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

[spud_meister]

Now that's the best argument I've heard yet. I'm not, though, calling anyone a second-class citizen. I simply want everyone to have a dog in the fight. That a household can be making $50,000 a year with two dependent children, pay no income tax and yet have the same weighted vote that I have paying my, let's say $20,000 a year in taxes, is unfair. When 47% of the voting population doesn't have a dog in the fight, how can we not look at the mess we're in and blame that stacked system right along with Congress?

To give some citizens more of a say than others, irregardless of whether they deserve it or not, is making a second class who's voice isn't as valid. And to take your example, while the household with two children doesn't pay income tax, I'm sure with two children they would make up for it in other areas, particularly sales tax on all the goods needed for a family. While 47% may not pay income tax, it's a safe bet that much of that 47% still don't want any form of tax increase, as it would raise costs on other areas.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

.................. 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.

Don't know that its been shown that they were wrong in hindsight either, nor that this would be an example that proves the necessity of "Constitutional changes absolutely necessary as our socitey evolves".

I am not arguing for no changes, nor am I saying all changes regarding the vote were ill-advised. However, whether one think it first said by such as Franklin, or de Tocqueville, etc., the adage has been something akin to "our Democracy is a wonderful thing until one section of voters realizes that they can vote themselves the earnings of the other", which will then be the root of our decline. I submit that Pogo also got it right with the realization that "we have met the enemy, and he is us".

I would favor a requirement that one have federally taxable income before one can vote. Not gonna happen though.

 

[Deuce]

Can we dispel this idiocy that not paying federal income taxes is the same thing as not paying taxes? If you receive an above-the-counter paycheck, you pay federal taxes.

Every time this subject pops up, it staggers me that anyone would support it. Weighted votes based on income? ****ing really?

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Can we dispel this idiocy that not paying federal income taxes is the same thing as not paying taxes? If you receive an above-the-counter paycheck, you pay federal taxes.

Every time this subject pops up, it staggers me that anyone would support it. Weighted votes based on income? ****ing really?

I don't know that I would call it "staggering". While there are taxes taken from every paycheck that go to the Federal Government, and I assume you mean FICA and the like, those are taxes for which the benefits are targeted directly back to the individual. They are also not progressive in nature. I am not advocating that some folks get more votes than others as multiples of income, but there is merit in notions that one needs to have a dog in the hunt in order to be part of the rule making.

As an aside, you have no right to vote for President.

 

[Deuce]

I don't know that I would call it "staggering". While there are taxes taken from every paycheck that go to the Federal Government, and I assume you mean FICA and the like, those are taxes for which the benefits are targeted directly back to the individual. They are also not progressive in nature. I am not advocating that some folks get more votes than others as multiples of income, but there is merit in notions that one needs to have a dog in the hunt in order to be part of the rule making.

As an aside, you have no right to vote for President.

And you're defining "having a dog in the hunt" as being taxed progressively? How convenient.

But disenfranchising larger numbers of minorities who vote overwhelmingly Democrat has nothing to do with it, right?

edit: Also, there can be only one!

 

[Slartibartfast]

And you're defining "having a dog in the hunt" as being taxed progressively? How convenient.

But disenfranchising larger numbers of minorities who vote overwhelmingly Democrat has nothing to do with it, right?

edit: Also, there can be only one!

Ok, stop right there. You two Deuces need to get different avatars for my disorganized sake!

 

[Eighty Deuce]

And you're defining "having a dog in the hunt" as being taxed progressively? How convenient.

But disenfranchising larger numbers of minorities who vote overwhelmingly Democrat has nothing to do with it, right?

edit: Also, there can be only one!

The premise does go back to our Founders, and it is unfortunate that you have chosen to play the race card. Our current tax structure has become one where approximately 47% of all houselholds pay no federal income tax. Arguments made about taxation do not just go to the issue being discussed here, but also to the entire structure of our tax-system, how it is FUBAR, and deliberately kept that way so as to empower politicians. I suppose the debate can go anywhere it wants to, but it would be nice if this one were kept more concise, looking more at the original intent of the Founders, how it has been changed since, and what the pros and cons have been.

There are some of us who feel that the progressive nature of taxation has only made our system more disfunctional.

I am "Eighty Deuce" in honor of my old unit, the 82nd Airborne Division. Won't be changing it.

 

[Deuce]

The premise does go back to our Founders, and it is unfortunate that you have chosen to play the race card. Our current tax structure has become one where approximately 47% of all houselholds pay no federal income tax. Arguments made about taxation do not just go to the issue being discussed here, but also to the entire structure of our tax-system, how it is FUBAR, and deliberately kept that way so as to empower politicians. I suppose the debate can go anywhere it wants to, but it would be nice if this one were kept more concise, looking more at the orgininal intent of the Founders, how it has been changed since, and what the pros and cons have been.

