Should those that pay no taxes be allowed a vote?

[blaxshep]

No one who does not pay federal taxes should have the right to vote – period. We have finally reached the tipping point in America where those that have no financial stake in our government outnumber those that do. More than 200 years ago both the Founding Fathers and philosophers predicted the day when American democracy would end precisely the moment this unbalance was reached.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. (Alexis de Tocqueville)

The Founding Fathers set about to create a government that first of all would ensure liberty and then protect person and property – if effect, the Constitution protected the people FROM the government. To ensure against the momentary passions of a democratic majority, including spending the money of others, the Founding Fathers deliberately designed a governmental system in which most things cannot be done in a hurry and there are many checks and balances on what can be accomplished. Even so, Benjamin Franklin and other Founders thought it was unlikely the American experiment would last very long. John Adams wrote, “Democracy never lasts very long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” (Founding Fathers) De Tocqueville elaborated, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” (Alexis de Tocqueville)

Voting was not a universal right under the constitution as drafted by the founding fathers. As one way of restraining excessive taxing and spending, the voting franchise was limited originally to white, male property owners because the Founders wanted the voters to have a vested interest in stability and property rights. (Original Right To Vote) It is actually a very recent phenomenon, since 1971, that most over 18 can vote. There is no original “fundamental” right to vote, it is a right that has grown and changed with the times. Unfortunately legitimate expansions of the franchise (women, people of color, youth) were adopted without reflection on other legitimate reasons to limit the franchise.

Democrats have created a very successful party today by playing modern-day Robin Hood and using taxes to promise those not working or productive a way to live the American dream without the muss and fuss of the actual work. The resentment over this divide is growing, but unfortunately the productive side of American is now outnumbered by those living off of the work of others. We have reached that tipping point that both Benjamin Franklin and Alexis de Tocqueville predicted would spell the end to democracy in the United States.

We need to Amend the Constitution to require that to vote you must have some direct investment in the country. I would accept paying federal taxes as a threshold, but I just throw that out there as the start of the conversation.

Pay No Taxes, Get No Vote

 

[Dragonfly]

Stupid thread. Stupid idea.

There are plenty of valid reasons for not paying INCOME taxes, and plenty of valid reasons why this topic is asinine.

 

[Fisher]

I'd rather take away their right not to pay taxes than their right to vote.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It's called a 'right', for a reason.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I see this more as a discussion of being an independent adult (one's own legal guardian) vs. being a dependent of others (relying on the external to meet one's needs). Dependents do not have voting rights or certain other legal rights. With adult autonomy (freedom over one's own legal, financial, medical, employment, and the ability to vote, etc.) comes adult responsibility (to meet one's own basic needs).

When minors seek emancipation, they petition a court to grant them adult rights, and to get them they have to demonstrate that can take on adult responsibilities. So I think that when adults seek to become dependent on others for their basic needs, that should essentially reverse the process.

In other words, independent adults should be able to vote, and dependent adults should not. People who rely on federal benefits for their basic needs without paying federal taxes should be considered dependents in that sense and thus not have the right to vote on the federal level.

 

[Dragonfly]

How much "taxes" should a retired person pay who's barely scraping buy on SS each month? Should they not get to vote?

How much "taxes" should a college student have to pay? Should they not vote?

How much taxes should an unemployed person pay? Should they not vote?

How much taxes should a wounded veteran, laid up in a hospital bed pay? Should they not vote?

 

[Helix]

the right to vote is not dependent on federal taxpayer status, nor should it be.

 

[pdog]

Good thing there are very few people that pay no federal taxes:

The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]
These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay. As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes. Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.
Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)

Two, if income distribution had remained relatively constant over the past decades I might be able to conceed "bribing the public with the public's money", but in the context of reality, idea's like that are mind-numbingly stupid:

From 1993 to 2010, the incomes of the richest 1 percent of Americans grew 58 percent while the rest had a 6.4 percent bump. There is little reason to think the trend will go into reverse any time soon, given globalization and technological change, which have weighed heavily on the wages of less educated workers who compete against machines and cheap foreign labor while increasing the returns of top executives and financiers.

The income gap narrowed briefly during the Great Recession, as plummeting stock prices shrunk the portfolios of the rich. But in 2010, the first year of recovery, the top 1 percent of Americans captured 93 percent of the income gains.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

 

[Paschendale]

So, you advocate for the ability to deny people the vote by pushing them into poverty? This sounds like a push back towards serfdom to me. Torpedo education, ship all the jobs to third world countries, slash benefits, and you'll have a nation of impoverished peasants... and then you use this to strip them of political power. This is directly contrary to EVERYTHING that we rebelled against in 1776. The purpose of the new government was to abolish aristocracy, not embrace it.

This suggestion undermines everything this nation stands for.

