The So-And-So Vote

[NightFox]

You're correct of course, that is how corporations are run; however the objectives of corporations are not the same as the (desired) objectives of government, corporations (generally speaking) are engaged in the pursuit of profit, governments on the other hand are instituted to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizenry.

Is that what you think government is doing when they take your health care choices away and tell you how things are going to be from now on? When they pass massive regulations and mandates driving business out of the country and killing your jobs? When they continue to grab more and more of the fruits of your labor to pay for freebies they dole out to the dependent class in order to get their votes?

You'll note that what I said was "instituted to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizenry" ... nowhere did I indicate that I believed that was what the federal government of the United States was currently limited to, if I had my way the federal government wouldn't be engaged in the vast bulk of what it is currently engaged in now.

No! The more GOVERNMENT you have, the less FREEDOM you get.

You'll get no argument from me on that point, however your proposal would immediately alter our society from the quasi-plutocracy that it currently is into an full blown plutocracy as the top percentiles of the income ladder quickly figured out that by pooling their voting power they could dictate the occupants of every nationally elected office. By doing so they would have absolute control of the federal government and national elections would be pointless. Taxes would also be pointless as our new rulers could easily pay as much as they needed to in taxes to acquire the voting power necessary to maintain control and then simply redirect that money back to themselves via their de facto control over the legislative and executive branches.

Kudos for thinking outside the box though.

 

[Boss]

You're correct of course, that is how corporations are run; however the objectives of corporations are not the same as the (desired) objectives of government, corporations (generally speaking) are engaged in the pursuit of profit, governments on the other hand are instituted to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizenry.

Is that what you think government is doing when they take your health care choices away and tell you how things are going to be from now on? When they pass massive regulations and mandates driving business out of the country and killing your jobs? When they continue to grab more and more of the fruits of your labor to pay for freebies they dole out to the dependent class in order to get their votes?

You'll note that what I said was "instituted to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizenry" ... nowhere did I indicate that I believed that was what the federal government of the United States was currently limited to, if I had my way the federal government wouldn't be engaged in the vast bulk of what it is currently engaged in now.

But no one (probably including yourself) would vote for a candidate who vowed to return us to the sort of government you claim you think we should be... if we had your way. You can SAY you would, but you know that someone who got up and said... I'm going to bring home any bacon for you... I don't think we need to be doing 90% of what we are doing now... not going to promise you anything... many things you have now are going away if I am elected... How many votes would they get?

We're accustomed (on both sides) to want our politicians to "do something for us." We rationalize that if there is money to be handed out, our state or 'group' should get it's share... or someone else will.

No! The more GOVERNMENT you have, the less FREEDOM you get.

You'll get no argument from me on that point, however your proposal would immediately alter our society from the quasi-plutocracy that it currently is into an full blown plutocracy as the top percentiles of the income ladder quickly figured out that by pooling their voting power they could dictate the occupants of every nationally elected office. By doing so they would have absolute control of the federal government and national elections would be pointless. Taxes would also be pointless as our new rulers could easily pay as much as they needed to in taxes to acquire the voting power necessary to maintain control and then simply redirect that money back to themselves via their de facto control over the legislative and executive branches.

Kudos for thinking outside the box though.

Again, I am merely relaying a philosophical argument made by Economics professor at George Mason, Dr. Walter E. Williams. It's his argument, I am just presenting it. In his proposal, everyone would get a vote for just being an American citizen. Then you would get an extra vote if you paid net taxes up to.. say 10k. From 10k-500k would get a third vote. from 500k to a million or above, a fourth. This would not mean the wealthy control every race. It means those who pay the highest amount in taxes have more voting influence than those who pay no tax. And so what if they have that influence? What are they going to do with it that they can't already do now? Capitalism still depends on the consumer. If things aren't economically prosperous you can't make profit.

As I said... we might be more inclined to decrease the tax rate for the higher earners to keep them under the threshold. At the same time, everyone would strive to get to their second vote! Your so-called middle class now has double the voting power. Of course, the whiners are the losers who don't pay any tax and only get their one vote. However... when you factor in how many of their dead and illegal people vote...

 

[NightFox]

But no one (probably including yourself) would vote for a candidate who vowed to return us to the sort of government you claim you think we should be... if we had your way. You can SAY you would, but you know that someone who got up and said... I'm going to bring home any bacon for you... I don't think we need to be doing 90% of what we are doing now... not going to promise you anything... many things you have now are going away if I am elected... How many votes would they get?

