Should paying taxes be a requirement to vote?

[CrusaderFrank]

Should paying Income taxes, either at the state or Federal be a requirement to vote? It's like letting people who don't own stock, vote on company activities, compensation, policies, etc

Seniors who paid in their entire lives would, of course, be eligible to vote

Nuts.

Just plain nuts

How many other ways can Conservatives voting rights? What it about about the right to vote that irritates Conservatives so?

I think you should have a vested interest. If you don't pay taxes, why should you vote?

What makes you special?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Paying taxes should be a requirement for citizenship let alone voting.
IMO - some amount of taxes should be paid by everyone but active military.

EVERYONE pays taxes....

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.....

WE fought a Revolution over it....and NOW you want it to be just the opposite?

We LIVE in a representative Nation, a Democratic REPUBLIC....

SORRY Buddy, your class warfare against the poorest, just ain't cutting it....

Every one gets representation, not just the wealthier....

BESIDES there are so many many many things that our representatives represent us for...drug laws, driving laws, EPA laws, school boards that affect our children, etc etc etc that don't necessarily even involve whether we have paid an income tax or not....

POLL TAXES are ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL... got it yet?

Requiring to have paid an income tax in order to vote IS A POLL TAX, a tax that would have to be paid before voting.

Give it up, there is no way around that!

Then maybe a better idea is a simple test to see if a potential voter knows WTF they are even voting on.

Nothing too hard: Who is the President? What party does the VP belong to? What party is leading Congress today? The Senate today? Is the US in debt and for how much? Things like that........

If you can't pass the test, you lose your right to vote for that election.

Republicans would welcome the idea with open arms, but the Democrats would be protesting in the street.

Seriously Ray? YOU want to go back to the Jim Crow era and require a test?

I think my idea is an excellent one.

Election after election, we end up with candidates that people don't really like; this one having the most disliked. We complain about how our country is run and it's the same ole, same ole no matter who we vote for.

But let's use a scenario to illustrate my point. Let's say that the Major league Baseball commission decided that their fans should be able to pick their team members. They will allow the city to set up the parameters as to how this is done.

In your city, all citizens are able to vote on team members. In my city, the Cleveland Indians, only those well versed and educated on the sport of Baseball are able to vote.

Which city do you think will have a better team, yours or mine?

Mine of course. That's because people ignorant of the sport (such as myself) would not be able to vote on players. Your city on the other hand would have people voting on players by how good looking they are, how they dress, vote based on race or ethnicity.

So it's not a wonder why we have a losing team no matter what when it comes to politics. We have way.....way too many politically ignorant people voting on politics.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Paying taxes should be a requirement for citizenship let alone voting.
IMO - some amount of taxes should be paid by everyone but active military.

EVERYONE pays taxes....

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.....

WE fought a Revolution over it....and NOW you want it to be just the opposite?

We LIVE in a representative Nation, a Democratic REPUBLIC....

SORRY Buddy, your class warfare against the poorest, just ain't cutting it....

Every one gets representation, not just the wealthier....

BESIDES there are so many many many things that our representatives represent us for...drug laws, driving laws, EPA laws, school boards that affect our children, etc etc etc that don't necessarily even involve whether we have paid an income tax or not....

POLL TAXES are ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL... got it yet?

Requiring to have paid an income tax in order to vote IS A POLL TAX, a tax that would have to be paid before voting.

Give it up, there is no way around that!

Then maybe a better idea is a simple test to see if a potential voter knows WTF they are even voting on.

Nothing too hard: Who is the President? What party does the VP belong to? What party is leading Congress today? The Senate today? Is the US in debt and for how much? Things like that........

If you can't pass the test, you lose your right to vote for that election.

Republicans would welcome the idea with open arms, but the Democrats would be protesting in the street.

You confirm my past accusations that what conservatives really want is an oligarchy.