 

[samsmart]

No one who does not pay federal taxes should have the right to vote – period. We have finally reached the tipping point in America where those that have no financial stake in our government outnumber those that do. More than 200 years ago both the Founding Fathers and philosophers predicted the day when American democracy would end precisely the moment this unbalance was reached.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. (Alexis de Tocqueville)

The Founding Fathers set about to create a government that first of all would ensure liberty and then protect person and property – if effect, the Constitution protected the people FROM the government. To ensure against the momentary passions of a democratic majority, including spending the money of others, the Founding Fathers deliberately designed a governmental system in which most things cannot be done in a hurry and there are many checks and balances on what can be accomplished. Even so, Benjamin Franklin and other Founders thought it was unlikely the American experiment would last very long. John Adams wrote, “Democracy never lasts very long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” (Founding Fathers) De Tocqueville elaborated, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” (Alexis de Tocqueville)

Voting was not a universal right under the constitution as drafted by the founding fathers. As one way of restraining excessive taxing and spending, the voting franchise was limited originally to white, male property owners because the Founders wanted the voters to have a vested interest in stability and property rights. (Original Right To Vote) It is actually a very recent phenomenon, since 1971, that most over 18 can vote. There is no original “fundamental” right to vote, it is a right that has grown and changed with the times. Unfortunately legitimate expansions of the franchise (women, people of color, youth) were adopted without reflection on other legitimate reasons to limit the franchise.

Democrats have created a very successful party today by playing modern-day Robin Hood and using taxes to promise those not working or productive a way to live the American dream without the muss and fuss of the actual work. The resentment over this divide is growing, but unfortunately the productive side of American is now outnumbered by those living off of the work of others. We have reached that tipping point that both Benjamin Franklin and Alexis de Tocqueville predicted would spell the end to democracy in the United States.

We need to Amend the Constitution to require that to vote you must have some direct investment in the country. I would accept paying federal taxes as a threshold, but I just throw that out there as the start of the conversation.

Pay No Taxes, Get No Vote

Fine. They get no vote.

But they also should not have to be beholden to federal laws, since they have no opportunity for representation to the federal government.

 

[blaxshep]

In other words, independent adults should be able to vote, and dependent adults should not. People who rely on federal benefits for their basic needs without paying federal taxes should be considered dependents in that sense and thus not have the right to vote on the federal level.

I posted this to see what discussion would result, so far I like the above quote / answer the best.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy...

If we do not do something the liberal democrat voter base will simply vote us into collapse. It hardly seem fair that those with their hands out legislate the redistribution of wealth.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Fine. They get no vote.

But they also should not have to be beholden to federal laws, since they have no opportunity for representation to the federal government.

That would a be very good point.

 

[What if...?]

How much "taxes" should a retired person pay who's barely scraping buy on SS each month? Should they not get to vote?

How much "taxes" should a college student have to pay? Should they not vote?

How much taxes should an unemployed person pay? Should they not vote?

How much taxes should a wounded veteran, laid up in a hospital bed pay? Should they not vote?

Hell, what about stay at home parents?

 

[Paul Austin]

I think its a flawed idea, but them Im guessing this is less about the idea in the OP & more about an attempt to stimulate a discussion on entitlement & representation in general.

 

[blaxshep]

Fine. They get no vote.

But they also should not have to be beholden to federal laws, since they have no opportunity for representation to the federal government.

Is that how it works with children and felons? Was that how it worked for women and colored people before they could vote?

 

[blaxshep]

I think its a flawed idea, but them Im guessing this is less about the idea in the OP & more about an attempt to stimulate a discussion on entitlement & representation in general.

That is the purpose. I don't think it is the greatest idea either but allowing the hard working tax payers to be held hostage by those dependant on them simply because they can vote for a Nanny State in large and rapidly growing numbers is a serious problem that is not sustainable.

I am looking for answers not the obvious disdain.

 

[samsmart]

Is that how it works with children and felons? Was that how it worked for women and colored people before they could vote?

Children are barred from voting because they are too young to have any experience to provide to the democratic process.

The disenfranchisement of women, ethnicities, and ex-convicts is illegitimate to the democratic process.

 

[jamesrage]

No one who does not pay federal taxes should have the right to vote – period.  We have finally reached the tipping point in America where those that have no financial stake in our government outnumber those that do.  More than 200 years ago both the Founding Fathers and philosophers predicted the day when American democracy would end precisely the moment this unbalance was reached.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.  (Alexis de Tocqueville)

The Founding Fathers set about to create a government that first of all would ensure liberty and then protect person and property – if effect, the Constitution protected the people FROM the government.  To ensure against the momentary passions of a democratic majority, including spending the money of others, the Founding Fathers deliberately designed a governmental system in which most things cannot be done in a hurry and there are many checks and balances on what can be accomplished. Even so, Benjamin Franklin and other Founders thought it was unlikely the American experiment would last very long.  John Adams wrote, “Democracy never lasts very long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”  (Founding Fathers)  De Tocqueville elaborated, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”  (Alexis de Tocqueville)

Voting was not a universal right under the constitution as drafted by the founding fathers.  As one way of restraining excessive taxing and spending, the voting franchise was limited originally to white, male property owners because the Founders wanted the voters to have a vested interest in stability and property rights.  (Original Right To Vote)  It is actually a very recent phenomenon, since 1971,  that most over 18 can vote.   There is no original “fundamental” right to vote, it is a right that has grown and changed with the times.  Unfortunately legitimate expansions of the franchise (women, people of color, youth) were adopted without reflection on other legitimate reasons to limit the franchise. 

