Should people who pay more income tax have more votes?

[Slartibartfast]

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.

It is if you value stuff over people.

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.

Its not about jealousy, its about the preservation of life.

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

Better infrastructure makes better societies and allows for a more prosperous upper class. Its a self perpetuating cycle. A rising tide, boats, etc.

ITo 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.

I agree. Its all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Those dang poor... How dare they want reasonably priced health care and educational opportunities for their children? Greedy bastards, wanting all that money I honestly earned by slashing wages, raising prices, collecting fat bonuses while failing at my job, waging war, manipulating politicians, and gambling with the stock market...

 

[Groucho]

I can't believe this is seriously being discussed.

 

[jamesrage]

I can't believe this is seriously being discussed.

I brought this up because someone in another thread suggested that only federal income tax payers should vote since those in office decide how tax dollars are spent and those with no stake in the pot should not get to decide how its spent. Using the logic of those who support only federal income tax payers voting I came up with this thread.

 

[Groucho]

I brought this up because someone in another thread suggested that only federal income tax payers should vote since those in office decide how tax dollars are spent and those with no stake in the pot should not get to decide how its spent. Using the logic of those who support only federal income tax payers voting I came up with this thread.

Oh, I understand; I am just surprised that in this so-called enlightened day and age, there are still people who believe the rich are somehow wiser and better suited for governance than the peasants. I thought we got rid of the idea of kings and nobility long ago; in fact, I thought this country was based on a rejection of that idea. I seem to recall something about "all men being created equal."

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

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.

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

Just to be clear my post was tongue in cheek

I think every adult should have the same right to vote as any other adult in the US (excluding convicted felons serving their sentances

But if the issue is those that are net tax payers, those that receive more in government money then they pay in taxes, are not net tax payers as they are receiving more tax dollars then they pay.

So yes, all military, police, FBI, medicare doctors, legal aid lawyers, among the millions of other government workers would not be allowed to vote. Just think of the number of Conservatives who would no longer be allowed to vote with such a policy

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

]I love the idea of tax referendums and allowing only those who will be affected to vote on those,A[/B] 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.

I think the bolded area has merit if applied more widely

People should only be allowed to vote on issue's that directly affect them

The gay marriage issue, only gay people get to vote on it, as it does not affect hetrosexuals, banning drug use, only those that use drugs get to vote on banning them.

Perfectly fine proposal

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Just to be clear my post was tongue in cheek

I think every adult should have the same right to vote as any other adult in the US (excluding convicted felons serving their sentances

But if the issue is those that are net tax payers, those that receive more in government money then they pay in taxes, are not net tax payers as they are receiving more tax dollars then they pay.

So yes, all military, police, FBI, medicare doctors, legal aid lawyers, among the millions of other government workers would not be allowed to vote. Just think of the number of Conservatives who would no longer be allowed to vote with such a policy

No - their source of income per their employment and work isn't what I was talking about but you could swing it that way if you wanted . . . but neither of us are going in that direction.

Example (our life at the moment)
My husband is 'active duty' - a large portion of his *Active duty pay* is *non-taxable income* specifically because he's on Active-duty orders. At any moment that active-duty status can change.

So, when tax season comes around we take his gross income - minus out our deduction and what have you (which, for us, is nothing - we file before deduction-forms can be obtained from various places like the mortgage company)

So - that non-taxable income is taken out and then you assess your taxable income according to what's left . . . which isn't much.

Thus - our taxes are calculated based on a few thousand - when my husband makes far more than that. Netting us a return which is greater than the "net taxable income" portion of his pay.

Thus - by your thought process (removing the tongue and cheek) - active duty families wouldn't be able to vote because most of their income *isn't even calculated at income tax season* . . . and what *is* calculated puts them actually in the lower tax bracket and *not* in the middle/upper middle class tax bracket.

With my first post on this subject I was pointing in this direction - to show that *income and taxes* mean nothing.

 

[imagep]

Should people who pay more income tax have more votes?

No, they should just pay off more politions.

 

[Deuce]

No, they should just pay off more politions.

This is what they already do. The wealthy already have far greater representation than the poor. The premise of this thread is just as absurd as the other one that suggested that poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Anybody supporting this sort of idea is literally anti-American because they're against the single core principle upon which this country was founded.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is what they already do. The wealthy already have far greater representation than the poor. The premise of this thread is just as absurd as the other one that suggested that poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Anybody supporting this sort of idea is literally anti-American because they're against the single core principle upon which this country was founded.

except that the wealthy have no monolithic positions. those rich because of the government tend to be dems-those rich despite the government tend to be conservatives. Those who have old wealth in land etc tend to be against estate taxes, those with massive new wealth see it as killing off the competition and freeing up scarce one of a kind items they can now buy.

 

[Deuce]

except that the wealthy have no monolithic positions. those rich because of the government tend to be dems-those rich despite the government tend to be conservatives. Those who have old wealth in land etc tend to be against estate taxes, those with massive new wealth see it as killing off the competition and freeing up scarce one of a kind items they can now buy.

Ridiculous generalizations, but yes, the wealthy are not a single bloc that works in unison. You're still missing the point. They're still far more represented than the average person. They can hire lobbyists to directly influence congress. It happens constantly. Large companies make billions off government contracts this way. Their CEOs get multi-million dollar bonuses.

And again, voting is the basic concept of democracy. (don't give me that republic nonsense. A republic is a representative democracy) One person gets one vote. That's the deal. That's America.