2002. Yep! Voter fraud is rampant!

After Mainers passed a citizen's initiative in the fall rolling back the new laws, the AG said that more steps had to be taken to secure our elections. He didn't get real specific, but it appears he is poised to try to require photo IDs for all voters. Once again, there are many people who don't have cars or drivers licenses, or can't afford to take time off from work to head down to the nearest Department of Motor Vehicles office and cool their heels for hours trying to get a photo ID. Even if the ID was "free", there would be a built-in penalty in the form of transportation costs and lost work-hours.

The AG has already sent threatening letters to out-of-state students warning them not to vote here (their state of residence). Disenfranchising people who might be likely to vote Democratic is a constant theme here in Maine. It's likely to get worse.

First it is illegal to not allow your employees the ability to go and vote if they ask for it.

Second you need photo ID to buy alchohol so really I do not know many poor who do not have at least a state ID to buy beer.

Third not registering on the day of elections has nothing to do with the elderly or with transport to polls. They can still file an absentee ballot if they are not healthy enough to make it to the polls and guess what they can register in advance as well just like normal people do.

Voter fraud IS rampant for example back in '04 my wife was in school at WVU 5 miles across the border from PA. Now PA was pretty well D in that election so BUS loads of people came across from PA and voted in WVA because they thought it would "count more" in a state that was more for Bush. I was there sign up day of put down one of the dorms or apartment complex addresses and vote just like that. No ID no passport no ss card who knows how many itmes some of them voted. This is not even immigrants.

This entire conversation is meaningless as the politicians will never surrender their most direct tool of buying votes. It will inevitably result in the collapse of this nation.

 

[turbo]

Voter fraud IS rampant for example back in '04 my wife was in school at WVU 5 miles across the border from PA. Now PA was pretty well D in that election so BUS loads of people came across from PA and voted in WVA because they thought it would "count more" in a state that was more for Bush. I was there sign up day of put down one of the dorms or apartment complex addresses and vote just like that. No ID no passport no ss card who knows how many itmes some of them voted. This is not even immigrants.

Please back this up with facts from reliable sources. We've already had this canard trotted by the voters by the Tea-Party governor and his AG in Maine, and it is demonstrably false.

 

[AlephZero]

If I don't vote, can I have all my income tax money back?

If you don't vote early and don't vote often, maybe you can get it back several times over.

 

[IMP]

If a "right" depends on whether or not you pay a tax, it is not a right at all...

 

[SixNein]

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

Why $1? Why not 100$? Why not 1000$? Why not 1,000,000$?

 

[WhoWee]

Why $1? Why not 100$? Why not 1000$? Why not 1,000,000$?

Because $1.00 is the difference between contributing to the system or taking from the system - quite symbolic IMO.

 

[Vanadium 50]

WhoWee, what problem are you trying to solve?

If it's symbolic, there are easier symbols than changing the Constitution.

If you are trying to avoid a situation where government's primary function is for 51% of the people to figure out how they are going to spend the money of the other 49%, there are certainly alternatives that might have a better chance of success.

As an example I just pulled out of a hat: geography is not the only possible way to partition representatives. You could imagine a House where one third of its members are elected as they are today, although with larger districts, one third are elected by people who are paying into the system (your point) and one third are selected at random by a national lottery (to dilute the power of "established interests", and to get the support of some of the people who don't like the idea of a second category.)

I don't necessarily think this is a good idea, and I am sure it is not the best idea (given that it got all of 30 seconds of thought) but it illustrates that there are several ways to accomplish similar ends.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee, what problem are you trying to solve?

If it's symbolic, there are easier symbols than changing the Constitution.

If you are trying to avoid a situation where government's primary function is for 51% of the people to figure out how they are going to spend the money of the other 49%, there are certainly alternatives that might have a better chance of success.

As an example I just pulled out of a hat: geography is not the only possible way to partition representatives. You could imagine a House where one third of its members are elected as they are today, although with larger districts, one third are elected by people who are paying into the system (your point) and one third are selected at random by a national lottery (to dilute the power of "established interests", and to get the support of some of the people who don't like the idea of a second category.)

I don't necessarily think this is a good idea, and I am sure it is not the best idea (given that it got all of 30 seconds of thought) but it illustrates that there are several ways to accomplish similar ends.

A little background on this thread is required. I originally posed the OP in Ivan's thread titledPolitical Science 390: Occupy Everywhere . The thread was derailed as this topic was discussed and we were moved to a separate thread.

With that said, the purpose would be to prevent the situation where a majority of voters decide to place the taxburden squarely on the backs of a minority - that is not fair.

 

[JonDE]

A little background on this thread is required. I originally posed the OP in Ivan's thread titledPolitical Science 390: Occupy Everywhere . The thread was derailed as this topic was discussed and we were moved to a separate thread.

With that said, the purpose would be to prevent the situation where a majority of voters decide to place the taxburden squarely on the backs of a minority - that is not fair.

Well if its so unfair, at least they have the right to switch places. They can always quit their jobs give away all their possessions, become poor and live off the government if they so choose. I doubt many will take it though.