Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In todays terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.
There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.
Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.
This is counter to the taxpayers wishes.
Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?
If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.
Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?
Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?
Regards
DL
I'm more apt to agree with Robert Heinlien, (sp), only veterans should be allowed to vote.
What do you think about that, oh great one?
All who are contributing to the good health, safety and security of the state should vote.
Those who do not should not.
Regards
DL
And who the hell are you, to tell another citizen equal to you, that they can't vote or shouldn't be able to vote?
Sheesh, you guys are horrible American citizens...just horrible to the very core of your souls imho. May God have mercy on you.
If all citizens are equal, then why is it only the poor who can have their hands in the rich pockets and the rich cannot prevent it?
Regards
DL
why? what's your purpose of taking her vote away? What will it do that makes you so happy? why would you even think about discriminating against her....? Honestly, why??? you want to punish her? She's broken no laws? you hate her??? why??? you are jealous? why???Your veteran and elderly would be judged on a long term basis as would all citizens. They would retain a vote.
Your abandoned wife is able to chase her husband for support and would likely vote.
An unwed mother living on the dole with her kids would not make the grade.
Regards
DL
I hold women above men in importance to a society and as a part of my moral tenets. In that sense I do not believe in equality. Equality under the law yes but not from my moral POV. ---- Think sanctity as shown in this clip please.
The real difference between liberals and conservatives: Jonathan Haidt on TED.com
I also demand more from women to justify my holding them above men.
When younger, I was asked to father a child by an unwed mother so that she could see her welfare check increase. I refused.
Need I say more?
Regards
DL
Impossible as we will always have some in our welfare safety net. I do not mind this but just do not think they should be powerful enough to vote their raises.
Regards
DL
But unlimited and anonymous buckets of cash from corporations are just dandy. Let's let them keep buying legislators, but stop some "welfare queen" from exercising their right to vote. Sounds perfect.
Off the mark/issue my friend.
We were speaking of sending wealth down to the poor. Not sending wealth up to the rich.
Regards
DL
EVERYONE, including those collecting some welfare money, pays taxes....in one form or another...
so, are you talking about "income taxes"?
But unlimited and anonymous buckets of cash from corporations are just dandy. Let's let them keep buying legislators, but stop some "welfare queen" from exercising their right to vote. Sounds perfect.
Off the mark/issue my friend.
We were speaking of sending wealth down to the poor. Not sending wealth up to the rich.
Regards
DL
The working poor send wealth to the rich every day.
Off the mark/issue my friend.
We were speaking of sending wealth down to the poor. Not sending wealth up to the rich.
Regards
DL
The working poor send wealth to the rich every day.
Wow, really? How's that work?
If the poor could vote themselves money, they'd have to outnumber the not-poor.
why? what's your purpose of taking her vote away? What will it do that makes you so happy? why would you even think about discriminating against her....? Honestly, why??? you want to punish her? She's broken no laws? you hate her??? why??? you are jealous? why???
I hold women above men in importance to a society and as a part of my moral tenets. In that sense I do not believe in equality. Equality under the law yes but not from my moral POV. ---- Think sanctity as shown in this clip please.
The real difference between liberals and conservatives: Jonathan Haidt on TED.com
I also demand more from women to justify my holding them above men.
When younger, I was asked to father a child by an unwed mother so that she could see her welfare check increase. I refused.
Need I say more?
Regards
DL
A stay at home mom in a middle class family with a working husband does not pay income taxes.
You would take her vote away why, exactly?
[
The working poor send wealth to the rich every day.
-TANF Welfare checks provide for around 30% of what it costs to live, that's it....EVERYONE, including those collecting some welfare money, pays taxes....in one form or another...
so, are you talking about "income taxes"?
If you are paying for goods with welfare money you are not paying taxes.
I hold women above men in importance to a society and as a part of my moral tenets. In that sense I do not believe in equality. Equality under the law yes but not from my moral POV. ---- Think sanctity as shown in this clip please.
The real difference between liberals and conservatives: Jonathan Haidt on TED.com
I also demand more from women to justify my holding them above men.
When younger, I was asked to father a child by an unwed mother so that she could see her welfare check increase. I refused.
Need I say more?
Regards
DL
A stay at home mom in a middle class family with a working husband does not pay income taxes.
You would take her vote away why, exactly?
I would not.
She is contributing to the country.
Most countries recognize that reproduction and it's costs contribute and those that do are rewarded for their efforts.
