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

[randel]

no, not at all. there are many winners. good doctors are winners. so are good lawyers. people who give generous donations to charities are winners. there are many musicians, actors, actresses, and writers who are winners.

my definition of loser is as follows: people who advocate for the prog. tax code while knowing they arent close to the highest bracket. i also describe losers as people who say about everyone should have free healthcare and food stamps and ss, yet they dont pay nearly enough in taxes to make a difference because they are in a low income bracket.

so.....what income threshold determines 'winners and losers'?....and again, how old are you, and are you a millionaire?

 

[2000]

so.....what income threshold determines 'winners and losers'?....and again, how old are you, and are you a millionaire?

there isnt an icnome threshold; that just silly. i already defined what I term a loser. your personal questions wont be answered because they are negligible but ill give you some advice: start a business if you want to make a lot of money. dont go the road already paved by letting degrees and college dictate what you do for a living, that leads to a mediocre 9-5 ham and egger lifestyle. that advice is assuming youre young. if youre not, youve already wasted a lot of your life but its not to late to drive a lambo and travel.

 

[randel]

there isnt an icnome threshold; that just silly. i already defined what I term a loser. your personal questions wont be answered because they are negligible but ill give you some advice: start a business if you want to make a lot of money. dont go the road already paved by letting degrees and college dictate what you do for a living, that leads to a mediocre 9-5 ham and egger lifestyle. that advice is assuming youre young. if youre not, youve already wasted a lot of your life but its not to late to drive a lambo and travel.

you won't answer the 'personal' questions because i am right with my assumption...your a kid with no real world experience.....and there would have to be an 'income' threshold to determine if one is a 'winner' or 'loser' in your eyes... after all , there has to be some criteria for one to determine exactly where they fit in your world view.

 

[2000]

you won't answer the 'personal' questions because i am right with my assumption...your a kid with no real world experience.....and there would have to be an 'income' threshold to determine if one is a 'winner' or 'loser' in your eyes... after all , there has to be some criteria for one to determine exactly where they fit in your world view.

can you not read?

my definition of loser is as follows: people who advocate for the prog. tax code while knowing they arent close to the highest bracket. i also describe losers as people who say about everyone should have free healthcare and food stamps and ss, yet they dont pay nearly enough in taxes to make a difference because they are in a low income bracket.

if you dont fall into those categories, ytoure a winner in my eyes. i give a pass to people who dont make a lot of money but love what they do, but they also dont b!tch and moan about how we should keep the unfair prog. tax code.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

there isnt an icnome threshold; that just silly. i already defined what I term a loser. your personal questions wont be answered because they are negligible but ill give you some advice: start a business if you want to make a lot of money. dont go the road already paved by letting degrees and college dictate what you do for a living, that leads to a mediocre 9-5 ham and egger lifestyle. that advice is assuming youre young. if youre not, youve already wasted a lot of your life but its not to late to drive a lambo and travel.

Riiight - the only way to be successful in life is to become an entrepreneur and drive a Lamborghini.

Money isn't success. . . it doesn't solve your problems and make anyone happy.

*makes you watch 'You've Been Cut Off" *

 

[MaggieD]

You're suggesting, really, that the more money you earn = more concern and care for your country.
Never mind the nature of your job and what you do in your life and how you volunteer yourself. . . how you live doesn't matter - what only matters is how much money you make.

And never mind that the right to vote was granted before income taxes were first levied by the government.

Please, educate yourself on the history of our tax-system *before* you cultivate such uninformed beliefs.
History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com

But *hey* Never mind that logic, there - I guess Bernie Madoff and loves our country more than our Homeless Veterans and our military men and women who use their government-granted benefits and tax credits to bring home a return every tax season.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. You may infer that, but I sure didn't imply it.