There are some of us who feel that the progressive nature of taxation has only made our system more disfunctional.

I am "Eighty Deuce" in honor of my old unit, the 82nd Airborne Division. Won't be changing it.

It wasn't the race card, it was the partisan card. Conservatives are supporting this idea because it would tip the scales towards conservative voters.
The founders didn't think I should have the right to vote at all, so you'll forgive me if I don't take their intentions as gospel.

Why do you think progressive taxation makes the system dysfunctional?

 

[d0gbreath]

It would be interesting to see where the country would be headed if we enabled an opt out plan for tax payers and non-tax payers alike:

Suppose you could opt out of paying taxing by giving up your right to vote. How many voters would we have then?

 

[Deuce]

It would be interesting to see where the country would be headed if we enabled an opt out plan for tax payers and non-tax payers alike:

Suppose you could opt out of paying taxing by giving up your right to vote. How many voters would we have then?

Probably zero, as there no longer would be a government to vote in representatives for...

 

[rathi]

I can be drafted against my will and sent off to war by a bunch of people who have "no skin in the game". Whining about lower class people who still have payroll taxes is a joke by comparison. In order to maintain logical consistency, will you support banning old people and women from voting because they cannot be drafted?

 

[Eighty Deuce]

First, I can't possibly see any avenue for us to return to a system that requires a financial stake in the system (using income tax as the stake). The notion being discussed in not one of race or creed. I would agree that it would disenfranchise more Democrats then Republicans, but would use that as evidence of how we have become corrupted by enabling "the general welfare" benevolence and the transfer of wealth, concepts essentially not envisioned by the Founders as well, in that they were opposed to such benevolence.

The progressive nature of our tax system only further shifts burdens, creating more opportunity to vote for wealth transfer, fomenting wealth envy, "the evil rich", etc.

One evolution of our tax system that many hope to see is such as "The Fair Tax". Likely it has been discussed here in the past. I think it has a chance in the coming decade if we continue to get more citiizen activism into the process, such as displayed by The Tea Party. I think that we have some hope of further illuminating the corruption of the current system with such activism, and that some good will come of it.

It wasn't the race card, it was the partisan card. Conservatives are supporting this idea because it would tip the scales towards conservative voters.
The founders didn't think I should have the right to vote at all, so you'll forgive me if I don't take their intentions as gospel.

Why do you think progressive taxation makes the system dysfunctional?

 

[Eighty Deuce]

I can be drafted against my will and sent off to war by a bunch of people who have "no skin in the game". Whining about lower class people who still have payroll taxes is a joke by comparison. In order to maintain logical consistency, will you support banning old people and women from voting because they cannot be drafted?

I think that inaccurate in a couple of ways. Were the draft still in effect, or looking at when it was, everyone was exposed for a certain time frame. That would include old folks, when they were younger. Whether you were actually drafted or not would not be the qualifier.

Secondly, the draft is one of two powers granted the Government by our Constitution where the government can actually seize your time and services without your consent, providing you are otherwise law abiding. The other is jury duty. Agree or disagree, its the original law still.

 

[Deuce]

First, I can't possibly see any avenue for us to return to a system that requires a financial stake in the system (using income tax as the stake). The notion being discussed in not one of race or creed. I would agree that it would disenfranchise more Democrats then Republicans, but would use that as evidence of how we have become corrupted by enabling "the general welfare" benevolence and the transfer of wealth, concepts essentially not envisioned by the Founders as well, in that they were opposed to such benevolence.

The progressive nature of our tax system only further shifts burdens, creating more opportunity to vote for wealth transfer, fomenting wealth envy, "the evil rich", etc.

One evolution of our tax system that many hope to see is such as "The Fair Tax". Likely it has been discussed here in the past. I think it has a chance in the coming decade if we continue to get more citiizen activism into the process, such as displayed by The Tea Party. I think that we have some hope of further illuminating the corruption of the current system with such activism, and that some good will come of it.

You call it wealth transfer, I call it social safety nets that benefit all Americans, not just the poor. Is every taxpayer funded service "wealth transfer?"

A wealthy person has more to lose from robbery or fire than I do, so don't they benefit more from the police and fire protection than I do?
The CEO of FedEx benefits enormously from the nations transportation infrastructure, namely highways, airports, and air traffic control. Heck, any business owner benefits from the road system, as it allows employees from a much wider radius the ability to get to work and make money for that owner. (and themselves, of course)
A wealthy person has more disposable income to invest, which earns a return. In effect, adding $1000 to the salary of a wealthy person is worth somewhat more than $1000. Conversely, a poor person tends to be perpetually in debt, paying interest on loans and credit cards. Adding $1000 to a poor person's salary tends to go towards this debt, in essence that $1000 is worth somewhat less than $1000.
Boeing has recieved billions of dollars in defense contracts, benefiting their executives to a large degree. Is that not wealth transfer?

