Should people who pay no income tax be allowed to vote?

[Groucho]

Does the mob rule in calif and other states when the people vote directly on a proposition or referendum?? Many believe it's democracy in it's purest form.

It is, but even people who support it admit it's a mess.

You end up with hundreds of ballot initiatives, some of which contradict each other, and the voters hardly know what they all are so they only vote on one or two. Those that vote on all can not be experts in every one. This also means the vast majority are passed by a small percentage of people who really care about that issue -- giving them power over the vast majority of voters.

And then of course, it ties up the courts for years as the courts have to deal with these new laws that contradict other ones and aren't clearly written.

Some direct voting is good, such as major referendae and amendments, but representative democracy is still the best way to handle the running of a state.

 

[Donc]

Don't you think George may have planned a quick exit for one last BIG WIN over the federal govt? He always said winning was only 2nd to breathing. Maybe he changed his mind at the end... and decided winning was more important than breathing. :lol:

Yea,they most likely had to have a taller casket to hide the boner he had after putting it to the taxpayers. Not only for his heirs skating,also for the nearly $200 hundred mill the taxpayers of New York got stuck subsidizing the richest team in baseball.:roll:

 

[Compatibilist]

So whats wrong with both Direct and Representative democracy side by side on the federal level? Shouldn't ALL citizens have a direct say in issues that are important to them. To say a small interest group prevails over the vast majority in a referendum isn't true. If you want to take lobbyist out of the formula then let the voters decide what they want. Propaganda will always be there and it's wrong to assume the population is too ignorant to decide what they want. Partisian politics has broken our democracy which is why we're in such a bad way. Are the people to dumb to decide if we should stay in a war, ban the death penality, legalize marijuana, vat tax, income tax...etc?

 

[Donc]

So whats wrong with both Direct and Representative democracy side by side on the federal level? Shouldn't ALL citizens have a direct say in issues that are important to them. To say a small interest group prevails over the vast majority in a referendum isn't true. If you want to take lobbyist out of the formula then let the voters decide what they want. Propaganda will always be there and it's wrong to assume the population is too ignorant to decide what they want. Partisian politics has broken our democracy which is why we're in such a bad way. Are the people to dumb to decide if we should stay in a war, ban the death penality, legalize marijuana, vat tax, income tax...etc?

Sadly were now to polarized for this discussion to be taken up. Think about it, you cant get both sides to agree on anything of substance; if one side gets a clue that the other side approves of plan #A the other side automatically comes out against plan #A.

Are the people to dumb to decide if we should stay in a war,

worth taking a second look at.

ban the death penality,

depends on the crime

legalize marijuana,

Yep

vat tax, income tax...etc?

Sure,with a few major tweaks.

 

[cpwill]

so....how old are you, and are you a millionaire yet? the 'how old' part is what i'm most curious about.

:shrug: i had a college roomate who was a self-made millionaire before he was 18.

 

[cpwill]

Except I do have to pay the consequences. For the rest of my life I will be paying taxes for things that I have and haven't voted on.

not necessarily true. for example, you could choose to support an extremely progressive income tax structure that would leave others carrying most of your burden (or even sending you net benefits) comfortably for the rest of your days.

So to say I am abusing it is dishonest since after graduating I will be entering the workforce and I will have to pay taxes. Also, on a more basic level it is my right as an American to vote, so why should I have to pay anything in order to vote?

it's not your right to vote. the ability to coerce others in order to force them to obey your political preferences is not a 'right', it is a responsibility; and one we frankly have a vested interest in ensuring only goes to those who are more likely to handle it responsibly.

 

[obvious Child]

Damn...thats kinda harsh.

Indeed. It's suppose to be a joke. People like Turtledude don't focus on the entire picture. If we actually did what he wanted, we'd have to strip voting from some of the super rich. Often the most partisan people are completely incapable of looking at unintended consequences. If we barred voting on lack of income tax, we'd disenfranchise many people far wealthier then Turtledude.

 

[TurtleDude]

Indeed. It's suppose to be a joke. People like Turtledude don't focus on the entire picture. If we actually did what he wanted, we'd have to strip voting from some of the super rich. Often the most partisan people are completely incapable of looking at unintended consequences. If we barred voting on lack of income tax, we'd disenfranchise many people far wealthier then Turtledude.

name some super rich who pay no taxes. In fact name some who pay less than what they use in terms of federal government services.

I think you are full of it and you are just oozing envy

 

[winston53660]

name some super rich who pay no taxes. In fact name some who pay less than what they use in terms of federal government services.

I think you are full of it and you are just oozing envy

Well Warren Buffet pays taxes but not that much.

