Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

[Care4all]

it's like y'all never heard of sales tax.

compare 30% (+) over sales taxes with "just" sales taxes. No, you really don't pay serious taxes if all you are paying is sales taxes.

so, are we now modifying the proposal to restrict voting to only 'serious' taxpayers?

 

[logical4u]

These threads are always so pathetic. The desire to disinfranchise Americans is a desire to control the government by limiting whose voice is heard, a very totalitarian desire.

Btw- everyone pays taxes.

Dumbass.

Depends on what you mean by paying taxes.....do you mean that a person pays taxes via working a job and paying payroll taxes or buying cigarettes and liquor paying taxes??? Those are two different types of taxes, one of which is often used by those who cheat the system for years and years. This thread is not pathetic.....it's being used to determine "public" opinion about who should be allowed to vote, seeing as how those of us who pay taxes via work are often the ones who bear the burden of paying for those who deliberately refuse to pay their own way because it's easier to rely on the govt. That's not everyone....veterans, children, disabled, SS..those people are not included in the "cheaters" club. Get off your soapbox and put your head in reality....fact is, millions of people cheat the govt and take money away from those who really need it. The OP is not a dumbass at all.

It's not "millions". It's 1%.

Folks like Mitt "Bain Capital" Romney, Dick "Buh Bye Lehman" Fuld, John "Check These Mortgage Backed Securities Out" Thain..and a whole host of obscenely wealthy folks that absolutely enjoy fleecing people like yourself.

1% of 300 million IS 3 million (3,000,000). Just sayin'....

 

[GreatestIam]

It's like y'all never heard of sales tax.

Compare 30% (+) over sales taxes with "just" sales taxes. No, you really don't pay serious taxes if all you are paying is sales taxes.

So, are we now modifying the proposal to restrict voting to only 'serious' taxpayers?

No. We are saying that when the funds used to pay sales taxes originally come from a government hand out, from actual taxpayers that is, then it is the original taxpayer paying again and not the one who cashed his dole check.

Regards
DL

 

[dblack]

Compare 30% (+) over sales taxes with "just" sales taxes. No, you really don't pay serious taxes if all you are paying is sales taxes.

So, are we now modifying the proposal to restrict voting to only 'serious' taxpayers?

No. We are saying that when the funds used to pay sales taxes originally come from a government hand out, from actual taxpayers that is, then it is the original taxpayer paying again and not the one who cashed his dole check.

Regards
DL

So, I guess the answer is to keep a detailed accounting of how much each person pays in taxes, subtract the value of the government services and entitlements they have received, and if there is a positive balance, they get to vote? This raises more than a few questions:

How do we evaluate services like fire protection. Would that be charged only to property owners? Only to people who have had a fire?

Likewise with police and military. Should the nominal 'fees' for these kinds of services be distributed equally, or should the people with the most to lose be charged the most?

Long list of these kinds of questions....

 

[GreatestIam]

So, are we now modifying the proposal to restrict voting to only 'serious' taxpayers?

No. We are saying that when the funds used to pay sales taxes originally come from a government hand out, from actual taxpayers that is, then it is the original taxpayer paying again and not the one who cashed his dole check.

Regards
DL

So, I guess the answer is to keep a detailed accounting of how much each person pays in taxes, subtract the value of the government services and entitlements they have received, and if there is a positive balance, they get to vote? This raises more than a few questions:

How do we evaluate services like fire protection. Would that be charged only to property owners? Only to people who have had a fire?

Likewise with police and military. Should the nominal 'fees' for these kinds of services be distributed equally, or should the people with the most to lose be charged the most?

Long list of these kinds of questions....

To your first. It is only the vote we are talking about. Other services you speak of all would get.

The ides is not to cut off essential services or let the poor starve to death. The idea is to try to bring the taxtakers into the fold of taxpayers by not just keeping them on the dole without some pressures to improve their lot. Some governments pay the poor more than what they would make on earning a lower wage and that encourages the taxtaker to remain on the dole and who could blame him if he has a family to look after.

