• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's taxation without representation, I tell you!!

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Okay, so 47% of Americans don't pay any income tax. They get the exact same vote I do. Where is MY representation as a taxpayer?

People who don't pay Federal taxes have no incentive to hold down spending or make government smaller. They are over-represented.

I'm under-represented. Where's the justice in that?

Should people who pay income tax get TWO votes? (I'm really kinda' serious here.)
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Okay, so 47% of Americans don't pay any income tax. They get the exact same vote I do. Where is MY representation as a taxpayer?

People who don't pay Federal taxes have no incentive to hold down spending or make government smaller. They are over-represente

I'm under-represented. Where's the justice in that?

Should people who pay income tax get TWO votes? (I'm really kinda' serious here.)

Doesn't seem fair, but that's exactly how the liberals want it. Otherwise a good chunk of the population would have no reason to vote for the dems.
I really wish they would wake up and realize they are being used.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,951
Reaction score
28,520
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you both harbor the delusion that those who may not qualify to pay federal income tax do not pay other taxes as well? Or do you agree that one can not pay income tax at the federal level but still pay taxes in this nation?
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Do you both harbor the delusion that those who may not qualify to pay federal income tax do not pay other taxes as well? Or do you agree that one can not pay income tax at the federal level but still pay taxes in this nation?

"No" to your first question. Why do you think I harbor delusions? I don't even know you. ;-) And your last question, of course, I agree; but that has nothing to do with it. Every single income-earning American should be required to pay Federal taxes.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,212
Reaction score
24,368
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Okay, so 47% of Americans don't pay any income tax. They get the exact same vote I do. Where is MY representation as a taxpayer?

People who don't pay Federal taxes have no incentive to hold down spending or make government smaller. They are over-represented.

I'm under-represented. Where's the justice in that?

Should people who pay income tax get TWO votes? (I'm really kinda' serious here.)

Voting is a right of citizenship. Taxation has nothing to do with it.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,942
Reaction score
33,982
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The idea that voting should be determined by how much money you make is about as un-American and anti-democratic as it gets. (and before someone drops that "but we're not a democracy we're a republic" nonsense, a republic is a type of democracy. so shut up.)
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
77,400
Reaction score
45,039
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The idea that voting should be determined by how much money you make is about as un-American and anti-democratic as it gets. (and before someone drops that "but we're not a democracy we're a republic" nonsense, a republic is a type of democracy. so shut up.)

Only white, landowning males were allowed to vote when the Republic was first founded.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,212
Reaction score
24,368
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Only white, landowning males were allowed to vote when the Republic was first founded.

Which was very clearly and undeniably wrong on the part of the FFs.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,605
Reaction score
14,467
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The idea that voting should be determined by how much money you make is about as un-American and anti-democratic as it gets.

It's not about how much money a person makes, it's about whether a person is paying income taxes... Whether their contributing.

I think America should be like a local club or civic organization. Where everyone in the neighborhood is welcome to come in and use the facilities, but only the dues paying members get to vote on who leads the organization and how the treasury funds are spent. Allowing someone who doesn't pay any dues, to have a say in how your dues are spent makes no sense.

Paying federal income tax is your "membership" in the federal government. Anyone who does not pay federal income taxes should not be able to have a say in how those funds are spent, therefore, should not be allowed to participate in federal elections. The only exception to that, would be the spouse of someone who payed income taxes as "head of the household".
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
77,400
Reaction score
45,039
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Which was very clearly and undeniably wrong on the part of the FFs.

That it may be, but fact is it existed. We understand things a bit differently now; but to say that it is un-American to deny voting to certain economic blocks is not entirely true either. It was once a time honored tradition.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The idea that voting should be determined by how much money you make is about as un-American and anti-democratic as it gets. (and before someone drops that "but we're not a democracy we're a republic" nonsense, a republic is a type of democracy. so shut up.)

If taxation without representation is wrong, then having my representation weighted by those who don't pay taxes is wrong as well. It's not undemocratic to want to be adequately represented...nothing at all undemocratic about that.


Which was very clearly and undeniably wrong on the part of the FFs.

