Should Election Day be Held on April 16th?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proposal to hold Election Day on April 16, with participants exploring the significance of this date in relation to Tax Day on April 15. The conversation touches on the implications of tax burdens on voting and the perceived meaning of Tax Day for different segments of the population.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that Election Day should be on April 16, questioning the significance of Tax Day for citizens.
  • Another participant argues that Tax Day is meaningless to many citizens, prompting a debate on its relevance.
  • Some participants contend that basing voting on tax burdens could lead to a "dictatorship of the majority," raising concerns about democratic principles.
  • There are claims about the distribution of tax contributions among different income brackets, with some asserting that the top 10% of earners contribute a significant portion of federal taxes.
  • Discussions include differing views on the fairness of tax rates across income levels, with some participants questioning the implications of lower tax rates for the wealthiest individuals.
  • Participants express skepticism about the motivations behind tax policies and their impact on various socioeconomic groups.
  • There are requests for graphical representations of tax data to clarify the discussion points raised.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the significance of Tax Day, the implications of tax burdens on voting, and the fairness of tax rates across different income levels. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various charts and data sources to support their claims, but there is no agreement on the interpretation of this data. The discussion also highlights the complexity of tax policy and its effects on different demographics.

  • #31
calculusrocks said:
If the youth had any idea how much of a burden is going to be placed on them, they'd be protesting. Social Security, the politicians spent it. Health Care, if passed it'll be bankrupt before I'm 70. Conjecture? Maybe. All I know is that the numbers don't add up.

Al68 said:
Protesting? More like locking and loading.

King George could only have imagined this kind of power in his wildest fantasies.

Youth don't vote. Old people do.
Citizens age 65 and older had the highest registration rate (79 percent) while those age 18 to 24 had the lowest (58 percent). The youngest group also had the lowest voting rate (47 percent), while those age 45 and older had the highest turnout (about 70 percent).
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html

People that don't vote deserve to have their money taken by those that do. Consider it an education. With any luck, today's youth will learn how voting works by time they're old and they can vote to have tomorrow's youth support them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Al68 said:
Protesting? More like locking and loading.

King George could only have imagined this kind of power in his wildest fantasies.

If King George ran for president as a third party candidate, he'd split the democrat vote.

BobG said:
Youth don't vote. Old people do.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html

People that don't vote deserve to have their money taken by those that do. Consider it an education. With any luck, today's youth will learn how voting works and fix the current system with courage.
FYP :biggrin:

It clearly is generational theft. I would have hoped the voting populace wouldn't take it upon themselves to vote themselves all the entitlements they possibly can. This thwarts the Republic as it was founded, and descends toward a democracy of mob rule. There can be no moral justification for this generational theft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Al68 said:
King George could only have imagined this kind of power in his wildest fantasies.

calculusrocks said:
If King George ran for president as a third party candidate, he'd split the democrat vote.

Off topic, but King George was very popular in the American colonies for a long time as one of very few people in British government protecting American interests from Parliamentary taxes. In fact, as late as 1766, New York was erecting statues of King George to celebrate his (and his prime minister) finally pushing through repeal of the Stamp Act that was so unpopular in America. So, yes, if King of the United Kingdom and Ireland had been an elected position, Americans probably would have voted for him - especially anti-tax Republicans.

Americans even held tea parties supporting King George - and in the more traditional sense. The tea parties they had held in honor of King George added extra significance to the Boston Tea Party, when it occurred.

He really didn't become unpopular until Americans convened the First Continental Congress, appealed to King George to intervene on their behalf in Parliament, and, instead, were met with the response that the Continental Congress placed the colonies in open rebellion and that members of Congress were traitors. After that, the gloves were off and villainizing a single individual provided a more focused imaged than villainizing a faceless Parliament.

Plus, King George was at least publically committed to fighting American independence for eternity, no matter how long it took, no matter how much it cost, no matter how many lives it cost. That wasn't a position likely to increase his popularity in America, but, by that time, he wasn't very concerned about his American poll numbers. (Actually, being at war against the American colonies, France, and Spain, all at the same time, didn't make him all that popular in the United Kingdom, either.)
 
Last edited:
  • #34
BobG, are you ephebiphobic or something? Even the newly adults had a voter registration rate of more than 50%. That's a majority. Today's youith does know how voting works, and a majority of them register. Near a majority vote.

However, since a youth majority seems to signify laziness to you, or something, I'll be glad to riot.
 
  • #35
Char. Limit said:
BobG, are you ephebiphobic or something? Even the newly adults had a voter registration rate of more than 50%. That's a majority. Today's youith does know how voting works, and a majority of them register. Near a majority vote.

However, since a youth majority seems to signify laziness to you, or something, I'll be glad to riot.

Is "near a majority" a synonym for "minority"? :smile:
 
  • #36
Near a majority is a synonym for "above 45%"...
 
  • #37
BobG said:
Youth don't vote. Old people do.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html

People that don't vote deserve to have their money taken by those that do. Consider it an education. With any luck, today's youth will learn how voting works by time they're old and they can vote to have tomorrow's youth support them.
LOL, with any luck, huh? I'm not entirely sure, but I'll assume this is a joke. :approve:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
5
Views
860
  • · Replies 173 ·
6
Replies
173
Views
15K