• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Should people who pay more income tax have more votes?

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,964
Reaction score
16,571
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should people who pay more income tax have more votes?

We have a graduated income tax system where besides paying more in taxes when you make more money, you are also charged a higher percentage of income tax. So isn't there the real danger that those who do not pay that much into the system are not going to give a rats ass how much money the government spends since they know that what ever they contribute isn't ****?


Why should those who only pay 10% have the same say in how the money is spent as someone who pays 35% or more? Why should they have a equal voice when one pays more in money as well as higher percentage of money as someone who only contributes chump change?


Those who rob from Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul's support." Isn't there a real danger in that?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,886
Reaction score
82,502
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Should people who pay more income tax have more votes?

We have a graduated income tax system where besides paying more in taxes when you make more money, you are also charged a higher percentage of income tax. So isn't there the real danger that those who do not pay that much into the system are not going to give a rats ass how much money the government spends since they know that what ever they contribute isn't ****?


Why should those who only pay 10% have the same say in how the money is spent as someone who pays 35% or more? Why should they have a equal voice when one pays more in money as well as higher percentage of money as someone who only contributes chump change?


Those who rob from Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul's support." Isn't there a real danger in that?

ideally no one should be able to vote taxes higher without suffering themselves. since 47% of the public faces no increase in taxes when the people they tend to support scream for tax hikes, yes-those who pay more should get more votes.

Just like a corporation-you own half the stock, you have more at stake than a guy who owns one share--and you get more votes
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Similar arguments can be made for smaller states vs. bigger states in the voting. Why does a smaller population get equal voting power to the populations of bigger states?

Creating a plutocratic voting system has historically had disastrous results because the politicians then only cater their campaigns to those with the money in society, and in turn the government gradually turns plutocratic based on those with the more voting power. This causes the government to become more and more divorced from the common people, and eventually leads to civil unrest as ultimately there are horrible policy decisions made that affect millions of people.

You should implement such a system... if you want wide scale uprisings.
 

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,504
Location
Sacramento, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No. Because taxes and spending isn't the end all be all of the purpose of the government. There are several things people consider when electing their government, such as foreign policy, civil rights, etc. that have little to do with how much you pay in taxes.

Second, it is government "of the people", not "of the people who pay the most taxes". To give any one person more say than another betrays the essential spirit of a republican government.

Third, the whole premise is silly. The people who are most helped by social programs, the lowest tiered income brackets, are the ones with the very lowest voting rates. It's the middle class that supports these programs, even if they don't usually qualify.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As male of draftable age, I can be conscripted against my will and sent into a combat zone and probably die based on the votes of people who don't have to fight. Talk about unfair. In is an inevitable fact of democracy that the majority will have to vote of issues that impact only a specific segment of the population. No system of voting will be fair in all ways, and 1 person 1 vote is the best compromise available.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
49,232
Reaction score
28,989
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Should people who pay more income tax have more votes?

We have a graduated income tax system where besides paying more in taxes when you make more money, you are also charged a higher percentage of income tax. So isn't there the real danger that those who do not pay that much into the system are not going to give a rats ass how much money the government spends since they know that what ever they contribute isn't ****?


Why should those who only pay 10% have the same say in how the money is spent as someone who pays 35% or more? Why should they have a equal voice when one pays more in money as well as higher percentage of money as someone who only contributes chump change?


Those who rob from Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul's support." Isn't there a real danger in that?

They essentially already have more votes in the sense that they have more speech and influence on politicians.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,886
Reaction score
82,502
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Similar arguments can be made for smaller states vs. bigger states in the voting. Why does a smaller population get equal voting power to the populations of bigger states?

Creating a plutocratic voting system has historically had disastrous results because the politicians then only cater their campaigns to those with the money in society, and in turn the government gradually turns plutocratic based on those with the more voting power. This causes the government to become more and more divorced from the common people, and eventually leads to civil unrest as ultimately there are horrible policy decisions made that affect millions of people.

You should implement such a system... if you want wide scale uprisings.

the way things are going, the most productive will leave and the rest will uprise and kill each other when the cash cows are not around to fund the existence of the welfare addicts
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,926
Reaction score
3,472
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
They essentially already have more votes in the sense that they have more speech and influence on politicians.

Not true at all. I pay more taxes than the average family income and have zero influence with our people in congress.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
49,232
Reaction score
28,989
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
the way things are going, the most productive will leave and the rest will uprise and kill each other when the cash cows are not around to fund the existence of the welfare addicts

Yes, please go galt and watch someone immediately rise up and take your place in society :lol:
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
No, taxes aren't everything. Money doesn't make someone more valuable than another. Everyone should have equal say in our government, enough said.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Not to repeat myself from previous threads on this issue - or just restate what other's have already said here . . . I vaguely remember reports from the last election that pointed out that the poorest - are the least involved to begin with when it comes to voting for several reasons.

#1 - personal lack of interest
#2 - inability to travel and vote
#3 - unable to find childcare
#4 - unable to fully learn about measures on ballot (by lack of communication (net, cable) and this acts as a deterrent to voting.

So - perhaps people shouldn't ponder "should the tax payers vote *more*"
But they should ponder "do poor people *vote* at all"
 

The Dane

Active member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
253
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If this was allowed then the rich would rule the country with a ridiculous amount of power.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,586
Reaction score
50,204
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nah.