I'm not disputing that, our electorate tends to vote based on their own personal self interest regardless of the consequences involved for everybody else, I however only want government to leave me the hell alone; so yes I'd support the candidate that vows to shutdown 90% of the government and leave me to my own devices; of course I don't trust politicians so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on ANY of politician to keep his/her campaign promises. That's the problem with voting, campaign promises aren't binding and you can't recall your vote.

Again, I am merely relaying a philosophical argument made by Economics professor at George Mason, Dr. Walter E. Williams. It's his argument, I am just presenting it. In his proposal, everyone would get a vote for just being an American citizen. Then you would get an extra vote if you paid net taxes up to.. say 10k. From 10k-500k would get a third vote. from 500k to a million or above, a fourth. This would not mean the wealthy control every race. It means those who pay the highest amount in taxes have more voting influence than those who pay no tax. And so what if they have that influence? What are they going to do with it that they can't already do now? Capitalism still depends on the consumer. If things aren't economically prosperous you can't make profit.

As I said... we might be more inclined to decrease the tax rate for the higher earners to keep them under the threshold. At the same time, everyone would strive to get to their second vote! Your so-called middle class now has double the voting power. Of course, the whiners are the losers who don't pay any tax and only get their one vote. However... when you factor in how many of their dead and illegal people vote...

I understand where you are coming from and as I said I am a (long time) admirer of Dr. Williams and his ideas, however on this particular premise I can only conclude that it's an idea that would further institutionalize the current plutocratic system. The problem as I see it is that we have hit the scalability wall with respect to Democracy since we have allowed the federal government to grow so far beyond the bounds of what the Constitution was intended to chain it with that altering the voting system will simply allow those already in control to manipulate any such alterations in their favor at the expense of the general citizenry.

Personally I think the only way to address the problems that you outlined so well in your OP is devolve power back down to the lowest level possible since that forces voters (and their immediate neighbors) to be most directly affected by the consequences of their votes (as Jefferson pointed out numerous times). It's easy to use your vote to loot people that live far away from you, not so easy to use your vote to loot your next door neighbor.

 

[Boss]

I can only conclude that it's an idea that would further institutionalize the current plutocratic system.

But I don't think it would because we're really not a plutocracy even though it feels that way sometimes. Right now, you have those at the top who are buying politicians so they can get advantages, lower their taxes, obtain loopholes, etc. Imagine the opposite... lobbying for higher taxes, fewer loopholes, because that gives them more voting power. At the same time, the general citizenry is lobbying for the taxes of the high-earners to be lowered so as to limit their voting power. If you had 0% corporate tax, how much tax would you pay?

You would end up with most people getting 1 vote as they do now. Then you'd have a significant group in the middle who got 2 votes for paying some taxes. Only a handful would pay enough to get that third vote and virtually no one would have four. So the real political power would be in the middle... where it should be.

Personally I think the only way to address the problems that you outlined so well in your OP is devolve power back down to the lowest level possible since that forces voters (and their immediate neighbors) to be most directly affected by the consequences of their votes (as Jefferson pointed out numerous times). It's easy to use your vote to loot people that live far away from you, not so easy to use your vote to loot your next door neighbor.

I agree totally. I am a big supporter of Mark Levin's state conventions idea under Article V. Repeal the 17th and return the Senate back to the state legislatures so the states have representation in government again. His idea is the only way I can see us rolling anything back because the politicians in DC are not going to do this on their own. When you have the power you don't willingly give it up.

 

[Montrovant]

Why is money so often looked at as the measuring stick in politics? Skin in the game.....why not only have veterans allowed to vote, regardless of income or taxes, as you don't really have 'skin in the game' unless you've risked your life for your country? And hey, why not restrict it to veterans who have been in combat, since you don't really have 'skin in the game' unless you've fought for your country?

If paying taxes is required to vote, would all housewives and househusbands lose the right to vote? What about retired people who don't pay taxes? Someone who has become physically disabled and cannot find work?

Why is it only those who don't pay taxes will vote for those who give them 'free stuff'? What, paying taxes means you don't want to get 'free stuff'?

As far as treating government like a corporation, I think NightFox has stated quite well why that is not a good idea. In theory, at least, government should have quite different goals from a business.

The only voting restriction I might be able to get behind would be some sort of basic civics test, knowledge of the most fundamental ways our government works. However, even there, the problem arises that government functions differently depending on the level you are talking about; local, state, federal governments are not always the same. Then you get into questions of whether a separate test must be administered to allow someone to vote for each type of election, how often such testing is done, etc. etc..

Restricting voting rights should not be the go-to solution for trying to fix whatever perceived problems are afflicting the nation.