 

[obvious Child]

name some super rich who pay no taxes. In fact name some who pay less than what they use in terms of federal government services.

I think you are full of it and you are just oozing envy

Way to change the argument. Instead of focusing on income taxes, you now expand it purely to all taxes despite dozens of your posts ranting and raving about just income taxes and treating everyone who brings up payroll taxes as if they were retarded.

You think I wouldn't have noticed that?

If we went with your argument, we'd disenfranchise some of the rich. Seriously, learn what unintended consequences are for a change.

Here's an idea. Hit me on something I said for a change rather then some baseless accusations you hope somehow sticks. And I couldn't possibly envy you.

 

[Calabrese]

This is the most ridiculous argument. Any US citizen who is not a felon can vote. Any US citizen who is not incarcerated should be able to vote. (yes I believe that should include people who received a felony but did their time)

 

[obvious Child]

This is the most ridiculous argument. Any US citizen who is not a felon can vote. Any US citizen who is not incarcerated should be able to vote. (yes I believe that should include people who received a felony but did their time)

Well, actually some states do give back the right to vote for felons who served their time. Somewhat of a point of contention on the 2000 election where felons who had their voting rights returned to them were illegally barred from voting.

And you're right. It is ridiculous argument, especially since we'd strip some of the super rich from voting. Whoops!!!

 

[jamesrage]

(Question prompted by a recent post.)

If 37% of Americans pay no income tax isn't there a real danger that these same people don't CARE how much our government spends? Don't WANT to control entitlements?

Why should people who don't "put their money where their mouth is" be allowed a voice in determining how money is spent?

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

I heard this argument before that these people should not be allowed to vote because they will basically they will vote in their own interests. That argument is a load of crap because every voter votes for their own interest regardless if its less screw others for more tax money so we can get benifits to lets secure the damn border.


If we deny non income tax payers the right to vote we might as well let those who pay more have more votes.Shouldn't Al Gore have more a say in how the government is ran more than the average debate politics user since he probably pays more in taxes than any of us combined?

I do not think those who pay income taxes will vote for more fiscally responsible elected officials than those who don't pay income taxes.

 

[other]

This entire idea is completely ridiculous. I guess that "all men are created equal" thing doesn't matter. :roll:

One's income has nothing to do with one's status with regard to others at birth, it has to do with whether or not one has a job. No one is "created" with an income. Earning an income is a positive choice that anyone can make for themselves regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

This topic has nothing to do with equality of opportunity--ie. being equal by birth.

I have no problem with tying suffrage to certain qualifications involving one's stake in the nation, I do have problems with tying suffrage to circumstances beyond a person's control such as sex, race, etc, etc. Whether or not you earn an income is a personal choice in most cases. To agree to such a scheme however, I'd need it to be a flat income tax too, so everyone who paid the tax paid an equal share.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I heard this argument before that these people should not be allowed to vote because they will basically they will vote in their own interests. That argument is a load of crap because every voter votes for their own interest regardless if its less screw others for more tax money so we can get benifits to lets secure the damn border.

There is a difference in self interest we're talking about.

Short term self interest, (ie, getting free **** from government) can be toxic to the system.
Long term self interest, like fiscal responsibility, is better for you and everyone else.

 

[Deuce]

No really I want to hear more arguments in favor of disenfranchisement based on financial situation.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

No really I want to hear more arguments in favor of disenfranchisement based on financial situation.

You don't need to click on the thread, if you don't want to hear it.

 

[Gipper]

No really I want to hear more arguments in favor of disenfranchisement based on financial situation.

How about this - law has more influence over those who actually pay into the system. If I pay taxes and you don't, you don't have a damn right to speak about how my money is spent.

 

[Deuce]

How about this - law has more influence over those who actually pay into the system. If I pay taxes and you don't, you don't have a damn right to speak about how my money is spent.

Money: More important than fundamental rights.

No, seriously. In a Democracy, what right could possibly be more important than voting?

 

[Slartibartfast]

You don't need to click on the thread, if you don't want to hear it.

Lies! Firefox Tip: Convert Web Page Text To Speech And Save As MP3 File

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Money: More important than fundamental rights.

No, seriously. In a Democracy, what right could possibly be more important than voting?

The right to self ownership, which the fruits of your labor are an extension of.
That's why money is such a contentious issue, it represents your physical and mental labor.

 

[roguenuke]

The right to self ownership, which the fruits of your labor are an extension of.
That's why money is such a contentious issue, it represents your physical and mental labor.

