Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

And which governments don't have capital? What do you think capital is exactly?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All governments have capital/cash/credit. The taxpayer pays for it.

Not the taxtakers.


I just found this.
I'm sure you will find this interesting.......

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Immigarants come from those who reproduce.

Thanks for making my point.

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First of all, never happened.

OK,
1. Obama's policies aren't socialism. He embraces globalist capitalism.
2. No one is suggesting that the wealthy be taxed to such a degree that they will no longer be wealthy.
3. All developed societies tax the population, that's how it works, so to call it "taking" like they get nothing back from it, is just stupid.
4. You can multiply wealth by dividing it. Because at a certain level, wealth starts to mean less and less, but it still means the difference between poverty and a middle class life for many people.
5. Everyone has to work if they are able. Welfare has a work requirement.

 

You sure can. "Divide" wealth by paying for people's educations, and the money those people will make will far exceed the money spent on their education - thus "multiplying" the wealth.

Probably true. Fortunately we are nowhere near that.

 

Greatest I am

But by more fairly paying the people who created that wealth(the poor)instead of concentrating it in the hands of those who take advantage of the poor's labor(the wealthy)many more people will have higher standards of living while only a few suffer a loss in same. This country is for the benefit of all the people, not just the lucky people.

You are your brother's keeper, we are all in this together. While one may need support from time to time, most are productive and working. Only 7% of ALL people are on welfare, many of those are old, disabled and children. All the rest of the bottom 47% work for a living but are not payed enough to pay income taxes, though they pay more(as a percentage of earnings)than the rich in taxes of other sorts(payroll FICA, state, sales, excise, etc.)

So? The government is the price you pay not to have to provide your own protection, build your own roads and bridges, your own air traffic control, your own Atomic Energy Commission, negotiate your own treaties or keep your own foods and medicines safe, etc. That it also provides aid to keep you alive if you fall on hard times is a moral undertaking we collectively agree with.

You most certainly can! Every dollar spent on quality education returns many times as much in additional wealth throughout the economy. Even giving a poor person a dollar returns $1.27 to the economy. You can't build wealth by hoarding it.

You might have a point, except 7% is not half by a long shot, we are nowhere near the levels the Communists reached before their fall(a system your scenario fits, unlike present day America). Much more dangerous to a democracy is having too much wealth concentrated in a very few who then use their money and influence to corrupt the system to perpetuate and exacerbate that situation, you know, like the present Republican party is doing. That's a much more likely scenario than the poor people taking over.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Then why did you make the comment about governments not having capital? Additionally fully sovereign governments can create cash so not all cash is paid for by the tax payer.

What you found is one of the many bogus right wing nut case emails floating around on the internet. It has absolutely devoid of truth. It was manufactured to lead and rally the clueless right wing masses which readily and unquestioningly accept this crap as truth . . . ignorance breed ignorance.

Cute, but what does it mean exactly? Just who is legislating the wealth out of the wealthy and the poor into prosperity? No one, it is yet another in a long series of myths.

OK, another cute phrase. Is there a point buried in their somewhere? This drivel has really only one function, to make people like you feel that someone is taking something from you and giving it to someone else. Which simply is not the case, as I pointed out to you previously, you are not paying your fair share, nor are most of the people with your POV paying your fair share. You are tax takers. I am paying for you and those like you.

Another cute simple declarative . . . very appealing to the simple minded . . . too bad it is not true either. As previously pointed out to you government can and does create money. It also earns money through its investments (e.g. US Federal Reserve). The US Federal Reserve has been returning nearly 100 billion dollars per year to the US Treasury . . . profits from its operations . . . so not everything that comes from the government must be taken from someone else. I have something for you to think about, everything you have was taken from someone else. Your wages were taken from your employer.

You continue to labor under the false notion that you are paying for someone else, Hell you are not even paying for yourself. You cannot afford it, nor can most people with your POV afford to pay your fair share of government expenses.

Yet another cute saying, but where is your proof? What is wealth in your view? How is one man with 10 million dollars and 9 men with no money better than 10 men with 1 million dollars each? In any case, no one is making that argument. No one is talking about dividing wealth; no one is trying to divide wealth.

What is being discussed is paying for the massive debt racked up by people like you. Do you let the people who can best afford to pay for it pay for it or do you give it to people like you and yours who cannot afford to pay for it?

What creates wealth is good fiscal, monetary and economic policy. What creates wealth is investment in infrastructure and people exchanging money for goods and services. Millionaires and billionaires sitting on their money does nothing to create wealth.

Where is this half of the population that has the idea they don’t have to work because the other half is going to support them? It’s your kids. It’s the elderly who are too infirm to work. It is the ill. It is the people who are in institutions of higher learning.