To more directly speak to the OP, while I agree that people probably vote for what the government will do for them, I would guess that has always been the case. I don't know that there is any way around that. No matter who is voting they will likely vote in their own best interests; even when voting for what they might consider best for the country, it is going to be intertwined with their own best interests.

 

[Boss]

Why is money so often looked at as the measuring stick in politics? Skin in the game.....why not only have veterans allowed to vote, regardless of income or taxes, as you don't really have 'skin in the game' unless you've risked your life for your country? And hey, why not restrict it to veterans who have been in combat, since you don't really have 'skin in the game' unless you've fought for your country?

If paying taxes is required to vote, would all housewives and househusbands lose the right to vote? What about retired people who don't pay taxes? Someone who has become physically disabled and cannot find work?

Why is it only those who don't pay taxes will vote for those who give them 'free stuff'? What, paying taxes means you don't want to get 'free stuff'?

As far as treating government like a corporation, I think NightFox has stated quite well why that is not a good idea. In theory, at least, government should have quite different goals from a business.

The only voting restriction I might be able to get behind would be some sort of basic civics test, knowledge of the most fundamental ways our government works. However, even there, the problem arises that government functions differently depending on the level you are talking about; local, state, federal governments are not always the same. Then you get into questions of whether a separate test must be administered to allow someone to vote for each type of election, how often such testing is done, etc. etc..

Restricting voting rights should not be the go-to solution for trying to fix whatever perceived problems are afflicting the nation.

To more directly speak to the OP, while I agree that people probably vote for what the government will do for them, I would guess that has always been the case. I don't know that there is any way around that. No matter who is voting they will likely vote in their own best interests; even when voting for what they might consider best for the country, it is going to be intertwined with their own best interests.

Stop being a nit wit. We can't have just veterans voting or we're a government run by the military industrial complex. You think that would be a GOOD thing? And only combat vets... so we have to engage in a war every so often in order to have voters? Try thinking with your head for a change... the OTHER head!

And no one proposed that ONLY tax payers get to vote. Dr. Williams suggestion was that everyone gets one vote just for being a citizen. Additional votes are awarded on the basis of tax liability. This would have several desirable effects... there would be no more of this bullshit about jacking up the tax rates of the so-called "wealthy" people... (note that the upper income earners are not always wealthy.) And, there wouldn't be any problem getting people to pay their damn taxes. They would WANT to pay them in order to get their extra vote. The "political influence" in such a scheme would favor the middle class taxpayer and that's how it should be.

And I don't think it has ALWAYS been the case that people vote for whoever is going to do things for them, that's just how it seems because that's how we've been for a long time. It probably really kicked in about the time of the Great Depression. Prior to that, people tended to vote for the candidate who would do the best thing for the country. We didn't believe the Federal government should be doing all this shit for us. People had pride and wanted to do things for themselves. If they didn't earn it they didn't feel they were entitled to it. All that changed and now we live in an entitlement society where everybody thinks the government is there to hand out "free stuff" and NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS EVER FREE!

 

[candycorn]

An unusual valid point from the OP. Very limited in scope but a valid point.

Look; anyone who says you'll pay no income taxes or you'll pay nothing for the bounty that is provided for you by this nation is lying to you.

And yes, YOU are receiving a bounty. Clean air regulations, safe roads, safe water, safe streets, safe airwaves; national secuirty, someone not copying your work and selling it as their own. All of that costs money--and yes more money than you have ever paid in taxes.

I vote for values. Center-left is my position. Anyone who is speaking to my values gets a hearing. Because they will, hopefully, appoint center-left positioned jurists.

Will I always agree with them? No because I'm not center-left on everything.

 

[Montrovant]

Why is money so often looked at as the measuring stick in politics? Skin in the game.....why not only have veterans allowed to vote, regardless of income or taxes, as you don't really have 'skin in the game' unless you've risked your life for your country? And hey, why not restrict it to veterans who have been in combat, since you don't really have 'skin in the game' unless you've fought for your country?

If paying taxes is required to vote, would all housewives and househusbands lose the right to vote? What about retired people who don't pay taxes? Someone who has become physically disabled and cannot find work?

Why is it only those who don't pay taxes will vote for those who give them 'free stuff'? What, paying taxes means you don't want to get 'free stuff'?

As far as treating government like a corporation, I think NightFox has stated quite well why that is not a good idea. In theory, at least, government should have quite different goals from a business.

The only voting restriction I might be able to get behind would be some sort of basic civics test, knowledge of the most fundamental ways our government works. However, even there, the problem arises that government functions differently depending on the level you are talking about; local, state, federal governments are not always the same. Then you get into questions of whether a separate test must be administered to allow someone to vote for each type of election, how often such testing is done, etc. etc..

