Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Greatest I am, Feb 11, 2013.

  1. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,740
    No argument.

    You highlight that the middle is being squeezed by both the rich top and the poor bottom of our economic pyramid.

    Regards
    DL
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,740
    And this is good to you!

    You prefer to feed the poor instead of showing them how to feed themselves. Ok.
    You want them on the public tit forever. Pfft.

    Regards
    DL
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,740
    Foolish statement.

    So all but these are on the public tit.

    Who is providing the tit then?

    Regards
    DL
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,497
    I have known people on welfare, and none of them viewed it as an alternative to work and self-sufficiency. This is a common right wing myth. The fact is they use welfare as code for lazy shiftless black people or minorities in order to gin up resentment from their old white power base. Frankly, I believe that more money should go to free education to the graduate school level so that economic mobility is increased. The burden of health care costs should also be shared, which would open up employment opportunities, as health care is the #1 cause of bankruptcy.
     
  8. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Perhaps I was wrong about you benefiting directly from a Canadian education.
    This is called a thesis statement. Later sentences will (indeed, they did) lend support and expand on this thesis, forming an argument. This argument you have allowed to go unchallenged which gives rise in the reader's eyes that you don't have a rational basis for your position.
    I was not discussing your fears, I was discussing possible fears a person who makes claims like yours would have to motivate them to make claims about disenfranchisement without knowing much about civics or economics. How would I know you well enough to discuss your actual fears? I was simply listing the polite irrational reasons for holding your position.
    Speculation as to possible motivations is not "psychobabble" as the term is traditionally used as a synonym for "bafflegab" -- hiding behind esoteric and perhaps misapplied jargon. You knew what I meant by "fear" and "motivation" and simply ran away from further discussion.
    You are more skilled at inventing rules that you accuse others of violating than you are at rational argument on public policy, but when you use these inventions to cover your running away from rational argument, that doesn't actually make your opposition's argument disappear.
    You git, the purpose of this thread is not to chat. If it was to chat, you would be the tactless one for airing a radical political belief and using authoritarian unilateral imposition of invented rules to ignore the others at the table. What we are doing is having an argument by which I mean, we are using communicable rational expression of thought to explain our reasoning. At least that's what your opposition is doing. You have resisted efforts to get you to communicate the basis for your position.
    As a result, some will speculate that you have no such rational basis, and others will assume that you are ashamed of your irrational basis. Some might go so far to speculate from your radical values, your authoritarian imposition of rules and your undisclosed motivation, that you subscribe to a form of radical authoritarian nationalism. Some support for the last term come from your unwillingness to distance yourself from an "us versus them" mentality. So now you owe me a thoughtful reply to two posts.
     
  9. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Greatest I am

    Would you count receiving 38 billion dollars in a year from the government when you payed no taxes as being on the dole? I do. And, by your rules, no one who owns stock in or works for Exxon(the most profitable corporation in history)could vote. It isn't the poor on the dole who consume our taxes(less than 7% last year)it's the rich and the corporations who are looting the treasury. Another egregious violation is our health care for profit scam. We pay 1/3-1/2 more than every other civilized country to health insurance companies(who provide no health care at all)and they do not cover all of us(as every other civilized country does). The difference goes into the obscene profits of big insurance, I call that "corporate welfare" and it consumes about 1/4 of our economy(between defense contractors, banks, health insurers, energy companies and wealthy tax avoidance). And Corporate Welfare is many orders of magnitude more prevalent and involves much more of our taxes. When someone who makes millions pays less taxes(as percentage of income)than those who make less than $100,000 the millionaire is on the dole, and just one millionaire in that situation uses up more of our taxes than 100 poor people(who, by the way, pay more in taxes(as percentage of income)than any millionaire does). You emphasize the poor starving piglet struggling to reach a tit in order to avoid dying and ignore all the huge fat piglets who have always had that tit firmly grasped in their mouths. It is you who is blind to reality.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    So now you want to define your “tax taker” as being on the “dole”. Boy aren’t you one for specifics. LOL. And just what does the dole mean exactly, in your view. As pointed out repeatedly by others and myself, we are all tax payers and we are all tax takers. So now the word “dole” is supposed to add clarity? Before you go calling people stupid, you need to take a long serious look at yourself my friend.