In a way, yes. Only those who understand politics and issues should be voting on them. The problem we have today is voters who really don't know WTF they are voting on. You know, Obama Money? Obama give us a free cell phone?

We have people going to the polls who don't even understand the rudiments of our country yet alone the current state of affairs. As I pointed out, Democrats heavily rely on this bunch to gain or maintain power which is why they would reject such a proposal.

You are effectively rejecting democracy as a viable form of government, IOW, as a failed form of government.

 

[Slyhunter]

Should paying taxes be a requirement to vote? It's like letting people who don't own stock, vote on company activities, compensation, policies, etc

Nuts.

Just plain nuts

No, you should not have to pay taxes, but you shouldn't be getting a check of other people's money. That's a clear conflict of interest, the opportunity to vote yourself money. But I see no reason someone self sufficient who doesn't take government money or give government money should be cut out of the process

Many seniors pay no income taxes....Yet they never get a govt. check for welfare..You want to alienate them also?

Seniors die and don't have as much at stake as young people as to who will lead our country. So sure.

 

[Moonglow]

Should paying taxes be a requirement to vote? It's like letting people who don't own stock, vote on company activities, compensation, policies, etc

Nuts.

Just plain nuts

No, you should not have to pay taxes, but you shouldn't be getting a check of other people's money. That's a clear conflict of interest, the opportunity to vote yourself money. But I see no reason someone self sufficient who doesn't take government money or give government money should be cut out of the process

Many seniors pay no income taxes....Yet they never get a govt. check for welfare..You want to alienate them also?

Seniors die and don't have as much at stake as young people as to who will lead our country. So sure.

But who will perform in the commercials like, where's the beef?

 

[Kondor3]

Except your PERIOD is a load of shite....

Probably get a little hard on at the talk of every war... Another clueless individual....

How is reducing the US military by half give anyone a chance of taking on US....

Sorry, no. War should be the last resort. After everything else has failed.
And sorry, friend but I am not clueless either.
Again, if after WWII - the U.S. clammed up, withdrew from all theaters and buried it's head in the sand like after WWI - the world would be a very, very different place right now.
If we had not occupied Japan as well as had very strong military presence in Europe after the war - Russia would be the super power of the world, and probably would have either joined with China, or had one big ass war with them. Probably joined.
There would be no South Korea. North Korea would be KOREA.
There would be no Israel. And the Middle East?...Hah!...nothing but one giant oil farm feeding Russia.

If we had stayed out of WWI, there'd have been no Hitler.

Untrue.

Hitler would have been Gauleiter of Cincinnati.

His fanatical allegiance to the Imperial Crown would have propelled him out of the ranks of worker bees.

The Allies would have not had the power to crush Germany at Versailles in 1919 without the massive assistance of the US. The Nazis rose to power in the only environment they could have, severe misery in Germany.

Without the Americans, the Germans would probably have won WWI, against their French and British adversaries, even though it might have dragged on into 1920 or 1921 or 1922.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Paying taxes should be a requirement for citizenship let alone voting.
IMO - some amount of taxes should be paid by everyone but active military.

EVERYONE pays taxes....

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.....

WE fought a Revolution over it....and NOW you want it to be just the opposite?

We LIVE in a representative Nation, a Democratic REPUBLIC....

SORRY Buddy, your class warfare against the poorest, just ain't cutting it....

Every one gets representation, not just the wealthier....

BESIDES there are so many many many things that our representatives represent us for...drug laws, driving laws, EPA laws, school boards that affect our children, etc etc etc that don't necessarily even involve whether we have paid an income tax or not....

POLL TAXES are ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL... got it yet?

Requiring to have paid an income tax in order to vote IS A POLL TAX, a tax that would have to be paid before voting.

Give it up, there is no way around that!

Then maybe a better idea is a simple test to see if a potential voter knows WTF they are even voting on.

Nothing too hard: Who is the President? What party does the VP belong to? What party is leading Congress today? The Senate today? Is the US in debt and for how much? Things like that........

