If only landowners voted, would we have a welfare state?

[NYcarbineer]

The absurdity of only wanting property owners to be able to vote is a very nice symbol of the absurdity of conservatism.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This (the op) is a bad idea. Just like how many of you would agree to strip me of my right to vote because of my past.
Too much judging the book by the cover going on.

 

[TNHarley]

You'd have to either not tax people who didn't own property, or abandon the principle of taxation without representation.

This is a policy from the 18th century to the 19th. How many taxes did they have then?

Why would that matter? You're talking about doing it NOW.

NO, idiot. As i have said 500 times, I wish it never changed. All of your hypotheticals might not even exist. I CLEARLY stated I dont want to change it back.

What kind of word vomit is that supposed to be? You wish it never changed because you wish that today 60% of blacks would be ineligible to vote?

A lot of whites and asians wouldnt be able to either.
Im not discriminating against skin color. It literally has nothing to do with it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's how you would beat the property requirement to vote...

You buy one acre of land. There are about 43,000 square feet in acre. You divide the acre into 43000 parcels of one square foot, sell them at a pittance to anyone who wants the right to vote. Issue them a title, voila,

43,000 new voters!

 

[TNHarley]

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the OP seriously, let me ask him,

how much property need one own to qualify as a property owner?

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

 

[TNHarley]

That is the discretionary budget, isn't it? Look at the actual expenditures, including the "baked in" payments, not just the money the senate has to play with each year.

The Senate shouldn't be "playing" with money at all (it ain't play money) ... The fact is they spend more than they get every time they budget.

I wouldn't mind if we added a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
I wouldn't mind if we did that in conjunction with the elimination of the automatic payroll deduction.

If the Senate had to produce a balanced budget ... Then spending would be accounted for.
If people had to write one check a year to the federal government ... It would certainly help them better understand their true feelings about what they are paying.

When the people get sick and tired of being taxed ... And the government says we have to cut the military, infrastructure or welfare ...





Then we can really let the voters make a choice as to what they want ...

.

Well, you've got a plan, I'll give you that. Better than living via the Little Red Hen, I think.

IKR? Personal responsibility and not having someone else work for you is such a bad idea

 

[NYcarbineer]

You'd have to either not tax people who didn't own property, or abandon the principle of taxation without representation.

This is a policy from the 18th century to the 19th. How many taxes did they have then?

Why would that matter? You're talking about doing it NOW.

NO, idiot. As i have said 500 times, I wish it never changed. All of your hypotheticals might not even exist. I CLEARLY stated I dont want to change it back.

What kind of word vomit is that supposed to be? You wish it never changed because you wish that today 60% of blacks would be ineligible to vote?

A lot of whites and asians wouldnt be able to either.
Im not discriminating against skin color. It literally has nothing to do with it.

It has a TON to do with it if any race is disproportionately poor/low income.

 

[NYcarbineer]

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the OP seriously, let me ask him,

how much property need one own to qualify as a property owner?

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Would owning slaves count?

 

[TNHarley]

This (the op) is a bad idea. Just like how many of you would agree to strip me of my right to vote because of my past.
Too much judging the book by the cover going on.

Its also a bad idea for trailer trash rebecca to vote away my money, IMO.

 

[TNHarley]

This is a policy from the 18th century to the 19th. How many taxes did they have then?

Why would that matter? You're talking about doing it NOW.

NO, idiot. As i have said 500 times, I wish it never changed. All of your hypotheticals might not even exist. I CLEARLY stated I dont want to change it back.

What kind of word vomit is that supposed to be? You wish it never changed because you wish that today 60% of blacks would be ineligible to vote?

A lot of whites and asians wouldnt be able to either.
Im not discriminating against skin color. It literally has nothing to do with it.

It has a TON to do with it if any race is disproportionately poor/low income.

Thats in your mind only. YOU bring race into it.

 

[TNHarley]

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the OP seriously, let me ask him,

how much property need one own to qualify as a property owner?

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Would owning slaves count?

Back then I bet it would. But im not sure.

 

[BlackSand]

Well, you've got a plan, I'll give you that. Better than living via the Little Red Hen, I think.

Thanks ...

You may notice the only thing I mentioned about changing the tax structure ... Is eliminating the ability to disguise what they are taking in smaller chunks.

I don't think it would really be a great idea ... Because Americans have learned well from our government about how to be irresponsible with money.
If we got rid of the automatic payroll deduction ... And citizens were required to write one check due by April 15th ... We would have to lock a quarter of the country up for not being able to pay their taxes.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the OP seriously, let me ask him,

how much property need one own to qualify as a property owner?

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Euro?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That is the discretionary budget, isn't it? Look at the actual expenditures, including the "baked in" payments, not just the money the senate has to play with each year.

The Senate shouldn't be "playing" with money at all (it ain't play money) ... The fact is they spend more than they get every time they budget.

I wouldn't mind if we added a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
I wouldn't mind if we did that in conjunction with the elimination of the automatic payroll deduction.

If the Senate had to produce a balanced budget ... Then spending would be accounted for.
If people had to write one check a year to the federal government ... It would certainly help them better understand their true feelings about what they are paying.

When the people get sick and tired of being taxed ... And the government says we have to cut the military, infrastructure or welfare ...





Then we can really let the voters make a choice as to what they want ...

.

Well, you've got a plan, I'll give you that. Better than living via the Little Red Hen, I think.

IKR? Personal responsibility and not having someone else work for you is such a bad idea

How is a property owner more responsible than a renter?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, you've got a plan, I'll give you that. Better than living via the Little Red Hen, I think.

Thanks ...

You may notice the only thing I mentioned about changing the tax structure ... Is eliminating the ability to disguise what they are taking in smaller chunks.

I don't think it would really be a great idea ... Because Americans have learned well from our government about how to be irresponsible with money.
If we got rid of the automatic payroll deduction ... And citizens were required to write one check due by April 15th ... We would have to lock a quarter of the country up for not being able to pay their taxes.

.

That's not my quote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the OP seriously, let me ask him,

how much property need one own to qualify as a property owner?

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Euro?

I think he meant to say pieces of eight.

 

[TNHarley]

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the OP seriously, let me ask him,

how much property need one own to qualify as a property owner?

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Euro?

I meant pound sterling lol. I think some used the Spanish dollar as well.
We didnt have our own currency for years after settlement.
I cant ALWAYS be right

 

[NYcarbineer]

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the OP seriously, let me ask him,

how much property need one own to qualify as a property owner?

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Would owning slaves count?

Back then I bet it would. But im not sure.

And you do understand that the American people got rid of slavery, just as they got rid of voting restrictions,

constitutionally...

 

[TNHarley]

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the OP seriously, let me ask him,

how much property need one own to qualify as a property owner?

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Would owning slaves count?

Back then I bet it would. But im not sure.

And you do understand that the American people got rid of slavery, just as they got rid of voting restrictions,

constitutionally...

Yes

 

[bripat9643]

Complying with the dictates of the herd is not freedom.

Move to Saudi Arabia. Liberty is the concept that this Nation was founded on.

yep, liberty, not democracy. The two are not synonymous.

We have a republican form of government.

That's a meaningless distinction.

It's not meaningless. Republicanism was chosen over pure democracy for the express purpose of protecting your liberty. Checks and balances.

It seems you much prefer a monarchical form of government.

We abandoned a Republican form of government during the Civil War. The 17th Amendment cemented the change.