    Is a business which receives government subsidies on the dole? Are government workers on the dole? Are companies who provide services to the government on the “dole”? Do legislative concessions given to businesses put them the “dole” (e.g. carried interest)? If you receive services from someone trained and certified by the government, are you on the dole? If you build a home and the government builds the roads and the sewer system for that home are you on the dole? If you are rescued by government emergency services are you on the dole? If you or your kids attend a public school are you on the dole? If you go to work and benefit from workplace safety laws and employment protections, are you on the dole? Are you on the “dole” when you purchase food at a restaurants or grocery stores because government inspections insured the quality of those foods? Are tax payers who get special tax breaks on the dole (e.g. energy tax credits, Master Limited Partnerships, etc.)? If a small business owner gets government aid to subsidize his/her labor force as is currently the case in both Canada and the United States, is he/she on the "dole"?

    Your notion is not well thought out. A better solution would be to require passage of a test prior to voting that would give some assurance as to the individual’s knowledge and ability to make rational well informed decisions in the ballot box. But this would disenfranchise most of the people who are advocating restrictions on voting like the one you are advocating. I would love to see the faces of all those Fox News/Rupert Murdock consumers when they find that they have disenfranchised themselves.

    The best solution to the irrational voter problem, is a well-informed educated and broad voter base . . . something we used to have in the US prior to the abolition of The Fairness Doctrine.


    As I wrote previously, you appear to have a problem with democracy. In democracies people are supposed to elect those who will act in their interests.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2013
  11. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,740
    I agree with national health care.

    Regards
    DL
     
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Are you referring to income tax payers?

    I mean, you can't take a shit without paying someone in some government somewhere for the privilege.


    Interestingly, the top 1% feel somewhat similar to the sentiments you expressed - which it why they have rigged the system in their favor. They figure they pay so much, why not rig our laws to make their lives great (which is why they pay for the Bushes and Obamas to get elected).


    A much fairer system would be to eliminate income tax. Let people create their own currencies. Let communities work together to see how and who is of and is not of value. Let money function as it's meant to function. Not as debt but as capital. Most of all, work to shrink the cancer, aka government. Of course just the opposite will happen. And life in the US will get much worse. In the mean time, I suggest you start a company like Apple or become CEO of Disney or GE - they pay no tax. We know that is unlikely, so, instead - and even better, work to shrink government. Look into the Libertarian movement and learn about anarcho-capitalism.
     
  13. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I grew up on welfare, I know plenty of people who view it as their god-given right to receive money from "the government". They don't really know where money comes from (well, most people don't so that's not unusual). They know they're getting f*cked (and they are, the entire system is rigged against them, from the inflation that rubs their nose in their own poverty to the regulations that prevent them from trading) .....so, they figure, I'll get mine. Even if it means having more children to do so.

    As for healthcare, unless you think it's your right to stick your gun in the GPs face and say WORK! Then it's not moral.

    If we truly live in a republic, then ask people to support charity. Obviously if the State truly represents the will of the people, then there's no need for a law. As people truly want to help those in need. If people don't want to help those in need, then as a Republic, that law is unjust. That's the thing about living in a democracy. If you think that people won't pay into the charity, then don't rely on the force of the State to make them 'pay their fare share'. That's not how republics function. Of course, you don't really live in a democracy. You're not really free. AND so I understand your frustration. Imagine, if you weren't forced to use USD, you could create a community that has it's own currency, with it's own doctors and hospitals.



    Anyway, the problem with healthcare is the AMA. It's mutated and warped healthcare over the last 60 years to such a point one could hardly see what it looked like before. The AMA pays the second most in lobbying money to keep the bills rising. ANYTHING you hear from a politicians lips that tells you the prices will come down - - is an outright lie. The ONLY thing that will bring prices down is liberalizing the healthcare market. Which means trying to get rid of the AMA. As it stands, that is nearly impossible. So, prices will go up. Our standard of living will continue to go down. Don't listen to the government officials. They'd sell their own grandmother to get re-elected. The AMA has plenty of money and it can always make the argument you need to be qualified by them to practice (in AU it's illegal to practice medicine as a DO as an example - even if you're one of the world's top heart surgeons or eye surgeons, nope, doesn't matter).