 

1. Pfft. He was accused of socialistic tendencies with Obamacare and redistribution of wealth.
2. The issue with the rich is to tax them fairly. At present they pay less as a % of income than the lower tiers.
3. We get some value for dollar but nowhere near 100%.
4. Your point my friend.
5. Welfare does not have a work requirement in many countries I do not think it should have. I do think improvement of lot should be a requiremernt when possible. I E. School, job training etc.

Regards
DL

 

We do not as yet know where the fulcrum is.
Your Republicans threw 47% out there and that is way too close to 50% for my taste.

Regards
DL

 

We do not live in democracies. We live in oligarchies.

I also disagree with your notions of too much wealth in the hands of the few in the sens that if one man controlled the economy, he could stabilize it and enrich us all instantly.

Think demographcally and this cannot be denied.

We do not do so as most fear what is known as the sign of the beast.

Regards
DL

 

I spoke to much of this just above. Please have a look.

To your first here, if that were the case, the governments would just print more money and taxes would not be required at all.

To your last. I am not after those who contribute when they can to ou8r systems. Those I am after are the ones who have made welfare their life's work and those who supplement their income through the black market and who often live better than the taxpayers they are milking.

Regards
DL

 

Why do these guys always make up dumb little stories to argue from, instead of using real life examples?

You cannot have a prosperous society in which a small fraction of the population has been allowed to accumulate a majority of the wealth.

Hence the heavy taxes a sensible society levies on inherited wealth, if it allows the concept at all (a true capitalist would never tolerate a government institution like legal inheritance).

Hence the high prices a sensible government charges for its fertile land, watersheds, oil and gas deposits, use of the public water and air for waste disposal, etc.

You can, however, create better conditions for it to multiply on its own by preventing it from piling up in inefficient and unworkable and even dangerous quantities.

Actually, that's never happened. The common situation throughout history is that 95% of the people become angry at the fact that 5% are making away with the returned wealth of everybody else's investments and risks and labor, enough so that they are willing to try wrecking the place and starting over.

The wealthy describe this as "redistribution", the 95% describe it as "distribution", also known as "getting paid", "reparations", and "self defense".

 

No you have not. And you have continued to ignore the questions that have been put to you. Because you know the answers and you don't like the answers because the answers do not support your contentions.

You are working a slippery slope fallacy here. Your statement was wrong. Not everything government gets must be taken from someone else. I pointed out using your argument; your paycheck was taken from someone else. So what does that make you? Government provides goods and services to its citizens. Those goods and services have a cost. That cost is funded from a variety of sources, including taxes.

And how do you identify those who have made welfare their life’s work? In The United States people have to look for work or receive job training so they can get work in order to receive welfare benefits. And in the US there is a life time cap on welfare benefits of 5 years. Supplemental food assistance is given to those who work and earn less than the poverty rate. And if people are infirm and cannot work they are given government assistance. Are you suggesting that we empty our nursing homes and dump their residents on the streets?

The mythical welfare queen just doesn’t exist in the US. They use to. I know. I saw a number of them first hand back in the 70’s and 80’s. But that was remedied in 1996 in the US.

 

Unlike in the days of the French Revolution, the wealthy know to keep a reasonably healthy middle to insure that the poor do not get to them.

They know how to insure the survival of the wealthy.

Regards
DL

 

You make a foolish statement and I am on a slippery slope. Smooth.

Your last is also foolish.


My basic view is what the law of the land is; 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.

If you questions are not all dealt with then let's hear it instead of your complaint that something was not dealt with. I do not read minds.

Regards
DL

 

Do you know what a fallacy is? Apparently not. . .

Instead of name calling and employing a host of fallacies; how about answering the questions that have been put to you?

And has been pointed out to you repeatedly by myself and others, using that line of thought, everyone is a tax payer including grade school kids because we all pay taxes. You go to the store and purchase a toy, clothing, or candy and in some states food and you will be taxed. So based on what you have said, virtually everyone (infants excluded) pay taxes.

Ok I am glad you go that part. But to be correct, government provides goods and services. It is not a service. It is an organization created and owned by its citizens to provide goods and services for its citizens.

Ok, so far so good. I am glad you got that.

As previously pointed out to you, it is an impossibility to be on welfare in the US for more than 5 years unless an individual is permanently disabled and even then those individuals pay taxes when they buy personal care products, food and clothing. So under your original claim, these people would be entitled to vote because they pay taxes.

Why are you only concerned about poor people and not the wealthy? The facts are that most of the people in the US receiving Medicaid assistance are the working poor. They pay taxes too.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rayson-says-more-walmart-employees-medicaid-/

Do you have any evidence of pandering to the poor by politicians? The poor are the most unrepresented faction in Washington because they don’t have the money to buy access to their representatives as wealthy folks do. Poor people don’t have the money to spend sending their representatives to luxury resorts where they can bask in the sun with their elected representatives and lobby them for special legislation to benefit them like wealthy folks can and do.

