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.
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
Conservative equate wealth wih responsible behanior and contributing to the success of the nation, while criticizing the poor for not doing their fair share.Buffett Rule Rorschach: 7,000 Millionaires Paid No Income Taxes in 2011
22Sep 21 2011
..... among families making more than $100,000, there were also half a million tax units -- enough to replace the population of Tucson, Arizona -- that also paid no income tax. Even more surprising, 7,000 millionaires also paid no individual income tax.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ionaires-paid-no-income-taxes-in-2011/245469/
Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
L
yep. absolutely.
So long as the jake starkeys and dantes get to vote they will be supporting welfare/warfare state politicians . His ilk don't give a shit about taxes - they don't have any income.
.
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
May 13, 2010Should 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. ...
Regards
DL
everyone pays taxes...of some kind....
No, Gwennie you are wrong. Obama etc have no intention of doing anything of the sort, and you have no concrete evidence except your own worries. Be of good cheer. You merely fear fear itself.
No, Gwennie you are wrong. Obama etc have no intention of doing anything of the sort, and you have no concrete evidence except your own worries. Be of good cheer. You merely fear fear itself.
You have no concrete "evidence" to prove that he won't.....it goes both ways. Stop being so damn condescending....
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
Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.
No, Gwennie you are wrong. Obama etc have no intention of doing anything of the sort, and you have no concrete evidence except your own worries. Be of good cheer. You merely fear fear itself.
You have no concrete "evidence" to prove that he won't.....it goes both ways. Stop being so damn condescending....
One, the burden of proof is yours. Two, I can't disprove what does not exist.
Give us evidence, good and solid evidence, Gwennie.
You are letting your fears of whatever to get the better of you.
Your opinions are not evidence, Gwennie, not proof. I don't have to post anything until you build a case on more than "but . . . but . . .".
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.
Let's put the ideological pant-shitting aside for a moment.
Let's compare this to ecology. Let's assume for a moment that we really do have a case in our country of one class effectively preying off a second class. Liberals will say it's the rich feeding off the poor, conservatives will say its the poor feeding off the rich, both sides will mostly agree that both groups are themselves feeding off the middle class in some way or another. In any event, which ever way that you view it happening, a fundamental food chain is established.
Now, what happens when the coyotes eat too many rabbits and there aren't enough rabbits to feed everyone anymore? Well it's simple--coyotes start dying off when they can't get enough food. What happens then? Again, it's simple--rabbits start rebounding because there are fewer predators killing them. Probably, they'll reach a point of over population. What happens third? The coyotes start bouncing back because they have ample food supplies, and establish a more sustainable balance than existed before.
So, even if we were to entertain this doom-and-gloom argument that the "welfare queens" are going to swell in numbers like rampant parasites, it's pretty silly to expect it to be some kind of zombie apocalypse that will destroy the country. Bases on such an argument, we should already expect a cyclic fluctuation to go back and forth.
Most conservatives claim, when talking about the corporate tax, that corporations pay no taxes,
they just pass the cost along to the consumer.
By that argument, every American who buys anything from any corporation that pays taxes is thus a taxpayer.
The idea of only taxpayers being able to vote is idiocy, which, of course, explains why it is so popular with USMB conservatives.
I would say only taxfilers can. Meaning, if you file a tax return, whether you pay $0 or $1M, you must file and the information must be crossed checked (e.g. Soc, address, etc.) with what you have on your voter registration. This would reduce the number of dead people voting. Will be fun to watch how this would disenfranchise voters.