    The End of Medical Freedom in America - A Doctor's Lament is an MD's letter he's written and is being read in the podcast (about 15 minutes). If you don't know, about 1 in 2 doctors wish they hadn't studied medicine. The life of an MD has been purposely made to be shit. And their lives are getting worse now that large financial institutions are bullying them into becoming cogs in large 'medical service centers' or outright forcing them out of work through licencing restrictions. There's probably never been a worse time to be a starting doctor than now. BUT, if it's your calling, you can try.

    [video=youtube;zwMZMbhdOK8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwMZMbhdOK8[/video]
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,946
    Taxpayers. In other words, they are filling _and_ draining the tit.[/QUOTE]
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,060
    Not at all. I see no evidence that the middle is being squeezed by the bottom - and quite a bit of evidence that the middle is supported by "welfare" supplied to the bottom (many people in the middle came from the bottom, or spent some time there, invariably "welfare" was key to their rise in status).

    Deafness to even the most obvious irony is so invariably characteristic of this fantasy world that one is forced to consider questions of mechanism, cause.
     
  16. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,631
    Actually I have known (and still do) some people on welfare who have no plans to ever get off of it (it will end under its own terms, but they have no plans regarding what to do when that happens and are in no hurry to end it prematurely) and who routinely complain that they should be receiving even more money from the system because of how hard it is to makes ends meet on the benefits provided. In one case that leaps to mind, the complaining person had regularly spends money getting her nails done and has just recently spent $200 getting a tattoo (of her baby daddy's name).

    It is certainly true that many people on welfare use it as short term emergency income and seek to find a job an become self-supporting as soon as they can. It is equally true that many people rely on the system for as long as they can, and feel downright entitled to do so. It's a myth to pretend that either of these groups does not exist or is trivial in relative numbers.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908


    So the people you know are committing welfare fraud? If so, you should turn them in.

    http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Th-W/Welfare-Reform-Act-1996.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
     
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    When the Constitution was written only white males could vote. If we can get past the modern bias, at that time of the writing of the Constitution, white males were the main group who had jobs and generated income; paid taxes. The blacks were slaves and were therefore dependent without income. The females worked in the home and their efforts were not taxed. The founding fathers picked a way that just so happened to imply only the tax payers got to vote.

    This was based on an extrapolation of previous English traditions. The Magna Carta, allowed the wealthy landowner males to vote. The rest of the people were dependents and serfs. The generators of money would vote. America has plenty of land so all males could be landowners so they all could contribute to the tax base and vote.

    After the Civil war, black males were allowed to vote. With the blacks no longer dependent as slaves, the black male now had to work to support his family, while the black female was at home, with her hard work for the family not taxed. Again this was consistent with vote equal tax payers, with the black male a new tax payer who could vote.

    The females finally got the right to vote because more and more women worked outside the home; factory girls. The industrial revolution shifted people from the farm, to the cities, where women had more jobs and paid taxes.

    Based on vote paralleling entry onto the work force and paying taxes, I would guess that the intent of the founders was let those with irons in the fire, vote. It was never set up to let dependency group vote, until the time these groups had proven they were contributors. This is common sense since those who have to work and pay taxes have a better sense of cost/benefit.

    A good analogy is a family with two parents who both work, who say have three kids. The main voters in that family are the parents. The children do not have equal vote since they are dependent.

    The contributors have a better sense of the amount of effort required to generate finite resources. If you have to wrk 40 hours for a small pay you will weigh that effort against needs. This makes you more efficient in terms of cost/benefit choices. The more effort required (crap job) the higher the ratio. If you don't work, but only spend, you cannot fully empathize with the cost/effort needed to generate a small amount of resources, since your cost/benefit ratio may be close to zero; no work needed for money to fall in your lap. This will lead to inefficiency and waste.

    For example, say a child, who does not work, wants a new computer to keep up with his friends. His old computer is not broken but he needs the new one to keep up with the Jones. Say this new computer costs a weeks pay for the parents. The cost for this benefit is 40 hours in a crap job dealing with bull. The cost to the child is a few hours of crying. The parents may decide this is not a good time to use that much resources but we need to save that money. The child may not have the same sense of proportion, since money just appears. It seems easy enough for a new computer.