Only about 15% of Americans earn less that the poverty rate and of those individuals most work for companies like Wal-Mart and those individuals pay taxes, sales taxes and payroll taxes and property taxes, etc.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The rich are getting richer, but you don’t want to disenfranchise them. But the poor are not getting wealthier. The poor are not buying Mcmansions or Mccadilacs and they are working. They are barely putting food on the table and a roof over their heads. And they are not a huge voting bloc. They are a minority. That is why they usually get screwed.

No this is a myth and has been repeatedly been proven to you as such. You just keep ignoring the facts which expose your myths.

I am not going to endlessly repeat the questions that have been put to you. Go back and reread them. It really should not be a difficult task.

 

First, VAT's and other user taxes are regressive and hurt the poor more than the rich. I hope you do not like that children have to pay taxes on their gum or the poor pay taxes on gas even if it is with your money.

Second, those on the dole are not paying those taxes with money they have earned but with money the taxpayer earned and put in his poor pockets.

If you cannot fathom the difference then what can I say.


You do have me curious as to how your systems work though.
“it is an impossibility to be on welfare in the US for more than 5 years”

What happens to one who goes over that limit?
You spoke of the disabled which is fine but what if one has no good excuse.
I know of your food stamps although I do not know what the requirements are for getting them but that would not speak to a family being thrown out by a slum lord when they cannot pay their rent.

As to those like Walmart who have learned to milk your systems, national health care would have taken care of that if you would have followed the rest of the civilized world.

“But the poor are not getting wealthier”

B S ----- says the demographer in that link above.

Regards
DL

 

Children do not pay Value Added Taxes. Manufacturers pay Value Added Taxes. I said Sales Tax. There is a difference between a Sales Tax and a Value Added Tax. You are conflating the two.

You are flip-flopping again. Now you are back to the notion that the source of the money is the disqualifying factor, not the taxes. If one receives money from the government, then they are disenfranchised. You have made an exception for military folks. But how about others on the government dole, are you going to disenfranchise government workers? Are you going to disenfranchise people who receive other government subsidies like tax credits or deductions or are you just going to discriminate against poor people? Are you going to disenfranchise the stockholders of Wal-Mart because the government is subsidizing their work force? Are you going to disenfranchise small business owners because the government subsidizes their work force with Housing and healthcare benefits?

I explained that to you previously. I suggest you go back and read. Welfare benefits in the US are capped and in order to receive the benefit you have to be looking for work or receiving job training so you can get work or you have to be physically unable to work.

If you exceed your lifetime benefit you are SOL.

Then you have to be looking for work or receiving job training.

There is a separate program for food assistance, it’s called SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program). Food stamps are gone, but the name is still in use although the program no longer exists. There are a number of hurdles that must be met in order to qualify for food assistance. And food stamp assistance like welfare is considered temporary. If you are an able bodied single person working less than 20 hours per week you can only get food assistance for three months out of every 36 months.

Well no thanks to so called “conservatives” and the Republican Party, we are following the Swiss healthcare model. It’s called Obamacare.

Yeah, the poor are not getting wealthier. But the wealthy are doing just fine.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/income/income_inequality/index.html

 

And that's where the system comes apart.

If lots of Democrats are on welfare but are also parents, then they make sure parents get an exception for raising children. Because otherwise you hate parents.
If lots of Republicans are on welfare but are also former government workers, then they make sure that former government workers get an exception. Because "they served their country."

Etc.

And whoever plays that game the best gets the most votes - and wins through politics, not through an honest vote. And of course once (for example) the Republicans gain a supermajority, they pass laws that deny teachers the right to vote (because they are "taxtakers" - their money comes from taxes) and ensure that only Republican demographics can vote. They are trying to do this now - change the electoral college laws in democratically aligned states to eliminate the possibility of Democrats winning presidential elections. Imagine what they would do if they could just deny people the vote.

And in your system, anyone's vote can simply be cancelled by unscrupulous politicians. Much cheaper than buying their vote.

 

Joepistole

Learn to read statistics my friend.

That clip clearly shows the upward trend to wealth for all including the poorest.

Thanks for the information on your welfare system.
From up in Canada here, I can now see better why you have the highest incarceration rate of all the free world.

I will not go into it as it is too far off topic and much of it would be psychological and those discussions are like talking of God. We would get nowhere as much of it is pure speculation.

You did not acknowledge the regressive nature of VAT's and other goods and services sales taxes or user taxes.

Do you recognize them as regressive?

Regards
DL