 

[Grim17]

Actually it would be more like a dad who makes money needed to support a family and a mom who stays at home, but both of them control the finances. Just because someone makes less money does not mean they are incapable of voting responsibly. Do you think I am incapable? Do you want to take away my vote?

First, I already addressed the issue of a stay at home mom. If the husband files as "head of the household" then he's paying taxes for the both of them, so the wife can vote.

Second, I'm sure you quite capable of voting in a responsible manner, but that's an irrelevant argument. I have 2 very rational, logical reasons why in my opinion, any American that isn't paying federal income tax shouldn't be allowed to participate in federal elections. Those reasons are 1) no person should be allowed to have any say so (a vote) on how federal tax money is spent, when none of that money came from them. It's just wrong in my view to let someone decide how other people's money will be spent... and 2) It's not only wrong, but I think it's damn near criminal that the people who don't pay federal income taxes, are given the opportunity at the ballot box to cast a vote to increase those taxes, forcing the people who do pay them, to pay even more, but doesn't cost them one damned cent.

If you ask me, that's allowing millions of people to get away with Grand Larceny.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

You call it wealth transfer, I call it social safety nets that benefit all Americans, not just the poor. Is every taxpayer funded service "wealth transfer?"

A wealthy person has more to lose from robbery or fire than I do, so don't they benefit more from the police and fire protection than I do?
The CEO of FedEx benefits enormously from the nations transportation infrastructure, namely highways, airports, and air traffic control. Heck, any business owner benefits from the road system, as it allows employees from a much wider radius the ability to get to work and make money for that owner. (and themselves, of course)
A wealthy person has more disposable income to invest, which earns a return. In effect, adding $1000 to the salary of a wealthy person is worth somewhat more than $1000. Conversely, a poor person tends to be perpetually in debt, paying interest on loans and credit cards. Adding $1000 to a poor person's salary tends to go towards this debt, in essence that $1000 is worth somewhat less than $1000.
Boeing has recieved billions of dollars in defense contracts, benefiting their executives to a large degree. Is that not wealth transfer?

We could debate this point forever, and frankly, I feel you are expanding the argument into fairy-tale land. Its not about safety nets, but about their size. It is currently not about tax rates, but that fact that 47% pay no income tax. Many also receive refundable tax rebates, where thay paid no tax to begin with, but now received a refund.

You also have chosen to mix "earned income" with the notion of "wealth transfer". That is a bit lame. Were the government just giving money to Boeing executives, rather than buying planes, then you'd have something. Othrewise, you are just foaming a scattered liberal argument for the sake of foaming.

Your argument about the rich and services supports the basic taxation argument, i.e. everyone paying a percent of income. The more income, the more you pay. You've made no argument for the current progressive nature of the tax code however. Last time I checked, the government was tasked with protecting your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of how much you had or had not currently amassed. Our current property tax systems do adequately address your points of who funds and benefits from basic services such as police, fire, school, etc. Always have, and it makes one wonder what the point was in you raising them, except to clutter the debate.

I found your argument very weak. The whole $1000 thing quite silly. Can you do better ?

 

[Grim17]

To give some citizens more of a say than others, irregardless of whether they deserve it or not, is making a second class who's voice isn't as valid. And to take your example, while the household with two children doesn't pay income tax, I'm sure with two children they would make up for it in other areas, particularly sales tax on all the goods needed for a family. While 47% may not pay income tax, it's a safe bet that much of that 47% still don't want any form of tax increase, as it would raise costs on other areas.

You're looking at this thing all wrong here... This isn't about giving some people more say than others, or making some people second class citizens, nor is it about playing favorites or an issue of discrimination.

What this is about is fairness.... It's about both Letting the people who put their money in the Treasury, be the ones who get to decide how that money is spent, and not giving those who don't pay income taxes, the ability to tell those who do, that they have to pay even more.

All she's saying is, it isn't fair that the people who are exempt from paying federal income taxes, have just as much say so as she does about the amount she should pay, and how the money is spent.

 

[Deuce]

We could debate this point forever, and frankly, I feel you are expanding the argument into fairy-tale land. Its not about safety nets, but about their size. It is currently not about tax rates, but that fact that 47% pay no income tax. Many also receive refundable tax rebates, where thay paid no tax to begin with, but now received a refund.

If it was "not about the safety nets, but about the size," you wouldn't be using phrases like "wealth transfer." You would have been talking about their size. What safety nets would you reduce, why, and by how much?

