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

[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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[OmCheeto]

... the situation where a majority of voters decide to place the taxburden squarely on the backs of a minority - that is not fair.

In the United States, income has become distributed more unequally over the past 30 years, with those in the top quintile (20%) earning more than the bottom 80% combined.

That poor 20% minority...

ROTFFL!

I've been working for around 45 years now, and the only time I didn't pay federal taxes, was when I was about 7, when I ate all the strawberry profits.



---------------------------------
former field worker of America

 

[ThomasT]

... 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.

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.

 

[Pengwuino]

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.

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.

 

[SixNein]

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

Why not restrict voting rights to a privilege of conservatives?

 

[ParticleGrl]

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?

First, let's strip out the loaded word punish. Now, let's 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.

 

[Jasongreat]

ThomasT;3757665]The tax burden should be carried primarily by the people with the largest incomes, which it is. Seems fair to me.

You get no disagreemaent from me, that was the way it was for quite a long time, the income tax is relatively new invention. But there is a difference on the wealthy paying for government, and the poor voting to take more from the rich.

Additionally, it would be quite fair to tax income from dividends, interest, capital gains at much higher than current rates, imo.

I also agree, profits should be taxed, income not at all. I would like to ask though, do you have a portfolio? Since it seems that is the point of this thread, voting to increase taxes on things one does not own.

 

[MarcoD]

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

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.

 

[Jasongreat]

Why not restrict voting rights to a privilege of conservatives?

Does a dollar restrict voting? Or are you implying that only conservatives can afford to pay the dollar? Your other post about increasing the amount to 1,000,000 dollars, shows that you have not been paying attention to the thread, only having emotional outbursts. WhoWee, in the op, and never since has said anything about using money to keep people out of the polls, only that those voting to take from others, should also have skin in the game. Which I don't think is a bad idea at all.

 

[Jasongreat]

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.

As has been pointed out everyone in the US making money pays federal income taxes, but there is a large percentage that gets that money back some even with additional monies.

It seems to me your argument is that since the poor make money for the rich, they can then turn around and confiscate a portion of that money the rich made.

If the rich have to pay everything, either through income taxes, and corporate taxes, then those who pay nothing can take even more for their 'benefit' by voting, it is you that thinks that the rich should be the slaves of poor, or the few the slaves of the many.

I would love for to people read up on Andrew Mellon and Harding as well as Coolidge, and explain to me how their thinking was wrong. The rich can afford to hide their money, the rich can afford to go without an income. When taxes become oppressive, money disappears from the economy. Seems pretty logical to me.