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.
The OP was settled long ago: all citizens get to vote regardless. No one is coming to take 75% of your pay check for anything. I agree that reform in entitlements is always a necessary mandate.
You are effective making the argument that people should be allowed to vote themselves money.
Hard to imagine how any Nation could survive that once the underclass is encouraged to do that in exchange for free gubmint stuff (the Democrat platform).
Straw Man.
No....that's the truth of the situation we now face. obama is creating more of the "underclass" so that dems keep getting voted into office. If people can get free anything, no matter what it is, they will vote to get their free shit. End of story. To say this is a Straw Man argument is idiotic at best. It's obvious that's what's occurring in this country.
Socrates you are not. Everyone pays taxes. Land taxes, income taxes, gasoline taxes, food taxes, ..... get it yet?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
you got problems with the Constitution???Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today’s 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 taxpayer’s 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
you got problems with the Constitution???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
These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:
- (For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964)
I like Heinlein's idea that only veterans of the armed forces vote.
It shouldn't baffle you. The Right, at least those on this board look for simplistic knee jerk solutions to complex problems without considering the ramifications.
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 like Heinlein's idea that only veterans of the armed forces vote.
Sihan B Sirhan, Timothy McVeigh, and a long line of criminals, degenerates, wife beaters, deadbeat dads...
Straw Man.
No....that's the truth of the situation we now face. obama is creating more of the "underclass" so that dems keep getting voted into office. If people can get free anything, no matter what it is, they will vote to get their free shit. End of story. To say this is a Straw Man argument is idiotic at best. It's obvious that's what's occurring in this country.
This is the intended goal of Obama and his followers. To increase the number of those dependent upon government. The theory is once a person comes to exist on the public dole, he will most likely vote for those who have extended the bounty to him.
It worked in the most recent election.
As long as the administration can implement policy that keeps the economy stagnant and unemployment rates barely tolerable while presenting the image of "trying to help the middle class", government dependency will continue to increase. For example, while both Obama and Biden have continually campaigned on the "middle class" and improving the economy, the number of those receiving food stamps has doubled during Obama's first administration. The reason given by the White House "it's Bush's fault"..Or the republican party has obstructed me". This excuse is destroyed by the fact that during years one and two of Obama's presidency ,he had democrat majorities in the House and Senate to work with.
Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
L
Socrates you are not. Everyone pays taxes. Land taxes, income taxes, gasoline taxes, food taxes, ..... get it yet?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
And property taxes do not amount for huge enough proportion...so maybe I agree...
tax the shit out of property.
btw, Socrates times..they had slaves to do the grunt work while people like Socrates could sit around, pay a small tax and philosophize
You are effective making the argument that people should be allowed to vote themselves money.
Hard to imagine how any Nation could survive that once the underclass is encouraged to do that in exchange for free gubmint stuff (the Democrat platform).
Straw Man.
Well, let me ask you directly. Should people who pay no Federal income taxes be permitted to vote for politician who promises to give them largess from the Federal treasury if elected?
No....that's the truth of the situation we now face. obama is creating more of the "underclass" so that dems keep getting voted into office. If people can get free anything, no matter what it is, they will vote to get their free shit. End of story. To say this is a Straw Man argument is idiotic at best. It's obvious that's what's occurring in this country.
This is the intended goal of Obama and his followers. To increase the number of those dependent upon government. The theory is once a person comes to exist on the public dole, he will most likely vote for those who have extended the bounty to him.
It worked in the most recent election.
As long as the administration can implement policy that keeps the economy stagnant and unemployment rates barely tolerable while presenting the image of "trying to help the middle class", government dependency will continue to increase. For example, while both Obama and Biden have continually campaigned on the "middle class" and improving the economy, the number of those receiving food stamps has doubled during Obama's first administration. The reason given by the White House "it's Bush's fault"..Or the republican party has obstructed me". This excuse is destroyed by the fact that during years one and two of Obama's presidency ,he had democrat majorities in the House and Senate to work with.
This is where you and others on the right lose the argument.
Socrates you are not. Everyone pays taxes. Land taxes, income taxes, gasoline taxes, food taxes, ..... get it yet?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
And property taxes do not amount for huge enough proportion...so maybe I agree...
tax the shit out of property.
btw, Socrates times..they had slaves to do the grunt work while people like Socrates could sit around, pay a small tax and philosophize
"Tax the shit out of property"....Based on what logic?
Please expound on your statement.
BTW genius, for example, our property taxes are considered low in comparison to say the states where public employees are unionized. Nevertheless, property taxes here gobble up 12% of our gross household income. If I were in New Jersey, living in the same house on the same sized lot, my property taxes would be 7 times the rate I pay here.
So please explain your justification for stating "tax the shit out of property".
Socrates you are not. Everyone pays taxes. Land taxes, income taxes, gasoline taxes, food taxes, ..... get it yet?
And property taxes do not amount for huge enough proportion...so maybe I agree...
tax the shit out of property.
btw, Socrates times..they had slaves to do the grunt work while people like Socrates could sit around, pay a small tax and philosophize
"Tax the shit out of property"....Based on what logic?
Please expound on your statement.
BTW genius, for example, our property taxes are considered low in comparison to say the states where public employees are unionized. Nevertheless, property taxes here gobble up 12% of our gross household income. If I were in New Jersey, living in the same house on the same sized lot, my property taxes would be 7 times the rate I pay here.
So please explain your justification for stating "tax the shit out of property".
please read the OP and then refrain from posting if you don't comprehend what a landowning, tax paying Ruling class would look like,, only tax payers who own land would vote. get it? what would they fund with the amount of taxes paid now?
"Tax the shit out of property"....Based on what logic?
Please expound on your statement.
BTW genius, for example, our property taxes are considered low in comparison to say the states where public employees are unionized. Nevertheless, property taxes here gobble up 12% of our gross household income. If I were in New Jersey, living in the same house on the same sized lot, my property taxes would be 7 times the rate I pay here.
So please explain your justification for stating "tax the shit out of property".
please read the OP and then refrain from posting if you don't comprehend what a landowning, tax paying Ruling class would look like,, only tax payers who own land would vote. get it? what would they fund with the amount of taxes paid now?
No...The statement was "Tax the shit out of property"...That statement stands on it's own. No excuses. No obfuscation.
Knock yourself out.
good gawd you truly will be left posting alone if you can't keep up
please read the OP and then refrain from posting if you don't comprehend what a landowning, tax paying Ruling class would look like,, only tax payers who own land would vote. get it? what would they fund with the amount of taxes paid now?
No...The statement was "Tax the shit out of property"...That statement stands on it's own. No excuses. No obfuscation.
Knock yourself out.
Why was it said and in what context?