 

[drz-400]

First, I already addressed the issue of a stay at home mom. If the husband files as "head of the household" then he's paying taxes for the both of them, so the wife can vote.

I was mostly commenting on the rational behind your analogy. It would be more akin to another adult also having a say in how the money is spent. 1. Because most adults are rational and reasonable people, and 2. the people pay taxes are not taken away a vote. Everyone gets a vote whether they pay taxes or not.

I thought your analogy was inaccurate.

Second, I'm sure you quite capable of voting in a responsible manner, but that's an irrelevant argument. I have 2 very rational, logical reasons why in my opinion, any American that isn't paying federal income tax shouldn't be allowed to participate in federal elections. Those reasons are 1) no person should be allowed to have any say so (a vote) on how federal tax money is spent, when none of that money came from them. It's just wrong in my view to let someone decide how other people's money will be spent...

If they are to be expected to follow the rules made by the federal government, then they need to have a say in the process. It is known as the criterion of reciprocity. It follows from the the golden rule.

criterion of reciprocity: citizens must reasonably believe that all citizens can reasonably accept the enforcement of a particular set of basic laws. Those coerced by law must be able to endorse the society's fundamental political arrangements freely, not because they are dominated or manipulated or kept uninformed.

Without universal suffrage, not all (reasonable and responsible) citizens can endorse the political arrangements freely. Instead they must have someone else decide for them. You can't count anyone as part of the political community without giving them a part in it. A person is not a member of the political community unless he/she is treated as such, which means they are given a vote like everyone else.

and 2) It's not only wrong, but I think it's damn near criminal that the people who don't pay federal income taxes, are given the opportunity at the ballot box to cast a vote to increase those taxes, forcing the people who do pay them, to pay even more, but doesn't cost them one damned cent.

If you ask me, that's allowing millions of people to get away with Grand Larceny.

But everyone needs to be given the equal opportunity. This comes back to the golden rule again. For example, would a policy that would give draft exemptions to college students on the grounds that educated civilians will be more valuable to the economy be considered fair? No. Yet, by your principles we can take away the votes of citizens on these same exact grounds.

 

[MaggieD]

And you're defining "having a dog in the hunt" as being taxed progressively? How convenient.

Progressive taxation has absolutely nothing to do with the question.

But disenfranchising larger numbers of minorities who vote overwhelmingly Democrat has nothing to do with it, right?

Whoop!!! There it is!!!!! Took quite a few pages, but out comes the race card.

You're looking at this thing all wrong here... This isn't about giving some people more say than others, or making some people second class citizens, nor is it about playing favorites or an issue of discrimination. What this is about is fairness.... It's about both Letting the people who put their money in the Treasury, be the ones who get to decide how that money is spent, and not giving those who don't pay income taxes, the ability to tell those who do, that they have to pay even more.

All she's saying is, it isn't fair that the people who are exempt from paying federal income taxes, have just as much say so as she does about the amount she should pay, and how the money is spent.

Absolutely right.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

If it was "not about the safety nets, but about the size," you wouldn't be using phrases like "wealth transfer." You would have been talking about their size. What safety nets would you reduce, why, and by how much?

We'll give you one example here. Unemployment compensation duration, currently as high as 99 weeks. It should have been kept at 26 weeks.


Otherwise, I am not really in one of those "You say jump, I say 'how high"" moods .

 

[drz-400]

You're looking at this thing all wrong here... This isn't about giving some people more say than others, or making some people second class citizens, nor is it about playing favorites or an issue of discrimination.

What this is about is fairness.... It's about both Letting the people who put their money in the Treasury, be the ones who get to decide how that money is spent, and not giving those who don't pay income taxes, the ability to tell those who do, that they have to pay even more.

All she's saying is, it isn't fair that the people who are exempt from paying federal income taxes, have just as much say so as she does about the amount she should pay, and how the money is spent.

It is about giving some people more say than other. The position, allowing only and specifically income tax payers to vote, would not make sense otherwise.

 

[pbrauer]

I've always heard the right doesn't believe in democracy and here were have shining examples. WOW!!!!

How any of this square with the Constitution and equal protection?

 

[TurtleDude]

I've always heard the right doesn't believe in democracy and here were have shining examples. WOW!!!!

How any of this square with the Constitution and equal protection?

actually we believe in real fairness and its unfair to have those who have no skin in the game saying what the tax rates of others should be.

its like allowing you to vote in a company's election of officers merely because you live near the company even if you own no stock nor work for the company

 

[TurtleDude]

I've always heard the right doesn't believe in democracy and here were have shining examples. WOW!!!!

How any of this square with the Constitution and equal protection?

children are not able to vote either-is that a violation of equal protection?