Restricting voting rights should not be the go-to solution for trying to fix whatever perceived problems are afflicting the nation.

To more directly speak to the OP, while I agree that people probably vote for what the government will do for them, I would guess that has always been the case. I don't know that there is any way around that. No matter who is voting they will likely vote in their own best interests; even when voting for what they might consider best for the country, it is going to be intertwined with their own best interests.

Stop being a nit wit. We can't have just veterans voting or we're a government run by the military industrial complex. You think that would be a GOOD thing? And only combat vets... so we have to engage in a war every so often in order to have voters? Try thinking with your head for a change... the OTHER head!

And no one proposed that ONLY tax payers get to vote. Dr. Williams suggestion was that everyone gets one vote just for being a citizen. Additional votes are awarded on the basis of tax liability. This would have several desirable effects... there would be no more of this bullshit about jacking up the tax rates of the so-called "wealthy" people... (note that the upper income earners are not always wealthy.) And, there wouldn't be any problem getting people to pay their damn taxes. They would WANT to pay them in order to get their extra vote. The "political influence" in such a scheme would favor the middle class taxpayer and that's how it should be.

And I don't think it has ALWAYS been the case that people vote for whoever is going to do things for them, that's just how it seems because that's how we've been for a long time. It probably really kicked in about the time of the Great Depression. Prior to that, people tended to vote for the candidate who would do the best thing for the country. We didn't believe the Federal government should be doing all this shit for us. People had pride and wanted to do things for themselves. If they didn't earn it they didn't feel they were entitled to it. All that changed and now we live in an entitlement society where everybody thinks the government is there to hand out "free stuff" and NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS EVER FREE!

You clearly missed the sarcasm of my post. No, I don't think that only veterans having the vote is a good idea. In fact, I said that the only type of voting restriction I might be amenable to would be a very basic civics test. I was simply using another example of restricting voting to a particular group, one that might be perceived as having 'skin in the game' and therefore deserving of the right to vote where others are not. It was done as a way to point out what I see as the flaws in the 'only taxpayers should vote' argument.

And yes, it absolutely has been proposed in this thread that only taxpayers be able to vote. Here, I'll quote for you :

We should go back to that again where only taxpayers can vote.

The idea that only people who pay taxes should be able to vote, specifically federal income taxes, isn't that uncommon. It has certainly been brought up numerous times on this site, and as I just showed, in this thread. I didn't claim that YOU proposed it.

I disagree with the idea of additional votes based on tax liability. Again, I think NightFox did an excellent job pointing out the flaws in such a system and don't see a need to reiterate them.

I don't think there is any way to measure the reasons for people's votes, particularly in the past, but I believe you mentioned a connection between voting self-interest and human nature. That sounds reasonable to me and, as I don't think human nature has undergone any massive changes which would effect the reasons people vote in recent history (or recorded history, for that matter), I believe that voting in self-interest has always been a very common thing. As far as voting for 'free stuff'....sure, there are likely quite a few people who vote in hopes they will get free stuff. I think the idea is blown way out of proportion, though. I also think that what form the 'free stuff' takes is usually important to a person's sense of offense at such votes; food stamps and housing garner a lot more ire than corporate subsidies or college grants, for example.

 

[Boss]

I disagree with the idea of additional votes based on tax liability. Again, I think NightFox did an excellent job pointing out the flaws in such a system and don't see a need to reiterate them.

But I refuted the flaws he pointed out in my follow up. Did you not read that? The fear that only the wealthy would control political power and we'd be a plutocracy is invalid. That was his argument. Now, if we had a plan where only the wealthy got to vote based on their wealth, that would be a plutocracy. However, that wasn't what was proposed.

First of all, MOST wealthy people don't pay taxes... not earned income tax anyway. You see... they've already EARNED their incomes... that's why they are now wealthy. They earned incomes and paid their taxes when they earned their wealth. Now they are wealthy and don't need to earn incomes anymore. When you raise the top marginal tax rates you don't hurt wealthy people... they don't need to earn incomes. You hurt people who are trying to become wealthy... mostly small businesses who file as individuals.

But under the Williams plan, there wouldn't be this extremist "cause" based around wealth envy, to jack up the top marginal tax rates because that would simply give top marginal taxpayers more votes. We would begin to see a trend of LOWERING their tax rates to prevent them from gaining more votes and political power. Meanwhile, at the lower end, everyone will WANT to pay SOME tax so they can get that second vote. The MIDDLE is who wins.