Please educate yourself on your country's history with regard to right to vote. ;-) Originally, only white men who owned property could vote. It wasn't until 1820 that any white man could vote regardless of whether or not he owned property. And even then, they had to be able to pass literacy and religious tests. It was that way until 1840 when poll taxes and other restrictions were taken off the books. In 1860, five states (only) said free black men could vote as well. It wasn't until 1920 that women had unrestricted voting rights. Immigrants had to be citizens for 14 years before they could vote.

 

[randel]

can you not read?

my definition of loser is as follows: people who advocate for the prog. tax code while knowing they arent close to the highest bracket. i also describe losers as people who say about everyone should have free healthcare and food stamps and ss, yet they dont pay nearly enough in taxes to make a difference because they are in a low income bracket.

if you dont fall into those categories, ytoure a winner in my eyes. i give a pass to people who dont make a lot of money but love what they do, but they also dont b!tch and moan about how we should keep the unfair prog. tax code.

i read just fine junior...i was trying to get you to flesh out your posistion, as early on, you labeled everyone who wasnt rich or blessed with athletic ability a 'loser'......i had to smack you around for several posts to get you to do that...and you STILL HAVENT ANSWERED how old you are or if you are a millionaire.

 

[2000]

you won't answer the 'personal' questions because i am right with my assumption...your a kid with no real world experience.....and there would have to be an 'income' threshold to determine if one is a 'winner' or 'loser' in your eyes... after all , there has to be some criteria for one to determine exactly where they fit in your world view.

no i wont answer the questions because its silly because its an anonymous message board and i certainly dont need anyt validation. ill give you one more piece ofa divce and im done: you never know who youre talking to on anonymous internet message boards. i get the feeling youre maybe in y0our 30s or 40s, so you may be more stubbron to take someone's else's advice, but take it or leave it, i dont care.

 

[2000]

i read just fine junior...i was trying to get you to flesh out your posistion, as early on, you labeled everyone who wasnt rich or blessed with athletic ability a 'loser'......i had to smack you around for several posts to get you to do that...and you STILL HAVENT ANSWERED how old you are or if you are a millionaire.

no i didnt. i just gave two examples in zuckerburg and james.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. You may infer that, but I sure didn't imply it.

Please educate yourself on your country's history with regard to right to vote. ;-) Originally, only white men who owned property could vote. It wasn't until 1820 that any white man could vote regardless of whether or not he owned property. And even then, they had to be able to pass literacy and religious tests. It was that way until 1840 when poll taxes and other restrictions were taken off the books. In 1860, five states (only) said free black men could vote as well. It wasn't until 1920 that women had unrestricted voting rights. Immigrants had to be citizens for 14 years before they could vote.

I'm well aware of our voting history - no "lessons" needed.

Government has granted rights to vote to everyone - eventually removing all barriers.
Government decided to levy taxes.
Government decided to adopt a progressive tax system to favor those who were less fortunate.
Government provides tax breaks, incentives and credits for peopel to use and deduct from their taxable income.

So why are you wanting to point fingers at the people when the government is the reason why they
*can vote*
*pay taxes*
*or don't pay taxes*
*earn breaks, credits and incentives to use in their favor*

Your view is hinging on *money earned (aka - income)* and *money paid out (aka-taxes)*
Your view should be hinging on *whether you're a decent citizen or not* . . . not *income taxes*

 

[MaggieD]

Per profile: 39 yrs old, born in michigan, currently reside in ohio....work for an automotive supplier.....

There are many winners. good doctors are winners. so are good lawyers. people who give generous donations to charities are winners. there are many musicians, actors, actresses, and writers who are winners.

I'm just not sure you make your own list...

 

[randel]

no i wont answer the questions because its silly because its an anonymous message board and i certainly dont need anyt validation. ill give you one more piece ofa divce and im done: you never know who youre talking to on anonymous internet message boards. i get the feeling youre maybe in y0our 30s or 40s, so you may be more stubbron to take someone's else's advice, but take it or leave it, i dont care.

you are correct, it is an annonymous message board, but i hardly think that giving your age, and no other personal information, would be harmful. i'm guessing you won't answer because i'm right, that you havent hit the tender age of 20 yet, and are lacking in real world experience. A piece of advice for you, don't judge people by their economic lot in life....this world is filled with what you call 'ham and eggers' , and this world couldnt function without them.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Per profile: 39 yrs old, born in michigan, currently reside in ohio....work for an automotive supplier.....