This system has to go though if the overall health of our systems is to be progressive for all citizens.

We cannot allow our systems to make it profitable for those on government service to stay on government services.

Regards
DL

 

[ZimothyTahn]

poll taxes? what the fuck? i'm hearing echoes of jim crow...big surprise.

 

[Gadawg73]

Buy a cup of coffee you pay taxes.

 

[GreatestIam]

Buy a cup of coffee you pay taxes.

Sure but if you are on the public tit you are putting their milk in it instead of supplying your own.

Have you not read any of the thread?
Seems not.

Regards
DL

 

[logical4u]

So, are we now modifying the proposal to restrict voting to only 'serious' taxpayers?

No. We are saying that when the funds used to pay sales taxes originally come from a government hand out, from actual taxpayers that is, then it is the original taxpayer paying again and not the one who cashed his dole check.

Regards
DL

So, I guess the answer is to keep a detailed accounting of how much each person pays in taxes, subtract the value of the government services and entitlements they have received, and if there is a positive balance, they get to vote? This raises more than a few questions:

How do we evaluate services like fire protection. Would that be charged only to property owners? Only to people who have had a fire?

Likewise with police and military. Should the nominal 'fees' for these kinds of services be distributed equally, or should the people with the most to lose be charged the most?

Long list of these kinds of questions....

Take a look at the liberal cities that are supposed to provide these services. How are they doing? Chicago, Detroit, LA are all bankrupt and corruption prone. The police do not go into some areas, and do not respond to calls, based on their "resources". While you want to pretend that spending more money will make the country a better place, you ignore the trillions that have been spent on those same promises.... and failed. The people that want the country to stay with the Constitution (that built the best country in the history of the world) are ridiculed by those that want to give "men" (dictators/tyrants) the power to choose which "rights" we have, and they also want to replace the Constitution with system(s) that have FAILED every time they have been tried. The rest of the world is trying to stop the slide into the abyss of poverty, and the idiots in the high places of the three branches of gov't are saying we should go faster in that direction.

As long as there are men, there will be imperfection. The Constitution provided the best opportunity for people while discouraging corruption in gov't. I cannot understand why "citizens" want corruption over liberty and freedom.

 

[dblack]

No. We are saying that when the funds used to pay sales taxes originally come from a government hand out, from actual taxpayers that is, then it is the original taxpayer paying again and not the one who cashed his dole check.

Regards
DL

So, I guess the answer is to keep a detailed accounting of how much each person pays in taxes, subtract the value of the government services and entitlements they have received, and if there is a positive balance, they get to vote? This raises more than a few questions:

How do we evaluate services like fire protection. Would that be charged only to property owners? Only to people who have had a fire?

Likewise with police and military. Should the nominal 'fees' for these kinds of services be distributed equally, or should the people with the most to lose be charged the most?

Long list of these kinds of questions....

Take a look at the liberal cities that are supposed to provide these services. How are they doing? Chicago, Detroit, LA are all bankrupt and corruption prone. The police do not go into some areas, and do not respond to calls, based on their "resources". While you want to pretend that spending more money will make the country a better place, you ignore the trillions that have been spent on those same promises.... and failed. The people that want the country to stay with the Constitution (that built the best country in the history of the world) are ridiculed by those that want to give "men" (dictators/tyrants) the power to choose which "rights" we have, and they also want to replace the Constitution with system(s) that have FAILED every time they have been tried. The rest of the world is trying to stop the slide into the abyss of poverty, and the idiots in the high places of the three branches of gov't are saying we should go faster in that direction.

As long as there are men, there will be imperfection. The Constitution provided the best opportunity for people while discouraging corruption in gov't. I cannot understand why "citizens" want corruption over liberty and freedom.