 

[Montrovant]

I read what you posted and disagree with it. I disagree, with the very concept of giving people more votes based on income or taxes paid. It is telling people through government policy that their income determines their worth. At least now there is an illusion of equality.

If, as everything I've ever seen on the subject indicates, the top earners pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes, either they would have too much power under such a system by having far more votes than the rest of the country, or they would not get enough 'extra' votes to wield much extra power, and then what is the point of that system in the first place other than to denigrate those who make less money?

And of course, in the end, I'm sure the wealthiest people would find a way to influence the government to their liking one way or another. I imagine that has been the case in just about every human society that's existed.

 

[Boss]

I read what you posted and disagree with it. I disagree, with the very concept of giving people more votes based on income or taxes paid. It is telling people through government policy that their income determines their worth. At least now there is an illusion of equality.

If, as everything I've ever seen on the subject indicates, the top earners pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes, either they would have too much power under such a system by having far more votes than the rest of the country, or they would not get enough 'extra' votes to wield much extra power, and then what is the point of that system in the first place other than to denigrate those who make less money?

And of course, in the end, I'm sure the wealthiest people would find a way to influence the government to their liking one way or another. I imagine that has been the case in just about every human society that's existed.

Well the philosophical point of Williams' argument is, this is how every major corporation operates. The people who own the most shares are the people who have the most voting power in the board room.

Top earners would not have "far more votes" they would have one extra vote if they paid enough in taxes. The middle would still have plenty more votes to offset the few at the top so political influence would not shift toward the high earners any more than currently. It would shift away from the dependent class who pay NO taxes. They would lose about half their voting power. I think that is a GOOD thing. It has nothing to do with "denigrating" them, it's about who gets the most say on what to do with the money... those who contribute vs. those who don't.

I'll tell you what... here's an exercise to see how your thinking works in practice... I don't know if you earn a paycheck or get a government check, but the next time you get a check... take half the money and go find a homeless person to give it to! Explain to them what you HOPE they will spend it on... (your bills) and explain how you are giving it to them because you want to avoid denigrating them. Let's see how that plan works out for you?

 

[Montrovant]

I read what you posted and disagree with it. I disagree, with the very concept of giving people more votes based on income or taxes paid. It is telling people through government policy that their income determines their worth. At least now there is an illusion of equality.

If, as everything I've ever seen on the subject indicates, the top earners pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes, either they would have too much power under such a system by having far more votes than the rest of the country, or they would not get enough 'extra' votes to wield much extra power, and then what is the point of that system in the first place other than to denigrate those who make less money?

And of course, in the end, I'm sure the wealthiest people would find a way to influence the government to their liking one way or another. I imagine that has been the case in just about every human society that's existed.

Well the philosophical point of Williams' argument is, this is how every major corporation operates. The people who own the most shares are the people who have the most voting power in the board room.

Top earners would not have "far more votes" they would have one extra vote if they paid enough in taxes. The middle would still have plenty more votes to offset the few at the top so political influence would not shift toward the high earners any more than currently. It would shift away from the dependent class who pay NO taxes. They would lose about half their voting power. I think that is a GOOD thing. It has nothing to do with "denigrating" them, it's about who gets the most say on what to do with the money... those who contribute vs. those who don't.

I'll tell you what... here's an exercise to see how your thinking works in practice... I don't know if you earn a paycheck or get a government check, but the next time you get a check... take half the money and go find a homeless person to give it to! Explain to them what you HOPE they will spend it on... (your bills) and explain how you are giving it to them because you want to avoid denigrating them. Let's see how that plan works out for you?

Plenty of people 'contribute' without earning income. For a long time that was the norm in this country; men generally earned wages while women stayed at home, raised children and took care of the house. While that is not the norm it once was, there are still probably millions of housewives and househusbands out there who earn no income and would have less of a voice under a tax based system.

If the top earners would only have one extra vote, what is the point? It seems to be to limit the voting rights of those that you (or Williams) deem less worthy. It is the idea that income determines worth again. It is the idea that not paying federal income taxes makes one dependent.....although, considering your claim that most wealthy people don't pay taxes (or at least income taxes) I have to wonder how you define dependent.

Your argument seems to boil down to the same basics as the 'only federal income tax payers should get to vote' proponents.....that paying income tax makes one more worthy of influence on the country, or that one must pay income tax to have 'skin in the game'. I reject that notion. This is a country, not a corporation. The function of government is not to accrue profits. To run the country as though it is a business would be foolish. There are certainly business-like decisions to be made by governments, but the model for one does not translate to the other. One need not pay income tax to be a functional, contributing member of society. Nor does paying taxes confer any wisdom when it comes to voting decisions.