But then you are making an assumption that everyone who isn't paying taxes doesn't work or doesn't work hard enough. This is just plain wrong. What if there was a family who was almost completely self sufficient. They own farm land to provide themselves with food and wood, and had their own power generation systems set up. Heck, maybe they even give or sell some of their excess produce at very reasonable prices, and go out of their way to help their community. But they really don't earn enough money to pay taxes, because they really don't need a lot of money. But you would still penalize these people because they don't pay taxes due to the way the system is set up, whether they want it to be that way or not.

Then there are our soldiers, that I mentioned earlier, who are fighting in tax-free zones for whole years at a time. They are most certainly contributing.

And you can't prove that everybody who pays taxes is actually working hard and contributing either. There are most definitely people who have jobs making 6 figures who do virtually nothing each and every day, because they only got the job through a family connection or they only keep the job because the company just doesn't feel like firing them. I'm sure they pay some taxes, but that doesn't mean they are working hard to earn what they are making.

Now, I do believe that there should be some limits and changes made to assistance programs, but that is because there is good reason to reduce our spending and make people more self-reliant. Voting should not be linked to how much income taxes a person might have paid. This is a very bad road to travel.

 

[Donc]

A lot of nonsense in this thread.Ten percent unemployment=ten percent not paying taxes=ten percent not eligible to vote?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

But then you are making an assumption that everyone who isn't paying taxes doesn't work or doesn't work hard enough. This is just plain wrong. What if there was a family who was almost completely self sufficient. They own farm land to provide themselves with food and wood, and had their own power generation systems set up. Heck, maybe they even give or sell some of their excess produce at very reasonable prices, and go out of their way to help their community. But they really don't earn enough money to pay taxes, because they really don't need a lot of money. But you would still penalize these people because they don't pay taxes due to the way the system is set up, whether they want it to be that way or not.

That's more of a reason to change the tax code than any else.

Then there are our soldiers, that I mentioned earlier, who are fighting in tax-free zones for whole years at a time. They are most certainly contributing.

I really don't want to get into a fight about which engagements are really a contribution and which aren't but they can be considered to be contributing based on their service.

For me, it's not just tax dollars = ok to vote.
I've discussed this before but I think community service would be a fine alternative.

And you can't prove that everybody who pays taxes is actually working hard and contributing either. There are most definitely people who have jobs making 6 figures who do virtually nothing each and every day, because they only got the job through a family connection or they only keep the job because the company just doesn't feel like firing them. I'm sure they pay some taxes, but that doesn't mean they are working hard to earn what they are making.

Most wealthy people earned their money, there is evidence to back this up.
You also have to remember that a lot of higher income individuals took and continue to take risks, that may wipe out their income.
Like starting a business, their incomes aren't guaranteed on a weekly basis like salary and hourly wage earners.

Now, I do believe that there should be some limits and changes made to assistance programs, but that is because there is good reason to reduce our spending and make people more self-reliant. Voting should not be linked to how much income taxes a person might have paid. This is a very bad road to travel.

Universal suffrage, to me, is an extremist belief.
It assumes that everyone involved will make the best long term choice.

 

[roguenuke]

That's more of a reason to change the tax code than any else.

Then try to get the tax code changed. But it isn't right to equate taxes with voting. Civil service, I can agree with, but not monetary contributions.

I really don't want to get into a fight about which engagements are really a contribution and which aren't but they can be considered to be contributing based on their service.

For me, it's not just tax dollars = ok to vote.
I've discussed this before but I think community service would be a fine alternative.

I see some form of civil service (a certain ammount of military service or some form of community service, preferrably based on individual knowledge and skills) as what should be the qualification to voting, as this is the only real way to show that the individual actually is contributing to their country voluntarily, since monetary payments can be made by others.

Most wealthy people earned their money, there is evidence to back this up.
You also have to remember that a lot of higher income individuals took and continue to take risks, that may wipe out their income.
Like starting a business, their incomes aren't guaranteed on a weekly basis like salary and hourly wage earners.

Not all of them do, and still many of them have at least some advantage to start with when it comes to parents paying for education or some natural talent that got them their wealth. Not everyone has talents that will get them extremely wealthy, nor does everyone feel the need to strive to be wealthy. Many feel that being able to provide enough for their family is good enough, and that spending extra time with their family is a much better way to spend their time. The average working joe has very little say as to how much he is actually being taxed. Even those who aren't paying any taxes.

Universal suffrage, to me, is an extremist belief.
It assumes that everyone involved will make the best long term choice.

People who pay taxes are no more likely to make a good choice in leadership for this country than those who don't pay taxes. If we are limiting votes to who may make the best choices in governing the country, the criteria should be based more on intelligence and political knowledge, than who is paying taxes.