Regards
DL
My you have a vivid imagination.-TANF Welfare checks provide for around 30% of what it costs to live, that's it....EVERYONE, including those collecting some welfare money, pays taxes....in one form or another...
so, are you talking about "income taxes"?
If you are paying for goods with welfare money you are not paying taxes.
-You are also required to WORK while on welfare since the Gingrich reformed welfare law....only under few circumstances are you suppose to bypass that....
-even if they used their welfare checks to buy something that is taxed, they are paying taxes...they could spend the money on an item that is not taxed as example, where no money goes back to the government
-FYI-2 years is the average time someone collects TANF federal welfare checks....not a lifetime, not 5 years, not 10 years, but around 2 years.
-any rent they pay, goes towards paying property taxes as well....and welfare is not enough to pay for rent so they are getting money from other than the government in many cases and spending it to survive, which in turn is taxed through sales, property, gasoline, liquor, for federal and state taxes.
I believe it is around 1% of our population has collected welfare (TANF)..............
And regardless if they pay no income taxes, they still as citizens have the right to vote and representation....and sadly, for the most part, people who collect welfare DO NOT VOTE......but that does not mean their right to vote should be taken away...
there are so many things that our government representatives legislate, other than things that they spend on...the drinking age, the minimum wage, sending citizens to war, drug laws, gun laws, free speech laws, privacy laws, abortion laws, etc etc etc etc...
your ignorance and position on this is beyond the pale imho...and honestly, you should think this through better and be man enough to change your position....
A stay at home mom in a middle class family with a working husband does not pay income taxes.
You would take her vote away why, exactly?
I would not.
She is contributing to the country.
Most countries recognize that reproduction and it's costs contribute and those that do are rewarded for their efforts.
Regards
DL
Ah, so now the mom on welfare is back on the eligible to vote list, because she's reproducing.
The working poor send wealth to the rich every day.
Wow, really? How's that work?
Why don't you go pick lettuce for a season and find out.
I would not.
She is contributing to the country.
Most countries recognize that reproduction and it's costs contribute and those that do are rewarded for their efforts.
Regards
DL
Ah, so now the mom on welfare is back on the eligible to vote list, because she's reproducing.
Quite a dishonest reply.
We were talking of your "A stay at home mom in a middle class family with a working husband does not pay income taxes." ----not your "mom on welfare".
Go put your dishonest words in someone else's mouth. Not in mine thanks.
My basic view is what was the law of the land in many countries in the past. No taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. IOW, of you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.
The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.
Payment can be made in various ways so do not think I am going after the poor. In the case of Vets, representation can be earned by serving to protect the country. Those who sometimes pay taxes and at other times take taxes would have to be looked at once a standard is set. If a person pays 15 years out of 20 for instance, he would vote. Someone who only paid 5 years out of 20 and was on the dole or public purse for 15 may not get a vote.
The point is that when more and more fall into the poor categories, their vote can and is bought by the unscrupulous politicians who are elected by promises of a raise in welfare checks.
The rich are getting richer and the poor better off and the middle is squeezed by both side and any election basically becomes a war against the middle thanks to the fact that politicians are owned by the rich.
This is unjust and unsustainable and must end.
Regards
DL
Ah, so now the mom on welfare is back on the eligible to vote list, because she's reproducing.
Quite a dishonest reply.
We were talking of your "A stay at home mom in a middle class family with a working husband does not pay income taxes." ----not your "mom on welfare".
Go put your dishonest words in someone else's mouth. Not in mine thanks.
My basic view is what was the law of the land in many countries in the past. No taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. IOW, of you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.
The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.
Payment can be made in various ways so do not think I am going after the poor. In the case of Vets, representation can be earned by serving to protect the country. Those who sometimes pay taxes and at other times take taxes would have to be looked at once a standard is set. If a person pays 15 years out of 20 for instance, he would vote. Someone who only paid 5 years out of 20 and was on the dole or public purse for 15 may not get a vote.
The point is that when more and more fall into the poor categories, their vote can and is bought by the unscrupulous politicians who are elected by promises of a raise in welfare checks.
The rich are getting richer and the poor better off and the middle is squeezed by both side and any election basically becomes a war against the middle thanks to the fact that politicians are owned by the rich.
This is unjust and unsustainable and must end.
Regards
DL
You have an interesting idea.
Let's expand on it a bit.
Let's say that if a state takes more from the fed then it puts in..it shouldn't have any say in national politics.
You like that?