    Picture if this child has the same vote as the parents and his other two siblings also want things. The children all vote together to get their stuff, without any hardship cost/work requirement on their part. The result is the family goes deep into debt; sound familiar.

    One way is to give tax payers 1 vote and non tax payers 1/2 vote. Both get to vote. The democrats are more dependent on the vote of those with a very low cost/benefit ratios, compared to the working tax payer. The con uses blame the rich. The rich are used, so the leaders can subjectively alter the cost/benefit ratio perception of the tax payer. If all the tax payers were rich, the cost would be tiny in proportion to their wealth. This small ratio is more in line with dependent, and scams the low information voters to rip off the working poor who have a high ratio.

    One way around this is to require dependents carry a higher cost/benefit ratio so they can walk a mile in the shoes of hard working tax payers. This can be done with community service. This extra effort will change the zero cost of the benefit so it feels more like someone who has to work. A high ratio is tough.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    All well and nice, except for being wrong; some states allowed freed slaves to vote. And only white males with real property (e.g. landowners) were allowed to vote – coincidentally real property was not taxed. So this mythical linkage between “dependency” and voting rights being rooted in tradition, is just wrong.

    And one can legitimately argue who was more dependent on whom with regards to slaves. The slave owner was very dependent on the labor of his slaves of his livelihood. Without the slave there is not labor, and without labor there is no product for the slave owner to use or sell. The slave was the person who created the goods that supported the slave owner. It was the slave who planted the seeds, harvested the crops and performed all the tasks needed to support the landowner.

    Further, the founding fathers did not pick a method of voting that only allowed tax payers to vote. There was no connection between paying taxes and voting. Land was not taxed, income was not taxed. Government derived most of its income from tariffs and excise taxes which were ultimately paid by all consumers.

    When women received the right to vote, most women worked in the home. Only a small percentage of women worked outside the home. So your claims about women is just more nonsense. And your notion that black slaves only had jobs after they received their freedom is delusional and racist. When I read that claim, my jaw dropped. You are way deep into that right wing la la land. All those slaves had jobs. Slave owners didn’t pay huge sums for slaves so they could care for them as pets. Slave owners purchases slaves to do work so the slave owners didn’t have to work.
     
  20. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,497
    Who cares? Those people are a minority. I know some people abuse the system, that's irrelevant to me. Military contractors abuse the system also, adding millions to the debt, maybe billions. Does that mean we should end the military? Of course not.
     
  21. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,497
    I don't give a shit. Lack of welfare is a greater evil.

    Don't be fucking stupid. I have a right to use the power of numbers to spread out the burden of a service that everyone needs.

    We have charity already, it's inadequate to solve the problem.
     
  22. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,740
    I am looking at the bottom line. Net payers and net takers.

    For instance, those on the dole pay VAT's but with money that government/taxpayer has supplied. They are net takers.

    From a world economy POV I do not think your ideas workable.


    Regards
    DL
     
  23. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    What, formally, do you mean by "the dole"? Averaged over what population and what period do you consider them net takers? A career armed forces officer, for example, gets the bulk of his or her income over decades from the government. An aerospace engineer might need six weeks of employment insurance payments to facility his transition to a new career. A town where the majority is employed by a single corporation might all suffer if that employer closes the town's site -- causing ripple effects to the point where even store owners may need assistance -- does their decades of being a productive community matter nothing when you label them as on "the dole"? Are college kids who receive government grants to pay for education, food and housing on "the dole?" After a storm hits and your insurance company goes bankrupt, does a government grant to rebuild your ruined home put a person on "the dole?"

    Because economic cycles exist, simply being healthy, ambitious, educated and personable does not guarantee that you will be employed at a level that allows you feed yourself and keep a roof over your head. Income taxes, so models tell us, help even out economic cycles so the troughs aren't so bad. Government cash payments (and to a lesser extent, vouchers) to the poor help subsidize employees looking to hire low-wage workers, and increase the money supply. But demonizing the poor doesn't even begin to make them go away and disenfranchising them leaves them with little recourse but armed revolt if they want things to change.

    I would also argue from a basis of human rights or compassion, but much like the poster on this thread, I think you need to spend more time examining and explaining your own reasoning and values before I waste my time arguing from my values.
     

Share This Page