I see this as the wrong solution for the perceived problem.

 

[Boss]

Plenty of people 'contribute' without earning income. For a long time that was the norm in this country; men generally earned wages while women stayed at home, raised children and took care of the house. While that is not the norm it once was, there are still probably millions of housewives and househusbands out there who earn no income and would have less of a voice under a tax based system.

No they file joint tax returns so the stay-at-home housewife gets the same number of votes as her husband.

Your argument seems to boil down to the same basics as the 'only federal income tax payers should get to vote' proponents...

No because Williams' argument is that everyone gets a vote. You still have a sizable portion who don't pay taxes who would still have political influence.

If the top earners would only have one extra vote, what is the point? It seems to be to limit the voting rights of those that you (or Williams) deem less worthy. It is the idea that income determines worth again.

No that's your characterization and it's based on a false premise. This has nothing to do with your worth. Again, do you give half your check to a homeless person to keep them from feeling less worthy? I doubt it.... you'd not be in favor of such a thing. Nor would you allow the homeless person to dictate how your money is spent. Has nothing to do with how much worth you think that person has.

No one has said a damn thing about limiting voting rights, again, that is you interjecting a characterization that is false. Again, your votes would be proportional to the amount of tax you pay and there is nothing unfair about that... we do this all the time... you go to a hotel and you can pay the economy rate and get the bare essentials or you can opt to rent the luxury suite. You rent a car, you can pay a little and get an economy car or pay a lot and get a luxury car. It has ZERO to do with what you are worth. If you paid for an economy car then demanded to be given a luxury car the rental agent would just laugh at you. It's not because he doesn't think you're worthy.

 

[Montrovant]

Plenty of people 'contribute' without earning income. For a long time that was the norm in this country; men generally earned wages while women stayed at home, raised children and took care of the house. While that is not the norm it once was, there are still probably millions of housewives and househusbands out there who earn no income and would have less of a voice under a tax based system.

No they file joint tax returns so the stay-at-home housewife gets the same number of votes as her husband.

Your argument seems to boil down to the same basics as the 'only federal income tax payers should get to vote' proponents...

No because Williams' argument is that everyone gets a vote. You still have a sizable portion who don't pay taxes who would still have political influence.

If the top earners would only have one extra vote, what is the point? It seems to be to limit the voting rights of those that you (or Williams) deem less worthy. It is the idea that income determines worth again.

No that's your characterization and it's based on a false premise. This has nothing to do with your worth. Again, do you give half your check to a homeless person to keep them from feeling less worthy? I doubt it.... you'd not be in favor of such a thing. Nor would you allow the homeless person to dictate how your money is spent. Has nothing to do with how much worth you think that person has.

No one has said a damn thing about limiting voting rights, again, that is you interjecting a characterization that is false. Again, your votes would be proportional to the amount of tax you pay and there is nothing unfair about that... we do this all the time... you go to a hotel and you can pay the economy rate and get the bare essentials or you can opt to rent the luxury suite. You rent a car, you can pay a little and get an economy car or pay a lot and get a luxury car. It has ZERO to do with what you are worth. If you paid for an economy car then demanded to be given a luxury car the rental agent would just laugh at you. It's not because he doesn't think you're worthy.

Once again you have this need to equate government to business. They are not the same, no matter how often you use such comparisons. Yes, government uses money, but it is not a business.

Worth is absolutely part of this type of system. What is each person's political opinion worth? That would be determined by the amount of taxes they paid. If a person gets 2 votes because of their taxes and another person gets 1 vote, the first person's opinion, their political voice, is stronger, is worth more, than the second person's. If some people get more votes than other people, the voting rights of those other people are limited. By expanding the voting rights of some, the voting rights of others are inherently limited.

The basis of this idea is that money determines how much a person's voice counts in our political process. That is already an unfortunate reality, I don't want to make it even more prevalent.

 

[Boss]

Plenty of people 'contribute' without earning income. For a long time that was the norm in this country; men generally earned wages while women stayed at home, raised children and took care of the house. While that is not the norm it once was, there are still probably millions of housewives and househusbands out there who earn no income and would have less of a voice under a tax based system.

No they file joint tax returns so the stay-at-home housewife gets the same number of votes as her husband.

Your argument seems to boil down to the same basics as the 'only federal income tax payers should get to vote' proponents...

No because Williams' argument is that everyone gets a vote. You still have a sizable portion who don't pay taxes who would still have political influence.

If the top earners would only have one extra vote, what is the point? It seems to be to limit the voting rights of those that you (or Williams) deem less worthy. It is the idea that income determines worth again.

