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

[cpwill]

Money: More important than fundamental rights.

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

limited government. considering this isn't a democracy.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well Warren Buffet pays taxes but not that much.

Really? he doesn't pay that much? Buffett pays more taxes that 99.5% of the US population. even if his effective tax rate is only 10% he pays more income tax by himself than 40% of the US population (which pays ZERO income taxes)

 

[TurtleDude]

Money: More important than fundamental rights.

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

if voting is a fundamental right why do people who work for a company but own no stock have no right to vote for the directors of that enterprise?

 

[jamesrage]

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.

It doesn't matter if one is percieved as long term and the other is percieved as short term,everyone has the right to vote for their interest. Not everything the government does is totally related to spending, some of its security, some of its military related and many other things that does effect you regardless if you pay federal income taxes or not. The only thing restricting voting to federal income tax payers is give the government an excuse to add or remove voters by adding or removing certain people from paying income taxes and to open the door for the country actually being ran by the rich because it could be argued that since the rich pay more taxes then they should have a bigger say.

 

[cpwill]

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 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.

you would not consider the actual provision of civil service to be 'civil service'?

Not everyone has talents that will get them extremely wealthy, nor does everyone feel the need to strive to be wealthy.

it doesn't require any particularly amazing talen to gain wealth; nor intelligence, nor luck. all it takes is consistently living beneath your means.

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.

on the contrary, people are almost always more involved and careful when spending their own money than when they are spending the money of others.

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.

well i have no problem reestablishing a poll test. basic stuff like "what are the three branches of government" and "what is the name of your US Representative?"

 

[d0gbreath]

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.

When it leaves your hand it's not your money anymore. Sorry about that. You're in luck though, apathy is the highest amongst the poorest.

 

[Deuce]

if voting is a fundamental right why do people who work for a company but own no stock have no right to vote for the directors of that enterprise?

Because corporations are not governments.

This thread has confirmed my suspicion about conservatives and money. Thanks, guys!

 

[Compatibilist]

US voting rights have evolved considerably from when the Constitution was written...then only white male property owners (about 12 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Now any illiterate us citizen over 18 can vote early and often... as they say in chicago. There have been 6 separate ammendments to the constitution addressing voting rights. All have added new voters. Maybe it's time for another ammendment going the other way... qualifying voters based on what??? If Barney Frany has his way... we will have Universal Voter Registration:

Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank have proposed universal voter registration which means all of the state laws on elections will be overridden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states: 'take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver's license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be ...

This is a slippery slope. I guess the next step would be compulsory suffrage with a fine if you don't vote?? Over 30 other countries have this. Why not us? Hell... they now fine us if we dont buy health insurnace... why not add voting to the government intrusion

I believe we do need some kind of reform. Another issue that bothers me is literacy. How can someone who is illiterate truly understand the issues and make a reasonable choice for a candidate. We are an english speaking country. Those who pay no taxes and can't speak, read or write english should not be allowed to have a say in how the the govt is run like the rest of us who do pay taxes... tax money is the fuel which keeps washington running! How about those who pay no income tax, be required to pay a poll tax before casting their ballot...

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

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.

Money is the easiest way to do it.
That's why it is used as a measurement first.

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.

That would be perfectly acceptable to me.

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.

Sure a lot of people do have an advantage but even then you have to maintain it.
It doesn't to continue to work on it's own.

It doesn't take talent to be wealthy, it takes patience.
I'm one of those people who prefer to spend time with family, I don't make much but I do alright.

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.

Intelligence and political knowledge can be highly subjective.
The issue of taxes is because it puts some skin in the game for the people voting.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It doesn't matter if one is percieved as long term and the other is percieved as short term,everyone has the right to vote for their interest. Not everything the government does is totally related to spending, some of its security, some of its military related and many other things that does effect you regardless if you pay federal income taxes or not. The only thing restricting voting to federal income tax payers is give the government an excuse to add or remove voters by adding or removing certain people from paying income taxes and to open the door for the country actually being ran by the rich because it could be argued that since the rich pay more taxes then they should have a bigger say.

It does matter, if all you do is vote for the most short term, pie in the sky candidate, it hurts everyone more than if you vote for the well reasoned, long term outlook candidate.

We want reasonable long term growth and stability not, this rickshaw type economy that constantly breaks down.

I didn't say proportional tax voting, just making sure everyone has more skin in the game.
Btw, the rich aren't the only people who pay taxes.

 

[Gipper]

When it leaves your hand it's not your money anymore. Sorry about that. You're in luck though, apathy is the highest amongst the poorest.

As you've demonstrated.