Though frankly I'd be okay with this:
No new taxes or tax-raises without a referendum. The only people who get to vote in the referendum are those who are "net tax payers."

When I say net tax payers, I mean everything: Fed, State, Local, SS/Medicare, property, sales, whatever. Subtract from that whatever they get in gov't welfare or business subsidies.

I think you'd find there are more net-tax-payers than you thought.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,965
Reaction score
9,696
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the way things are going, the most productive will leave and the rest will uprise and kill each other when the cash cows are not around to fund the existence of the welfare addicts

And just where are the most productive going to go?
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,965
Reaction score
9,696
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nah.

Though frankly I'd be okay with this:
No new taxes or tax-raises without a referendum. The only people who get to vote in the referendum are those who are "net tax payers."

When I say net tax payers, I mean everything: Fed, State, Local, SS/Medicare, property, sales, whatever. Subtract from that whatever they get in gov't welfare or business subsidies.

I think you'd find there are more net-tax-payers than you thought.

Just to be safe I would exclude those who received in any way shape or form more money from the government then they paid in taxes
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Just to be safe I would exclude those who received in any way shape or form more money from the government then they paid in taxes

Ah - so all Active Duty military personnel are out of a vote. :shrug: Nice one - if you just don't want jobless poor idiots to vote then say "I don't want jobless poor idiots to vote" rather than contriving ideas and constructs that sweep others into the fray.
 
Last edited:

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
49,232
Reaction score
28,989
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Just to be safe I would exclude those who received in any way shape or form more money from the government then they paid in taxes

I would exclude people who have jobs working for the government or as a contractor.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Ah - so all Active Duty military personnel are out of a vote. :shrug: Nice one - if you just don't want jobless poor idiots to vote then say "I don't want jobless poor idiots to vote" rather than contriving ideas and constructs that sweep others into the fray.

how about it's just a very bad idea? every person is not capable of the same earnings. wtf is wrong with people that they would even advance this idea?
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Should people who pay more income tax have more votes?

We have a graduated income tax system where besides paying more in taxes when you make more money, you are also charged a higher percentage of income tax. So isn't there the real danger that those who do not pay that much into the system are not going to give a rats ass how much money the government spends since they know that what ever they contribute isn't ****?


Why should those who only pay 10% have the same say in how the money is spent as someone who pays 35% or more? Why should they have a equal voice when one pays more in money as well as higher percentage of money as someone who only contributes chump change?


Those who rob from Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul's support." Isn't there a real danger in that?

chump change? really, can that be objectively defined? i think not.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
49,232
Reaction score
28,989
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
how about it's just a very bad idea? every person is not capable of the same earnings. wtf is wrong with people that they would even advance this idea?

Greed. They want to pay fewer taxes by any means necessary even if it means creating second class citizens to do it.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,964
Reaction score
16,571
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Nah.

Though frankly I'd be okay with this:
No new taxes or tax-raises without a referendum. The only people who get to vote in the referendum are those who are "net tax payers."

When I say net tax payers, I mean everything: Fed, State, Local, SS/Medicare, property, sales, whatever. Subtract from that whatever they get in gov't welfare or business subsidies.

I think you'd find there are more net-tax-payers than you thought.

I love the idea of tax referendums and allowing only those who will be affected to vote on those,A paygo system should be enacted to go along with such a system to insure that the clowns in office are spending more than what tax payer money they receive. It should be like that anywhere. Because its easy as hell to raise a tax on something if its not going to effect you.


I do not support restricting people on picking their elected officials based on whether or not they contribute taxes or allowing someone more votes just because they pay more taxes. I do not support the country only being ran by the rich.
 
Last edited:

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,964
Reaction score
16,571
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Greed. They want to pay fewer taxes by any means necessary even if it means creating second class citizens to do it.

I really wouldn't call it greed to want to keep something you rightfully earned. If the greed is on anyone's part it is those who did not earn the money and want to tax others for their own personal benefit.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
49,232
Reaction score
28,989
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I really wouldn't call it greed to want to keep something you rightfully earned. If the greed is on anyone's part it is those who did not earn the money and want to tax others for their own personal benefit.

Greed is an overriding love of material things.

Covetousness is the desire for things that are not yours.

Both are bad if not done in moderation. However, I would not count it as covetousness for people to desire things to keep them alive, only for unreasonable luxury.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,964
Reaction score
16,571
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Greed is an overriding love of material things..

Wanting to keep what you rightfully earned is not greed regardless of how much you earn. I know a libs have a hard time understand this concept of property rights and that money you earn equals man hours that you or someone else is never going to get back, that the government is servants of the people and that when the people give the government their tax dollars it is still the tax payers money.




Covetousness is the desire for things that are not yours.
Which describes most of the lets tax the hell out of the rich they don't need it and we are ****en jealous of what they have crowd.

Both are bad if not done in moderation. However, I would not count it as covetousness for people to desire things to keep them alive,

If welfare, social security were the only things that the government spent money on besides the basics like roads, law enforcement, military and infrastructure and education then that might be true. However the "lets tax the hell out of the rich because we are green with envy" crowd wants free medical care, Free abortions, free college education, college education for inmates behind bars, education for illegals and their children, foreign aid and many other non essentials.Even some of the companies

only for unreasonable luxury

To many people televisions, phones, cars, central air conditioning and heating and many other things are unreasonable luxuries. So who are we to say what is unreasonable.
 
Top Bottom