Gulp. The Founding Fathers were wrong?? Actually, they weren't. It's only in hindsight that they are. They were 100% right at the time...proving that Constitutional changes are absolutely necessary as our society evolves.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,212
Reaction score
24,368
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
That it may be, but fact is it existed. We understand things a bit differently now; but to say that it is un-American to deny voting to certain economic blocks is not entirely true either. It was once a time honored tradition.

What America was and what America is are not the same thing. (that is both a good and bad thing) I believe Deuce and I are speaking from the contemporary perspective, which I see as the most relavent since we are talking about the policy of today, not something historical.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The idea that voting should be determined by how much money you make is about as un-American and anti-democratic as it gets. (and before someone drops that "but we're not a democracy we're a republic" nonsense, a republic is a type of democracy. so shut up.)

And it's pure corruption that those who pay nothing can vote to raise taxes on people who do. That's why everyone should have a horse in the race.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Let us simply require that everyone in the entire nation above the age of 18 mail $1 to the federal government on the 4th of July. Would that dispel the complaints?
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,605
Reaction score
14,467
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And it's pure corruption that those who pay nothing can vote to raise taxes on people who do. That's why everyone should have a horse in the race.

Just to add to that... It's pure corruption that those who pay nothing can vote to not only raise taxes on people who do, but can vote on how that money should be spent.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
77,400
Reaction score
45,039
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Let's have a 3/5's compromise. People who don't pay taxes have 3/5's of a vote.

*coughs*
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,212
Reaction score
24,368
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Let's have a 3/5's compromise. People who don't pay taxes have 3/5's of a vote.

*coughs*

Shouldn't it be the other way around since those who pay taxes are obviously being enslaved? :mrgreen:

Gulp. The Founding Fathers were wrong?? Actually, they weren't. It's only in hindsight that they are. They were 100% right at the time...proving that Constitutional changes are absolutely necessary as our society evolves.

I am going to disagree with you on that one. While what they did was a step up from Monarchy and they can be called right by moving things in the right direction. In a strict moral sense, they were completely wrong.
 
Last edited:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Shouldn't it be the other way around since those who pay taxes are obviously being enslaved? :mrgreen:

I am going to disagree with you on that one. While what they did was a step up from Monarchy and they can be called right by moving things in the right direction. In a strict moral sense, they were completely wrong.

I would be splitting hairs to argue your point any further, Mega.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,212
Reaction score
24,368
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,874
Reaction score
9,694
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If taxation without representation is wrong, then having my representation weighted by those who don't pay taxes is wrong as well. It's not undemocratic to want to be adequately represented...nothing at all undemocratic about that.
I've read your posts often and generally find you to be a level headed non-partisan person with well thought out posts but this thread reminds me of crazy talk by ultra right wingers.

You've picked some random variable (amount of money made/income taxes paid) and then suggest that we should weigh peoples votes on this variable. We could just as easy pick the amount of property owned, since they should care more, or maybe anyone without a college degree shouldn't be able to vote because they're more educated? Maybe only MENSA members? Would you feel comfortable giving Warren Buffet 1000 votes to your 1 vote because he pays a hefty chuck of taxes?

You are represented. You have congress members that represent you, you have a governor and a mayor and a president that you can vote for or against. Are you wondering why you don't have a special representative standing to the side in congress to explain exactly how every subject is going to affect MaggieD's life? It's cause you're not the special and because the world doesn't revolve around you.

You're main complaint seems to be why can't we tax all people, even the ones who can't afford to pay taxes. Simple, they can't afford to pay taxes. We could throw some income tax on that single mother working a minimum wage job earning 15000 a year and throw her and her baby out on the street but who in the world does that really help? All it will do is make you sleep a little bit better at night.
 

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The way to solve taxation by representation is an easy answer in theory; and requires little effort in principle, however, in practice not politically feasable. The answer simply is to indicate by line item on your paychecks, unemployent check, or welfare stub where your withholding is going, something like the below; as an example.