I'm not clear what you're getting at. And I've, apparently, misrepresented my views. I'm not at all in favor of pervasive government. My point is just that it's a subtle, but very dangerous, mistake to make our rights anything other than universal guarantees. If we allow them to be conditional, to depend on whether we have paid taxes, or whether we belong to the right political party, or whether we have insurance or not - then we obliterate the concept of rights utterly, reducing them to special privileges at best.

 

[GreatestIam]

Does a person have a right not to have others legally pick his pocket?

Regards
DL

 

[dblack]

Does a person have a right not to have others legally pick his pocket?

Regards
DL

Of course. But this tit-for-tat approach to that end sacrifices much more than it gains us. We're rapidly turning away from rule of law and equal rights, to rule be decree, and decidedly unequal rights, where equal protection gives way to exemptions and penalties, incentives and breaks.

These laws (general welfare statish entitlements) are poison for exactly this reason - they encourage angry taxpayers to endorse unequal rights. But that's a cure much worse than the disease. We can mitigate the welfare state without resorting to slash and burn.

 

[GreatestIam]

Does a person have a right not to have others legally pick his pocket?

Regards
DL

Of course. But this tit-for-tat approach to that end sacrifices much more than it gains us. We're rapidly turning away from rule of law and equal rights, to rule be decree, and decidedly unequal rights, where equal protection gives way to exemptions and penalties, incentives and breaks.

These laws (general welfare statish entitlements) are poison for exactly this reason - they encourage angry taxpayers to endorse unequal rights. But that's a cure much worse than the disease. We can mitigate the welfare state without resorting to slash and burn.

You agree that taxpayers have a right and yet would not give it to them.

You seem to think that taxtakers have the same rights to vote as taxpayers. Who is funding the system and who should have a say in what the system does?

The law should and is in some places, no taxation without representation. That is no representation without taxpaying.

Taxpayers earn the right to vote. Taxtakers do not.

Taxpayers do not endorse unequal rights. They just have a better view of what their rights are as they are the ones paying to maintain them and do not want taxtakers negating their votes by those whose main interest is to pick their pockets that much more.

Regards
DL

 

[logical4u]

So, I guess the answer is to keep a detailed accounting of how much each person pays in taxes, subtract the value of the government services and entitlements they have received, and if there is a positive balance, they get to vote? This raises more than a few questions:

How do we evaluate services like fire protection. Would that be charged only to property owners? Only to people who have had a fire?

Likewise with police and military. Should the nominal 'fees' for these kinds of services be distributed equally, or should the people with the most to lose be charged the most?

Long list of these kinds of questions....

Take a look at the liberal cities that are supposed to provide these services. How are they doing? Chicago, Detroit, LA are all bankrupt and corruption prone. The police do not go into some areas, and do not respond to calls, based on their "resources". While you want to pretend that spending more money will make the country a better place, you ignore the trillions that have been spent on those same promises.... and failed. The people that want the country to stay with the Constitution (that built the best country in the history of the world) are ridiculed by those that want to give "men" (dictators/tyrants) the power to choose which "rights" we have, and they also want to replace the Constitution with system(s) that have FAILED every time they have been tried. The rest of the world is trying to stop the slide into the abyss of poverty, and the idiots in the high places of the three branches of gov't are saying we should go faster in that direction.

As long as there are men, there will be imperfection. The Constitution provided the best opportunity for people while discouraging corruption in gov't. I cannot understand why "citizens" want corruption over liberty and freedom.

I'm not clear what you're getting at. And I've, apparently, misrepresented my views. I'm not at all in favor of pervasive government. My point is just that it's a subtle, but very dangerous, mistake to make our rights anything other than universal guarantees. If we allow them to be conditional, to depend on whether we have paid taxes, or whether we belong to the right political party, or whether we have insurance or not - then we obliterate the concept of rights utterly, reducing them to special privileges at best.