No that's your characterization and it's based on a false premise. This has nothing to do with your worth. Again, do you give half your check to a homeless person to keep them from feeling less worthy? I doubt it.... you'd not be in favor of such a thing. Nor would you allow the homeless person to dictate how your money is spent. Has nothing to do with how much worth you think that person has.

No one has said a damn thing about limiting voting rights, again, that is you interjecting a characterization that is false. Again, your votes would be proportional to the amount of tax you pay and there is nothing unfair about that... we do this all the time... you go to a hotel and you can pay the economy rate and get the bare essentials or you can opt to rent the luxury suite. You rent a car, you can pay a little and get an economy car or pay a lot and get a luxury car. It has ZERO to do with what you are worth. If you paid for an economy car then demanded to be given a luxury car the rental agent would just laugh at you. It's not because he doesn't think you're worthy.

Once again you have this need to equate government to business. They are not the same, no matter how often you use such comparisons. Yes, government uses money, but it is not a business.

Worth is absolutely part of this type of system. What is each person's political opinion worth? That would be determined by the amount of taxes they paid. If a person gets 2 votes because of their taxes and another person gets 1 vote, the first person's opinion, their political voice, is stronger, is worth more, than the second person's. If some people get more votes than other people, the voting rights of those other people are limited. By expanding the voting rights of some, the voting rights of others are inherently limited.

The basis of this idea is that money determines how much a person's voice counts in our political process. That is already an unfortunate reality, I don't want to make it even more prevalent.

No, again... it has nothing to do with your worth. If you pay the economy rate for a hotel room, you aren't given the luxury suite because they don't think you deserve it. It's because you get what you pay for. Has nothing to do with what you are worth as a person.

I think government SHOULD be run like a business... we wouldn't have a $17 trillion debt if it were with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Right now, government is being run like a fucking candy store by children with no concept of monetary value. Let's just all line up and hold our hands out for the free candy!

 

[Boss]

The basis of this idea is that money determines how much a person's voice counts in our political process. That is already an unfortunate reality, I don't want to make it even more prevalent.

No, it's how much taxes you pay... has nothing to do with your wealth or money.

 

[9aces]

We felt the need to give every dumbass the right to vote... While it goes against the very definition of a Republic, the point stands...

Yep
The Founders had it right, only those who had skin in the game could vote.

WHITE skin. Gotta give it to those founders, right?

Every American has "skin in the game" and wanting to restrict the right to vote to people who can PAY to do it, is fucked up beyond belief.

Homeless people have the right to vote. I hope that annoys the shit out of ya'll.

Black people voted when only people that voted had "skin in the game" try your racist fallacy somewhere else.
No, Americans don't have "skin in the game" when they don't contribute. They are just along for the ride.
Im not saying we should strip the right away from people, I am saying it never should have changed.

I actually liked Walter E. Williams suggestion that we base votes on taxes paid. The more tax you pay the more votes you get. That's how corporations are run everyday. The biggest stockholders get the most votes in the boardroom.

Yeah, 'cause buying votes, that's a democracy.

Well, that's what the Democratic party does now. Do you think that's a good thing?

 

[9aces]

Plenty of people 'contribute' without earning income. For a long time that was the norm in this country; men generally earned wages while women stayed at home, raised children and took care of the house. While that is not the norm it once was, there are still probably millions of housewives and househusbands out there who earn no income and would have less of a voice under a tax based system.

No they file joint tax returns so the stay-at-home housewife gets the same number of votes as her husband.

Your argument seems to boil down to the same basics as the 'only federal income tax payers should get to vote' proponents...

No because Williams' argument is that everyone gets a vote. You still have a sizable portion who don't pay taxes who would still have political influence.

If the top earners would only have one extra vote, what is the point? It seems to be to limit the voting rights of those that you (or Williams) deem less worthy. It is the idea that income determines worth again.

No that's your characterization and it's based on a false premise. This has nothing to do with your worth. Again, do you give half your check to a homeless person to keep them from feeling less worthy? I doubt it.... you'd not be in favor of such a thing. Nor would you allow the homeless person to dictate how your money is spent. Has nothing to do with how much worth you think that person has.

No one has said a damn thing about limiting voting rights, again, that is you interjecting a characterization that is false. Again, your votes would be proportional to the amount of tax you pay and there is nothing unfair about that... we do this all the time... you go to a hotel and you can pay the economy rate and get the bare essentials or you can opt to rent the luxury suite. You rent a car, you can pay a little and get an economy car or pay a lot and get a luxury car. It has ZERO to do with what you are worth. If you paid for an economy car then demanded to be given a luxury car the rental agent would just laugh at you. It's not because he doesn't think you're worthy.