If you can't pass the test, you lose your right to vote for that election.

Republicans would welcome the idea with open arms, but the Democrats would be protesting in the street.

You confirm my past accusations that what conservatives really want is an oligarchy.

In a way, yes. Only those who understand politics and issues should be voting on them. The problem we have today is voters who really don't know WTF they are voting on. You know, Obama Money? Obama give us a free cell phone?

We have people going to the polls who don't even understand the rudiments of our country yet alone the current state of affairs. As I pointed out, Democrats heavily rely on this bunch to gain or maintain power which is why they would reject such a proposal.

You are effectively rejecting democracy as a viable form of government, IOW, as a failed form of government.

Well.....we don't have a government of democracy, we have a government of an elected Republic. You know "And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands."

 

[NYcarbineer]

EVERYONE pays taxes....

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.....

WE fought a Revolution over it....and NOW you want it to be just the opposite?

We LIVE in a representative Nation, a Democratic REPUBLIC....

SORRY Buddy, your class warfare against the poorest, just ain't cutting it....

Every one gets representation, not just the wealthier....

BESIDES there are so many many many things that our representatives represent us for...drug laws, driving laws, EPA laws, school boards that affect our children, etc etc etc that don't necessarily even involve whether we have paid an income tax or not....

POLL TAXES are ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL... got it yet?

Requiring to have paid an income tax in order to vote IS A POLL TAX, a tax that would have to be paid before voting.

Give it up, there is no way around that!

Then maybe a better idea is a simple test to see if a potential voter knows WTF they are even voting on.

Nothing too hard: Who is the President? What party does the VP belong to? What party is leading Congress today? The Senate today? Is the US in debt and for how much? Things like that........

If you can't pass the test, you lose your right to vote for that election.

Republicans would welcome the idea with open arms, but the Democrats would be protesting in the street.

You confirm my past accusations that what conservatives really want is an oligarchy.

In a way, yes. Only those who understand politics and issues should be voting on them. The problem we have today is voters who really don't know WTF they are voting on. You know, Obama Money? Obama give us a free cell phone?

We have people going to the polls who don't even understand the rudiments of our country yet alone the current state of affairs. As I pointed out, Democrats heavily rely on this bunch to gain or maintain power which is why they would reject such a proposal.

You are effectively rejecting democracy as a viable form of government, IOW, as a failed form of government.

Well.....we don't have a government of democracy, we have a government of an elected Republic. You know "And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands."

Wrong. A representative democracy is a democratic Republic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why not just make it requirement of voting that you must denounce in an affidavit that you reject the nonsensical notion that the Earth was created according to the tale told in Genesis of the Bible,

if for no other reason that to prove that you're rational?

 

[Moonglow]

Except your PERIOD is a load of shite....

Probably get a little hard on at the talk of every war... Another clueless individual....

How is reducing the US military by half give anyone a chance of taking on US....

Sorry, no. War should be the last resort. After everything else has failed.
And sorry, friend but I am not clueless either.
Again, if after WWII - the U.S. clammed up, withdrew from all theaters and buried it's head in the sand like after WWI - the world would be a very, very different place right now.
If we had not occupied Japan as well as had very strong military presence in Europe after the war - Russia would be the super power of the world, and probably would have either joined with China, or had one big ass war with them. Probably joined.
There would be no South Korea. North Korea would be KOREA.
There would be no Israel. And the Middle East?...Hah!...nothing but one giant oil farm feeding Russia.

If we had stayed out of WWI, there'd have been no Hitler.

Untrue.

Hitler would have been Gauleiter of Cincinnati.

His fanatical allegiance to the Imperial Crown would have propelled him out of the ranks of worker bees.

The Allies would have not had the power to crush Germany at Versailles in 1919 without the massive assistance of the US. The Nazis rose to power in the only environment they could have, severe misery in Germany.

Without the Americans, the Germans would probably have won WWI, against their French and British adversaries, even though it might have dragged on into 1920 or 1921 or 1922.

