Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, in today’s terms land owner still means land owner.

That is utter nonsense. We are all taxpayers and we are all “tax takers”. If you live in this country, you are a tax taker. You receive the security provided by police, emergency medicine, and our armed forces. You get the benefit of our road system. You receive the benefit of our system of public education either directly or indirectly by receiving services from those who have directly benefited from our system of public education.

And virtually everyone who engages in commerce pays tax in this country. In my state, you go to the grocery store to purchase food and you will pay a sales tax. So your notion that there are tax payers and tax takers is just Republican inspired myth. We are all tax payers and tax takers, even the illegal aliens.

As I have previously pointed out your notion of tax taker and tax payer is simply fiction. This is just another conservative attempt to disenfranchise citizens – trying to draw lines between us and them. Who was it that said divided we fall, united we stand? Republicans tried disenfranchisement last election cycle. It has become an integral part of their election strategy. When ignorance and misinformation fail them, it is the only hope they have for attaining total power in Washington. Because knowledgeable intelligent people won’t vote for them.

And it sounds like you have a beef with the founding fathers. They created a republic not a direct democracy. We elect people to make those decisions for us. That is how the founding fathers set up our system of governance. If you want to ditch the Constitution, go for it. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. (Not that it would matter anyway; everyone in the US pays taxes of one sort or another.)

Or to put it another way - blue states (taxpayers) and red states (taxtakers.) Wouldn't be too fair to deny red states the right to vote.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Only wise, well-informed people with a strong interest in the welfare of all the people of the country should vote. This is one of the principles of a Republic or other representative democracy. But in the US system there are no grounds for removal of the stupid, ignorant, short-sighted or evil.

 

Do you know of a system that does?

 

Heh, Triple Detente by P. Anthony?

 

I was looking for something rooted in reality, not fiction.

 

Well, democracy doesn't work like that. You don't pay taxes so then you can vote, you vote then you pay taxes and hope the party elected upon your votes invests the money accordingly. So it's the other way around.

 

I see a really petty mind here but regardless.

Firstly, if you do not see that your country, like mine in Canada so don't try to brand me right wing, is an oligarchy and nothing else then you are too brain dead to understand much of anything.

Sorry about the tough love but you set the tone.

Now.

The current system seems to allow for some fairly obvious abuse. For example, some politicians attempted to buy votes by expanding the welfare state massively - inventing new ways of buying voters' loyalty with tax credits and other hidden taxpayer’s money. It nearly works. In fact left wing governments in the UK have a track record of spending vast amounts of money on welfare and ending up in financial trouble. It's an easy vote winner because there are a lot more poor and middle class people than there are rich people.

Maybe those who get benefits should be excluded from voting because they are only voting for your money and negating your vote. If you happen to be a taxpayer.

Regards
DL

 

I do not agree but it would not be the state it would be it's citizens. I do understand though your divisive state thinking. That is why I do not see the U S as a united country but a house divided that cannot stand. That aside.

My basic view is what the law of the land in many countries in the past was; no taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation through a vote. IOW, if you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.

The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

Tax is a payment but do not fixate just on that.
Payment can be made in various ways so do not think I am going after the poor. In the case of Vets, representation can be earned by serving to protect the country. Those who sometimes pay taxes and at other times take taxes would have to be looked at once a standard is set. If a person pays 15 years out of 20 for instance, he would vote. Someone who only paid 5 years out of 20 and was on the dole or public purse for 15 may not get a vote.

The point is that when more and more fall into the poor categories, their vote can and is bought by the unscrupulous politicians who are elected by promises of a raise in welfare checks.

The rich are getting richer and the poor better off and the middle is squeezed by both side and any election basically becomes a war against the middle thanks to the fact that politicians are owned by the rich.

This is unjust and unsustainable and must end.

Regards
DL

 

Well put.

Wher are the ground written that say that the voting system is allowed to be abused?

The current system seems to allow for some fairly obvious abuse. For example, some politicians attempte to buy votes by expanding the welfare state massively - inventing new ways of buying voters' loyalty with tax credits and other hidden taxpayer’s money. It nearly works. In fact left wing governments in the UK have a track record of spending vast amounts of money on welfare and ending up in financial trouble. It's an easy vote winner because there are a lot more poor and middle class people than there are rich people.

Maybe those who get benefits should be excluded from voting because they are only voting for your money and negating your vote. If you happen to be a taxpayer.

Perhaps new grounds needs plowing.

Regards
DL

 

Should you not be working to make it so in yours?
Here is your first step.
Think of how your vote is negated.