Once again you have this need to equate government to business. They are not the same, no matter how often you use such comparisons. Yes, government uses money, but it is not a business.

Worth is absolutely part of this type of system. What is each person's political opinion worth? That would be determined by the amount of taxes they paid. If a person gets 2 votes because of their taxes and another person gets 1 vote, the first person's opinion, their political voice, is stronger, is worth more, than the second person's. If some people get more votes than other people, the voting rights of those other people are limited. By expanding the voting rights of some, the voting rights of others are inherently limited.

The basis of this idea is that money determines how much a person's voice counts in our political process. That is already an unfortunate reality, I don't want to make it even more prevalent.

Why not run a government like a business. Businesses have to run responsibly, or they don't stay in business.

This country been run extremely irresponsibly for a long time. Here's a thought.

Every member of congress, the president, etc. has their assets go into a fund. If the country runs a deficit, their assets are reduced by the percentage of the budget they're over. If they run a surplus, they receive a percentage based off the amount versus the budget.

If the budget isn't within 10% of their projection, they're penalized 50% of their assets.

Might be tough to get some congresspeople...but they'd be sharp cookies.

 

[Montrovant]

Plenty of people 'contribute' without earning income. For a long time that was the norm in this country; men generally earned wages while women stayed at home, raised children and took care of the house. While that is not the norm it once was, there are still probably millions of housewives and househusbands out there who earn no income and would have less of a voice under a tax based system.

No they file joint tax returns so the stay-at-home housewife gets the same number of votes as her husband.

Your argument seems to boil down to the same basics as the 'only federal income tax payers should get to vote' proponents...

No because Williams' argument is that everyone gets a vote. You still have a sizable portion who don't pay taxes who would still have political influence.

If the top earners would only have one extra vote, what is the point? It seems to be to limit the voting rights of those that you (or Williams) deem less worthy. It is the idea that income determines worth again.

No that's your characterization and it's based on a false premise. This has nothing to do with your worth. Again, do you give half your check to a homeless person to keep them from feeling less worthy? I doubt it.... you'd not be in favor of such a thing. Nor would you allow the homeless person to dictate how your money is spent. Has nothing to do with how much worth you think that person has.

No one has said a damn thing about limiting voting rights, again, that is you interjecting a characterization that is false. Again, your votes would be proportional to the amount of tax you pay and there is nothing unfair about that... we do this all the time... you go to a hotel and you can pay the economy rate and get the bare essentials or you can opt to rent the luxury suite. You rent a car, you can pay a little and get an economy car or pay a lot and get a luxury car. It has ZERO to do with what you are worth. If you paid for an economy car then demanded to be given a luxury car the rental agent would just laugh at you. It's not because he doesn't think you're worthy.

Once again you have this need to equate government to business. They are not the same, no matter how often you use such comparisons. Yes, government uses money, but it is not a business.

Worth is absolutely part of this type of system. What is each person's political opinion worth? That would be determined by the amount of taxes they paid. If a person gets 2 votes because of their taxes and another person gets 1 vote, the first person's opinion, their political voice, is stronger, is worth more, than the second person's. If some people get more votes than other people, the voting rights of those other people are limited. By expanding the voting rights of some, the voting rights of others are inherently limited.

The basis of this idea is that money determines how much a person's voice counts in our political process. That is already an unfortunate reality, I don't want to make it even more prevalent.

No, again... it has nothing to do with your worth. If you pay the economy rate for a hotel room, you aren't given the luxury suite because they don't think you deserve it. It's because you get what you pay for. Has nothing to do with what you are worth as a person.

I think government SHOULD be run like a business... we wouldn't have a $17 trillion debt if it were with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Right now, government is being run like a fucking candy store by children with no concept of monetary value. Let's just all line up and hold our hands out for the free candy!

It has to do with the value or worth of your political opinion. One person's views become more valuable as they have more votes.

It is sad if you think government should be a matter of 'you get what you pay for'.

Government is not about making a profit. Why would you run a government the same way as a business, which is about making a profit? That isn't saying you cannot have some overlap; certainly there are aspects of individual businesses and business in general which can apply to government. However, since the goals, means, and structure of government are different from business, using the same system to run them seems like an odd idea.

 

[Montrovant]

The basis of this idea is that money determines how much a person's voice counts in our political process. That is already an unfortunate reality, I don't want to make it even more prevalent.

No, it's how much taxes you pay... has nothing to do with your wealth or money.

How much you pay in taxes has nothing to do with money? Did you really type that?