France owed the US 40 billion, no way was the US going to let them lose...

 

[Moonglow]

EVERYONE pays taxes....

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.....

WE fought a Revolution over it....and NOW you want it to be just the opposite?

We LIVE in a representative Nation, a Democratic REPUBLIC....

SORRY Buddy, your class warfare against the poorest, just ain't cutting it....

Every one gets representation, not just the wealthier....

BESIDES there are so many many many things that our representatives represent us for...drug laws, driving laws, EPA laws, school boards that affect our children, etc etc etc that don't necessarily even involve whether we have paid an income tax or not....

POLL TAXES are ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL... got it yet?

Requiring to have paid an income tax in order to vote IS A POLL TAX, a tax that would have to be paid before voting.

Give it up, there is no way around that!

Then maybe a better idea is a simple test to see if a potential voter knows WTF they are even voting on.

Nothing too hard: Who is the President? What party does the VP belong to? What party is leading Congress today? The Senate today? Is the US in debt and for how much? Things like that........

If you can't pass the test, you lose your right to vote for that election.

Republicans would welcome the idea with open arms, but the Democrats would be protesting in the street.

You confirm my past accusations that what conservatives really want is an oligarchy.

In a way, yes. Only those who understand politics and issues should be voting on them. The problem we have today is voters who really don't know WTF they are voting on. You know, Obama Money? Obama give us a free cell phone?

We have people going to the polls who don't even understand the rudiments of our country yet alone the current state of affairs. As I pointed out, Democrats heavily rely on this bunch to gain or maintain power which is why they would reject such a proposal.

You are effectively rejecting democracy as a viable form of government, IOW, as a failed form of government.

Well.....we don't have a government of democracy, we have a government of an elected Republic. You know "And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands."

You just don"t like that liberty thing..

 

[ChrisL]

No because voting is a right. Don't mess around with our rights.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why not just make it requirement of voting that you must denounce in an affidavit that you reject the nonsensical notion that the Earth was created according to the tale told in Genesis of the Bible,

if for no other reason that to prove that you're rational?

That could also apply to man made global warming. It's just as reliable of a concept as a flat earth.

What I said are "general" questions that any voter who votes should know--not partisan issues. That is unless you (as a liberal) believe that it's partisan to know what party leads the Congress......

 

[SwimExpert]

Why taxes? What is so special about taxes? We all have to live with the effect of government in many more ways than taxes. How about we make it real skin in the game? Only people who have children can vote. After all, isn't the real point to make the country a better place? People without children don't have any skin in that game. They'll just vote themselves benefits of not having children, forcing parents to pay for it.

That's about as logical as any of the other nonsense in this thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why not just make it requirement of voting that you must denounce in an affidavit that you reject the nonsensical notion that the Earth was created according to the tale told in Genesis of the Bible,

if for no other reason that to prove that you're rational?

That could also apply to man made global warming. It's just as reliable of a concept as a flat earth.

What I said are "general" questions that any voter who votes should know--not partisan issues. That is unless you (as a liberal) believe that it's partisan to know what party leads the Congress......

What you said a voter should know was idiocy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then maybe a better idea is a simple test to see if a potential voter knows WTF they are even voting on.

Nothing too hard: Who is the President? What party does the VP belong to? What party is leading Congress today? The Senate today? Is the US in debt and for how much? Things like that........

If you can't pass the test, you lose your right to vote for that election.

Republicans would welcome the idea with open arms, but the Democrats would be protesting in the street.

You confirm my past accusations that what conservatives really want is an oligarchy.

In a way, yes. Only those who understand politics and issues should be voting on them. The problem we have today is voters who really don't know WTF they are voting on. You know, Obama Money? Obama give us a free cell phone?

We have people going to the polls who don't even understand the rudiments of our country yet alone the current state of affairs. As I pointed out, Democrats heavily rely on this bunch to gain or maintain power which is why they would reject such a proposal.

