MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- 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-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.)
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?
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.)
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.
The idea that voting should be determined by how much money you make is about as un-American and anti-democratic as it gets.
Which was very clearly and undeniably wrong on the part of the FFs.
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.)
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.
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.
Let's have a 3/5's compromise. People who don't pay taxes have 3/5's of a vote.
*coughs*
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.
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.
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.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.
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".
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?
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?