The "right to vote" is not in the Bill of Rights (it is not an unalienable right). If you do not behave (comitt a felony), your vote is silenced.
Giving everyone the "right" to vote makes a population that does not contribute,capable of "forcing" others into servitude. It makes the "taxpayers" victims of taxation without representation (What the original founders of this country rebelled against). Because these people that do not contribute (feel the pain of paying "their fair share"), their representatives are taking more of our freedoms, liberties, and rights. If history repeats itself (and it will), once those that are paying taxes to the point they "give up" (stop paying taxes) two things will happen: the country will disengrate or it will have to become a predatory nation that conquers other nations to take what they have. It is time we take a hard look at what the policies for the last fifty years have caused, and to reverse the process and move back to the ideals that made this the best country in the history of the world, and not to continue towards the ideals that have been tried and failed where ever, and when ever they were tried (socialism/facism/communism).

 

[dblack]

The "right to vote" is not in the Bill of Rights (it is not an unalienable right).

Can't really go far past that statement. It's utterly wrong. Are you sure you understand the concept of 'unlienable right'?

Giving everyone the "right" to vote makes a population that does not contribute, capable of "forcing" others into servitude.

This is what constitutionally limited government is supposed to prevent, and why it's so important.

 

[logical4u]

The "right to vote" is not in the Bill of Rights (it is not an unalienable right).

Can't really go far past that statement. It's utterly wrong. Are you sure you understand the concept of 'unlienable right'?

Giving everyone the "right" to vote makes a population that does not contribute, capable of "forcing" others into servitude.

This is what constitutionally limited government is supposed to prevent, and why it's so important.

Unfortunately, the dems/libs/leftists/socialists/communists/islamic extremists/homosexual activists/etc are trying to eliminate the Constitution and how the country is run. I would love to see the "Constitutionally limited government" return, instead of the oppressive, murder list, death panels and inequitable justice dept that we currently have.

 

[logical4u]

The "right to vote" is not in the Bill of Rights (it is not an unalienable right).

Can't really go far past that statement. It's utterly wrong. Are you sure you understand the concept of 'unlienable right'?

Giving everyone the "right" to vote makes a population that does not contribute, capable of "forcing" others into servitude.

This is what constitutionally limited government is supposed to prevent, and why it's so important.

Unfortunately, the dems/libs/leftists/socialists/communists/islamic extremists/homosexual activists/etc are trying to eliminate the Constitution and how the country is run. I would love to see the "Constitutionally limited government" return, instead of the oppressive, murder list, death panels and inequitable justice dept that we currently have.

Apparently, this statement offended some of our left leaning participants. I would love for them to actually to show where their vision will lead. Any time anything close has been tried, it has ended in a total stain (worst case scenario) or a total failure (best case scenario). Unfortunately, they hide behind feelings that result in multiple deaths and darkness, not light and truth.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The "right to vote" is not in the Bill of Rights (it is not an unalienable right).

Can't really go far past that statement. It's utterly wrong. Are you sure you understand the concept of 'unlienable right'?

Giving everyone the "right" to vote makes a population that does not contribute, capable of "forcing" others into servitude.

This is what constitutionally limited government is supposed to prevent, and why it's so important.

Unfortunately, the dems/libs/leftists/socialists/communists/islamic extremists/homosexual activists/etc are trying to eliminate the Constitution and how the country is run. I would love to see the "Constitutionally limited government" return, instead of the oppressive, murder list, death panels and inequitable justice dept that we currently have.

This is the reason (and rightly so) that we do not have a "democracy" in this country. The Founders were forward-thinking enough to understand that if we DID go this route, a simple majority of these very communists could literally take the country over.

Granted, the mongoloid idiots that we send to Washington these days aren't MUCH better, but at least they keep things in a "little" bit of check...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Everyone pays taxes

 

[GreatestIam]

Everyone pays taxes

Sure. VAT's are what you are speaking to and these are regressive taxes and would disappear in my system. They are anti-poor and allow for the wealthy to pay less as a % of earnings than the poor.

You should remember that taxtakers are paying them with funds taken from taxpayers who have earned those funds and given them out as welfare.

Do you see the difference?

Regards
DL