Regards
DL

 

I spoke to democracy above so let me give you this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Regards
DL

 

A bit of a one-track record aren't you.

By your logic, no citizen should ever vote.

The Government assures that the water, food supply, housing, roads, electricity grid, plumbing, gasoline, health care and many other things are all kept to standards. These are benefits. The Canadian government will pay your doctors for you which is a benefit (insurance) even if you don't take advantage of it. Canadian schools are compulsory up to age 16 which in the worst case keeps the Canuck-spawn off your lawn for the best part of the day, and ideally forms the basis of a workforce with the skills to learn new skill and provide a foundation of a diverse and agile economy. You, yourself, might have benefited directly from Canadian education in the form of Government-sponsored education. Then there are the parks, the museums, the art grants, the public spectacles, settling of private disputes, authoritative record keeping of identity and ownership, etc.

So you single out one particular form of benefit, only one of the many "social programs", welfare (direct transfer payment to low income individuals). Maybe employment insurance as well? Your argument seems to be that those that benefit from actions of the government will band together to vote for more benefits. But you have not explained why you single out this group of Canadians.

Perhaps you fear the poor and old and want them to suffer for the crime of being poor and old. Perhaps you think the old and poor are going to get politically ambitious as a group and vote as a bloc. But the poor already have an outlet for the ambitious and skilled: it's called making money. Whether they tend do this legally or illegally is also a function of the government. The government, policing the poor, for your benefit.

So I think you are just repeating an ideological talking point without making an argument from first principles. If you don't like that the poor vote, you probably should work on making sure that there are less poor people, as this is a human condition not a fixed identity. Disenfranchising them (denying them the vote) will be a step to making a nation out of them, it will not make them simply "go away." If you don't like that the old vote, racist buggers that they are, and assuming Canada doesn't implement a mandatory "retirement" program ala Logan's Run, then it would probably be best to avoid treating them like a disfavored group so that they don't come into every scenario as an us-versus-them mentality. Soon, Canadian health care allowing, you too will become "one of them."

//Edit: Fundamentally, this payers/takers thing is about direct transfers of money, which is a cartoon version of economics and government. Seriously, economics is about choices and government benefits the people in many ways other that direct transfers of money. And the choices a government makes can make changes the benefit all in the way that market forces cannot. (Polio! Compulsory education!)

 

Oh my, I am so intimidated by your ad hominem, not! Your ad hominem doesn’t change the fact that the meaning of landowner has not changed over the millennia. Landowner does not mean taxpayer as you claimed.

This friend is obfuscation. It is a new subject introduced to distract from the major errors in logic and reason you introduced in your previous post.

Tough love . . . you would be better served if you invested a little more in thought and worried less about tough love.

Vote buying, just what is vote buying in your view? Vote buying is illegal. It sounds like your beef is against populism and democracy. Isn’t that what democracy is all about, people voting for their self-interests? Are not elected officials to do the biding of their constituents? That's called democracy.

As previously pointed out to you, if you exclude everyone who receives government benefits from voting, no one could vote. Because everyone receives benefits from government (e.g. roads, education, security, commerce, etc.).

 

In the US that general kind of process works for the benefit of the few ruling corporate elite, rather than the poor that are usually meant by the term "welfare" - the politicians gain many more votes (as well as personal riches and power) by "buying" campaign contributions and corporate favor than by attempting to buy poor people's votes directly, and the expansion of government largesse is directed accordingly by the corrupt and the venal.

So instead of an expansion what is commonly called "welfare" and paid for by taxes, we see an expansion of deficit financing for military projects and other government initiatives that benefit the comparatively and increasingly untaxed wealthy and powerful. That has been the US pattern for thirty or forty years now - the entire adult life of almost everyone on this forum.

 

That's not an example of abuse, but rather representative government. If the people want welfare, that's what they get.

Everyone is a taxpayer.

 

Yes, that's one way. Another is cutting taxes. Since everyone pays taxes, it is another excellent way to buy votes. Military spending is a third - the military drives a huge percentage of the economy of the US (for example) and almost everyone "supports the troops" and so supports spending that might save them. (Of course not sending them to optional wars is an even better method, but it doesn't purchase votes as readily.)

You'd exclude everyone except the apocalyptic survivalist types living in defended compounds. Not the best voters to target IMO.

 

Repnner

"By your logic, no citizen should ever vote. "

This, plus your other psychobabble B S of me and my fears does not lend to discussion.

If you want to chat, smarten up.

Regards
DL

 

I am speaking of the dole but if you want to take the simplistic view and add sidewalks then do so
I will ignore such stupidity.

Regards
DL