 

[lizzie]

Prior to the formation of social programs/ personal and corporate welfare, voting was essentially based on personal opinion of what was good (or not) for the general good of the country. With the introduction of welfare-type spending, the focus of many voters has become "What is good for me? Who cares about the country's well-being, and why should I care? I only care what is good for me, the country be damned."
That is one of the reasons social programs are destroying the financial sustainability of our society as a whole. Increasing taxation for welfare/social programs leads to non-productivity among the general working population, and reduces incentive to invest at the top. Put the two together, and you have an increasing tax burden, decreasing tax receipts, and a class warfare mentality. A good number of the productive are making a concerted effort to lessen their tax burden by whatever means they can, because it doesn't pay anymore to create wealth. I personally won't work overtime on my job because it puts me into an even higher tax bracket than I am already in. I have a personal revulsion to working my ass off so that others can sit at home on theirs.

 

[Donc]

Prior to the formation of social programs/ personal and corporate welfare, voting was essentially based on personal opinion of what was good (or not) for the general good of the country. With the introduction of welfare-type spending, the focus of many voters has become "What is good for me? Who cares about the country's well-being, and why should I care? I only care what is good for me, the country be damned."
That is one of the reasons social programs are destroying the financial sustainability of our society as a whole. Increasing taxation for welfare/social programs leads to non-productivity among the general working population, and reduces incentive to invest at the top. Put the two together, and you have an increasing tax burden, decreasing tax receipts, and a class warfare mentality. A good number of the productive are making a concerted effort to lessen their tax burden by whatever means they can, because it doesn't pay anymore to create wealth. I personally won't work overtime on my job because it puts me into an even higher tax bracket than I am already in. I have a personal revulsion to working my ass off so that others can sit at home on theirs.

In answer to the bolded part of your post. Good, stay home. I wish more would because it could possibly make employers hire more and help the economy. Who knows, maybe some of those setting on there a** will eventually take some of the load off of…you. :rock

 

[lizzie]

In answer to the bolded part of your post. Good, stay home. I wish more would because it could possibly make employers hire more and help the economy. Who knows, maybe some of those setting on there a** will eventually take some of the load off of…you. :rock

I don't want to stay home. I pay my own way and I don't want someone to take the load off me. I am responsible for myself, and ask nothing of anyone else.

 

[Donc]

I don't want to stay home. I pay my own way and I don't want someone to take the load off me. I am responsible for myself, and ask nothing of anyone else.

My bad, maybe i should have bolded it as well.I was responding to this part of your post "I personally won't work overtime on my job " Keep refusing the OT, the more people that refuse OT will put pressure on employers to hire help to get the work done.

I would if I could but my work you pretty well have big brother looking over your shoulder all the time.

 

[lizzie]

My bad, maybe i should have bolded it as well.I was responding to this part of your post "I personally won't work overtime on my job " Keep refusing the OT, the more people that refuse OT will put pressure on employers to hire help to get the work done.

If that's the case, the this part of your post:

Who knows, maybe some of those setting on there a** will eventually take some of the load off of…you

makes no sense in the context. It sounded like you were implying that I resent taking care of myself, which is the farthest thing from the truth.

 

[Donc]

If that's the case, the this part of your post: makes no sense in the context. It sounded like you were implying that I resent taking care of myself, which is the farthest thing from the truth.

Sorry about that. Sometimes my dyslexia kicks in and what comes on the monitor isn’t what I was thinking.

Let me have another go at it;

( Who knows, maybe some of those setting on there a** will eventually take some of the load off of…you )

with this I was inferring that maybe some of( the strawpeople) you said were setting on there a**,s would be able to be gainfully employed if enough refused OT. Then perhaps your employer would not be asking you to work OT so much. :2wave:

 

[d0gbreath]

snip......We are an english speaking country. Those who pay no taxes and can't speak, read or write english should not be allowed to have a say in how the the govt is run like the rest of us who do pay taxes... tax money is the fuel which keeps washington running! How about those who pay no income tax, be required to pay a poll tax before casting their ballot...snip

Here in Denton county we have ballots in foreign languages for those who can't read English.

 

[d0gbreath]

As you've demonstrated.

I'm neither poor nor apathetic. Have I demonstrated somehow that once a person's money leaves their hand that it's no longer their's?

What did I demonstrate, that's so clear to see, that I don't see. Enlighten me please.

 

[Gipper]

Oh yeah, an incredibly wealthy hyper-liberal. Which Hollywood movies did you produce again?

 

[cpwill]

When it leaves your hand it's not your money anymore. Sorry about that. You're in luck though, apathy is the highest amongst the poorest.

wrong. this government belongs to us; not the other way around.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

Is it no surprise that Mickey Shane labels themselves as "very liberal?"

 

[d0gbreath]

Oh yeah, an incredibly wealthy hyper-liberal. Which Hollywood movies did you produce again?

I've finally met someone that is as vague as I am. Are you just mocking me?

I work for the DOD designing night vision systems.

 

[d0gbreath]

wrong. this government belongs to us; not the other way around.

Well sure. Of course. You are right. Yet when you send most of your money to the IRS, just how much control do you have of that money once it gets picked up by the postman? That's why they won't let you send cash. Tracking devices are incredibly small these days. You might become upset if you could track where it goes. In fact, I'm sure you'd be upset.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Is it no surprise that Mickey Shane labels themselves as "very liberal?"

Mickey Shane is more then one person is he?