I'm just not sure you make your own list...

You're a "Realtor/Entrepreneur" and living in Chicago, Illinois . . . according to your profile.

 

[MaggieD]

Your view should be hinging on *whether you're a decent citizen or not* . . . not *income taxes*

Either way is indefensible. Whether you're a decent citizen or not makes absolutely no difference. And, if it did, who would judge "decent?"

Aunt Spiker! What's your point?? I was actually answering a poster's question, with a little well-deserved sarcasm thrown in. What're you on my case for?

 

[randel]

You're a "Realtor/Entrepreneur" and living in Chicago, Illinois . . . according to your profile.

that is my profile....39yrs old, born in michigan.........

 

[Aunt Spiker]

that is my profile....39yrs old, born in michigan.........

Thanks - she didn't quote, I didn't know who she was talking about.

 

[MaggieD]

Randel!!! Mea culpa!!! What a total idiot I am. 'Skuze me while I chew my own foot off.

 

[VanceMack]

(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?

Oh no...its a FABULOUS system where politicians (who have demonstrated that they have the ability to spend this country into 14 trillion dollars debt) can pander to those that have demonstrated a complete inability to succeed (and often even contribute to society) to gain power to exploit and dictate to those that HAVE demonstarted a capability to flourish. That makes all the sense in the world.

No...I dont think it will change...but really...does it make sense that politicians have CREATED a class of crippled and dependent pets that they can then use through the popular vote to maintain power by creating class warfare and outright racism?

Id love to have a system where ALL PEOPLE were driven to personally succeed and where we created systems to facilitate that. But thats just not very realistic. FDR warned that welfare would sap the will of the recipients...to no avail.

 

[randel]

Randel!!! Mea culpa!!! What a total idiot I am. 'Skuze me while I chew my own foot off.

nah, your no idiot, i deal with enough of them at work to know one when i see one :mrgreen::lol:

 

[2000]

Per profile: 39 yrs old, born in michigan, currently reside in ohio....work for an automotive supplier.....


I'm just not sure you make your own list...

news to me, and I bet it's news to that automotive supplier as well.

 

[2000]

A piece of advice for you, don't judge people by their economic lot in life....this world is filled with what you call 'ham and eggers' , and this world couldnt function without them.

no doubt, but its much easier to replace a ham and egger than a CEO or doctor. im not juding anyone by thier economic lot, rather im saying some are more important to society than others. im friends with people who arent the wealthiest or the smartest but theyre good folks.

 

[2000]

^ except for those who I already described as losers. Im down with you if youre not rich but dont want to steal from the rich via redistro. See what im saying?

 

[randel]

no doubt, but its much easier to replace a ham and egger than a CEO or doctor.

remember, the world doesnt function without the 'ham and eggers'.....that ceo is out of a job if he can't get 'ham and eggers' to work for him....nothing is produced without the 'ham and eggers'....that doctor has no practice unless 'ham and eggers' decide to make use of his services....being a 'ham and egger' doesnt make you any less of a person, nor does being a ceo or doctor make you more of one...nor does it make you 'special'.

 

[winston53660]

no doubt, but its much easier to replace a ham and egger.

Really it is? what if a CEO has to do a specific weld or some other burger flipper has to do it? I would put my money on the the guy that knows tig weldiing or mig welding above the rest.

 

[2000]

Really it is? what if a CEO has to do a specific weld or some other burger flipper has to do it? I would put my money on the the guy that knows tig weldiing or mig welding above the rest.

the ceo will hire someone who does know how to do it. thats what smart people do.