You are effectively rejecting democracy as a viable form of government, IOW, as a failed form of government.

Well.....we don't have a government of democracy, we have a government of an elected Republic. You know "And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands."

Wrong. A representative democracy is a democratic Republic.

No it isn't. A Democracy is a system where the majority rules each and every time. A representative Republic is where you choose leaders to make decisions on behalf of what they believe is right or wrong on behalf of the country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You confirm my past accusations that what conservatives really want is an oligarchy.

In a way, yes. Only those who understand politics and issues should be voting on them. The problem we have today is voters who really don't know WTF they are voting on. You know, Obama Money? Obama give us a free cell phone?

We have people going to the polls who don't even understand the rudiments of our country yet alone the current state of affairs. As I pointed out, Democrats heavily rely on this bunch to gain or maintain power which is why they would reject such a proposal.

You are effectively rejecting democracy as a viable form of government, IOW, as a failed form of government.

Well.....we don't have a government of democracy, we have a government of an elected Republic. You know "And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands."

Wrong. A representative democracy is a democratic Republic.

No it isn't. A Democracy is a system where the majority rules each and every time. A representative Republic is where you choose leaders to make decisions on behalf of what they believe is right or wrong on behalf of the country.

A majority elect the representatives. A majority of the representatives are required to pass laws.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why not just make it requirement of voting that you must denounce in an affidavit that you reject the nonsensical notion that the Earth was created according to the tale told in Genesis of the Bible,

if for no other reason that to prove that you're rational?

That could also apply to man made global warming. It's just as reliable of a concept as a flat earth.

What I said are "general" questions that any voter who votes should know--not partisan issues. That is unless you (as a liberal) believe that it's partisan to know what party leads the Congress......

What you said a voter should know was idiocy.

It's idiocy to expect a voter to know who leads the Congress? What party the VP belongs to? What the national debt is and what it means to the Republic? That's idiocy in the liberal mind???

It's not that I don't understand your resentment: many Democrat voters don't know these things. In fact, if we were ever able to make it a requirement, Democrat leadership would only be known in history books.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You confirm my past accusations that what conservatives really want is an oligarchy.

In a way, yes. Only those who understand politics and issues should be voting on them. The problem we have today is voters who really don't know WTF they are voting on. You know, Obama Money? Obama give us a free cell phone?

We have people going to the polls who don't even understand the rudiments of our country yet alone the current state of affairs. As I pointed out, Democrats heavily rely on this bunch to gain or maintain power which is why they would reject such a proposal.

You are effectively rejecting democracy as a viable form of government, IOW, as a failed form of government.

Well.....we don't have a government of democracy, we have a government of an elected Republic. You know "And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands."

Wrong. A representative democracy is a democratic Republic.

No it isn't. A Democracy is a system where the majority rules each and every time. A representative Republic is where you choose leaders to make decisions on behalf of what they believe is right or wrong on behalf of the country.

You've never heard of representative democracy. Oops, you failed the test to qualify to vote. Praise the Lord!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In a way, yes. Only those who understand politics and issues should be voting on them. The problem we have today is voters who really don't know WTF they are voting on. You know, Obama Money? Obama give us a free cell phone?

We have people going to the polls who don't even understand the rudiments of our country yet alone the current state of affairs. As I pointed out, Democrats heavily rely on this bunch to gain or maintain power which is why they would reject such a proposal.

You are effectively rejecting democracy as a viable form of government, IOW, as a failed form of government.

Well.....we don't have a government of democracy, we have a government of an elected Republic. You know "And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands."

Wrong. A representative democracy is a democratic Republic.

No it isn't. A Democracy is a system where the majority rules each and every time. A representative Republic is where you choose leaders to make decisions on behalf of what they believe is right or wrong on behalf of the country.

A majority elect the representatives. A majority of the representatives are required to pass laws.

Correct, but that is not a democracy.