Democrats have created a very successful party today by playing modern-day Robin Hood and using taxes to promise those not working or productive a way to live the American dream without the muss and fuss of the actual work.  The resentment over this divide is growing, but unfortunately the productive side of American is now outnumbered by those living off of the work of others.  We have reached that tipping point that both Benjamin Franklin and Alexis de Tocqueville predicted would spell the end to democracy in the United States.

We need to Amend the Constitution to require that to vote you must have some direct investment in the country.  I would accept paying federal taxes as a threshold, but I just throw that out there as the start of the conversation.

[url=http://thinkingrightblog.com/pay-no-taxes-get-no-vote/#.UKGHMY4qa_c]Pay No Taxes, Get No Vote[/url]

If all these elected officials do was decided on how to spend money then yes voting should be limited only to federal tax payers, state spending should only be limited to those who pay state taxes and so on. But Elected officials do more than just spending money, they enact laws that effect everyone and that is why every citizen 18 or over should get to vote. What I would like to see is the tax rate evened out for all income brackets and then any future tax increases or decreases must effect all income brackets percentage wise equally. The green with envy crowd is always in a rush to raise the taxes of others, but what if those tax increase affected them too?

 

[blaxshep]

If all these elected officials do was decided on how to spend money then yes voting should be limited only to federal tax payers, state spending should only be limited to those who pay state taxes and so on. But Elected officials do more than just spending money, they enact laws that effect everyone and that is why every citizen 18 or over should get to vote. What I would like to see is the tax rate evened out for all income brackets and then any future tax increases or decreases must effect all income brackets percentage wise equally. The green with envy crowd is always in a rush to raise the taxes of others, but what if those tax increase affected them too?

Excellent points

 

[blaxshep]

Children are barred from voting because they are too young to have any experience to provide to the democratic process.

The disenfranchisement of women, ethnicities, and ex-convicts is illegitimate to the democratic process.

I agree with the second statement but seriously is there really much difference between "Too young to have any experience" and outright just too stupid?

 

[samsmart]

I agree with the second statement but seriously is there really much difference between "Too young to have any experience" and outright just too stupid?

I'm not sure who you're calling stupid here.

Is it those who don't pay income tax, those who are women, those who are ethnic minorities, or those convicted of felonies?

 

[Paschendale]

I posted this to see what discussion would result, so far I like the above quote / answer the best.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy...

If we do not do something the liberal democrat voter base will simply vote us into collapse. It hardly seem fair that those with their hands out legislate the redistribution of wealth.

This is completely true... so long as the majority has no sense of longterm planning, no ability to do math, and no care for the general welfare of the nation. It boggles my mind how someone can claim to love this country while harboring such disdain for the majority of the people in it.

And then it's pretty funny how the right wing markets itself as the party of longterm planning, when their entire fiscal platform is actually the exact one outlined in this quote, except that they drain the coffers for the rich instead of the poor. No, the majority is smart enough to know not to vote themselves the treasury, but they've been duped into thinking that voting it to the wealthy will strengthen the nation.

 

[blaxshep]

I'm not sure who you're calling stupid here.

Is it those who don't pay income tax, those who are women, those who are ethnic minorities, or those convicted of felonies?

I am not calling anyone stupid just making a generalization, what is the difference between being called "to ytoung to have experience" and just plain stupid?

 

[blaxshep]

This is completely true... so long as the majority has no sense of longterm planning, no ability to do math, and no care for the general welfare of the nation. It boggles my mind how someone can claim to love this country while harboring such disdain for the majority of the people in it.

The majority of the nation has no sense of longterm planning, no ability to do math and no care for the general welfare of the nation and that explains why people that love this country have such disdain for the majority of people in it.

And then it's pretty funny how the right wing markets itself as the party of longterm planning, when their entire fiscal platform is actually the exact one outlined in this quote, except that they drain the coffers for the rich instead of the poor. No, the majority is smart enough to know not to vote themselves the treasury, but they've been duped into thinking that voting it to the wealthy will strengthen the nation.

The 1% is not a voter majority so they will have to concentrate thier corruption of the people's government via lobbyists and campaign contributions as they have always done the 47% however have the masses to vote themselves the treasury and it takes no intelligence to do that just a Santa Clause to vote for.

 

[wolfman24]

Posts like this tend to fixate on a group of those who pay no taxes as working individuals and forget about thosee who are exempt from paying taxes or do not pay for other reasons.

As a person earlier states such threads are narrow and not very well thought out.