Federal Income tax withholding - John Doe (pay period ending Oct 31st)

Gross Income - $10,000

1. Social Security - 3% $300
2. Medicare/Medicaid - 3% $300
3. Defense - $3% $300
4. Infrastructure - 4% $400
5. Welfare - 2% $200
6. Education - 2% $200
7. Non-Security International - 0.5% $50
8. Federal Benefits - 2% (includes federal employees, pensions etc..) $200
9. Scientific / Medical research - 1% $100
10. INterest on National Debt - 2% $200

Net pay = $7750.00 :)

Just an example, but you get the idea. Politicians would then be held accountable, and could run on platforms that would tie them to their support for increasing/decreasing said percentages.

Just sayin..


Tim-
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Residents of Washington DC have no representation, either. We have no votes in either the House or the Senate.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
255,237
Reaction score
77,422
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I've read your posts often and generally find you to be a level headed non-partisan person with well thought out posts but this thread reminds me of crazy talk by ultra right wingers.

You've picked some random variable (amount of money made/income taxes paid) and then suggest that we should weigh peoples votes on this variable. We could just as easy pick the amount of property owned, since they should care more, or maybe anyone without a college degree shouldn't be able to vote because they're more educated? Maybe only MENSA members? Would you feel comfortable giving Warren Buffet 1000 votes to your 1 vote because he pays a hefty chuck of taxes?

You are represented. You have congress members that represent you, you have a governor and a mayor and a president that you can vote for or against. Are you wondering why you don't have a special representative standing to the side in congress to explain exactly how every subject is going to affect MaggieD's life? It's cause you're not the special and because the world doesn't revolve around you.

You're main complaint seems to be why can't we tax all people, even the ones who can't afford to pay taxes. Simple, they can't afford to pay taxes. We could throw some income tax on that single mother working a minimum wage job earning 15000 a year and throw her and her baby out on the street but who in the world does that really help? All it will do is make you sleep a little bit better at night.

do you think 100 such mothers have the right to vote away the wealth of some hard working doctor merely because he makes more than all of them do?
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's not about how much money a person makes, it's about whether a person is paying income taxes... Whether their contributing.

I think America should be like a local club or civic organization. Where everyone in the neighborhood is welcome to come in and use the facilities, but only the dues paying members get to vote on who leads the organization and how the treasury funds are spent. Allowing someone who doesn't pay any dues, to have a say in how your dues are spent makes no sense.

Paying federal income tax is your "membership" in the federal government. Anyone who does not pay federal income taxes should not be able to have a say in how those funds are spent, therefore, should not be allowed to participate in federal elections. The only exception to that, would be the spouse of someone who payed income taxes as "head of the household".

It seems to me you would rather live in a plutocracy rather than a democracy.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I've read your posts often and generally find you to be a level headed non-partisan person with well thought out posts but this thread reminds me of crazy talk by ultra right wingers.

Well, every once in a while, I stray.:3oops:

You've picked some random variable (amount of money made/income taxes paid) and then suggest that we should weigh peoples votes on this variable. We could just as easy pick the amount of property owned, since they should care more, or maybe anyone without a college degree shouldn't be able to vote because they're more educated? Maybe only MENSA members? Would you feel comfortable giving Warren Buffet 1000 votes to your 1 vote because he pays a hefty chuck of taxes?

It's not a random variable at all. Why should someone who pays no Federal income tax have a vote on how that money is spent? Why should anyone not pay Federal income tax? You say they can't afford to pay it? With tax credits, I think you'd be surprised who's not paying taxes:

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

You are represented. You have congress members that represent you, you have a governor and a mayor and a president that you can vote for or against. Are you wondering why you don't have a special representative standing to the side in congress to explain exactly how every subject is going to affect MaggieD's life? It's cause you're not the special and because the world doesn't revolve around you.

Please don't bust my balloon. My world is spinning most of the time. Doesn't that count? I don't want a special representative. I want fair representation. My vote is outweighed by the 47% of the people in this country who don't pay any Federal taxes. I don't have fair representation.

You're main complaint seems to be why can't we tax all people, even the ones who can't afford to pay taxes. Simple, they can't afford to pay taxes. We could throw some income tax on that single mother working a minimum wage job earning 15000 a year and throw her and her baby out on the street but who in the world does that really help? All it will do is make you sleep a little bit better at night.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
 
Top Bottom