Should voters have to have some "skin in the game"?

[ocean515]

I don't think California is uber-progressive. I think it's a weird combination of uber-progressive and uber-cut-throat-capitalist, and furthermore, it's not really one state. And I am also excluding one of the most conservative states because it is nothing like any of the other conservative states. They are both kind of their own ecosystem.

If you believe that, you should come down to Minnesota. I have the option of paying 100% of my energy bill ONLY to environmentally clean energy. And like I said, until I was 23, I got an array of medical benefits no matter how much money I was making. I got them simply for being young.

How is it that Minnesota has such generous benefits, and yet we still have a fantastically well-oiled economy compared to any state except those to our northeast which have a similar kind of society?

And how can you argue collectivism is inherently bad when the societies that have adopted that ethos have to collect welfare from my state in order to avoid collapse?

Properly run collectivism is very simple: the culture as a whole must believe we all work for each other. We all want to live in a good society and we are all part of making that happen. This incentivises everyone to work if at all possible, and incentivises everyone to help when necessary.

Minnesota isn't blue, actually. It's purple. It's the most conservative of any state that functions this way, in fact. Minneapolis is bright blue, of course, but the rest of the state is red-ish. I think this actually lends us a bit more stability than the Northeastern states.

It is not a matter of conservative and liberal, per se, because let's not forget that old-school conservatism focuses on its own community.

Trust me, California is no longer the place for cut throat capitalism. It was the first government in the world to identify CO2 as a green house gas. It has the most comprehensive environmental regulations in the United States. It will now be providing low cost student loans to illegal aliens, and passed it's own Dream Act legislation.

Again, what California has been turned into represents what has been suggested in the OP.

Massive blocks of people dependent on government largess voting to continue that largess while equally voting for taxes to be increased on those who fund their largess they are provided.

Gov. Brown's Prop 30 voters recently passed is a perfect example. The bulk of the revenue it generated was specifically focused on the highest income earners, and was designed to provide funds for the myriad of social programs that have been created.

I think that makes the discussion legitimate.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

110 million Americans getting one sort of government dole or other. Then the conversation turned to people voting themselves more government goodies. ....................................

Should people who are not paying, but are actually on the receiving end of government money still get to vote?

Or should the voters be the ones paying the bills, those who have some skin in the game so to speak?

What say ye?

I agree with this sentiment. While I was in the military I never voted. I felt that it was morally wrong for me to vote. I felt like a public servant. The vulnerability of military members voting in ways that would increase their paycheck or reduce the burden of their military service was repulsive to me. No. Government employees especially military person should not be allowed to vote. I'm ok with excluding other types of government beneficiaries as well on the same principle.

Here is the tricky part that you have to consider: This law would be very impractical to enforce. What if someone joined the military in October 2010 and is released in November 2014? Should he be allowed to vote in the 2010 election since he was a taxpayer most of the last election cycle? Should he be allowed to vote in the 2014 election since he will be a taxpayer in the future? There are hundreds of other possible variables. Can it be as simple as excluding them from participating in elections during their dates of service? Then it gets trickier if you want to exclude other types of government beneficiaries. What if you received food stamps for the month of October 2010? Should you be excluded from voting in the 2010 election? What about in 2012?

I just don't think this is practical from a bureaucratic standpoint. It would be difficult to make all of those verifications. From a political standpoint it just gets worse. This would encourage opponents of the law to go on a spending frenzy hiring as many people as possible to create a strong political alliance.* This would be another unfunded mandate imposed upon local governments. We already have enough of that bs. I like the message that goes with this idea but I just don't think this would be possible to accomplish. Even though I agree with it's sentiment I would be totally opposed to the law based on the fact that it is another unfunded mandate. My opposition for unfunded mandates trumps my disgust of arrogant government employees that thinks the public is there to serve them. The term public servant somehow gets lost after a government employee gets his/her first paycheck.

*In my county whoever wins the Republican Primary wins the general election. The county commissioner who received the most votes received 4,000 votes in the Republican Primary. Our county has 1,200 employees. Are all 1,200 of them Republicans? Probably. This is a huge voting block that could easily sway an election and probably did.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Trust me, California is no longer the place for cut throat capitalism. It was the first government in the world to identify CO2 as a green house gas. It has the most comprehensive environmental regulations in the United States. It will now be providing low cost student loans to illegal aliens, and passed it's own Dream Act legislation.

Again, what California has been turned into represents what has been suggested in the OP.

Massive blocks of people dependent on government largess voting to continue that largess while equally voting for taxes to be increased on those who fund their largess they are provided.

Gov. Brown's Prop 30 voters recently passed is a perfect example. The bulk of the revenue it generated was specifically focused on the highest income earners, and was designed to provide funds for the myriad of social programs that have been created.

I think that makes the discussion legitimate.

Depends where you are. You could really cut California into three different states, in a lot of ways.

You haven't responded to any of my points, including the point that the wealthy get their own "freebies," and plenty of candidates -- particularly in the GOP -- pander specifically to them.

Why are you less concerned about the freebies the wealthy get? What, you think they put that into the economy and the workers? Obviously not. Wages have been stagnant for 30 years, despite continually falling taxes on the wealthy, while the salaries they pay themselves just increase.

What is wrong with providing for the social programs they created? You haven't pointed out any reason why those programs are bad, per se. By itself, providing for the programs you create seems like common sense.

And given how much less our higher earners pay in taxes compared to even 50 years ago (which is ironically what some conservatives believe was the heyday of the country), what is wrong with them paying more? It's still less than they paid during that supposed heyday.

 

[code1211]

This entire chain of logic starts from the flawed premise that tiered taxation is fundamentally unjust, and thus we must balance this one injustice with another. I disagree.

I disagree.

Obviously, those who have a greater amount of money can afford to contribute more.

However, if there is no contribution whatever, that is, no responsibility accepted, then there should be an equal amount of rights afforded.

 

[code1211]

Assuming that's true, how is that not also true of the wealthy and property-owning? Plenty of candidates promise them lots of bennies too, including tax cuts and loopholes, let's keep in mind.

So again, it's merely a matter of some people believing that giving freebies to the wealthy is somehow "better."

In any discussion of the US as a whole, I think two states need to be excluded on the basis that they are completely weird and have stuff going on that doesn't reflect anything in the rest of the country: those two states are Texas and California, to me. I'm not going to debate with you that California is mind-bogglingly, because it is. But it's also kind of off doing its own thing and has a lot of unique factors that don't apply to anywhere else in the country. Same with Texas.

Let's take a look at Minnesota, which has a lot in common with much of the Northeast.

Minnesota has some of the most generous benefits in the nation. They're retroactive, all-inclusive of some younger age demographics regardless of income, and cover things most of the rest of the country won't touch.

You wanna know something else about Minnesota?

It has one of the healthiest economies and lowest unemployment rates in the entire country. It is so healthy, in fact, that a quarter of our federal taxes get sent to the red states to our south, who are collapsing under the onslaught of their systemic collectivist cuts, aimed directly at the poor. Basically, we, along with most of the Northeast, are giving welfare benefits to the South. And we still manage to function better than most states, even on only 75% of the federal taxes we pay.

Minnesota has a long tradition of being a very socially minded and collectivist state, similar to much of the Northeast, but anomalous in the Midwest. Having a collectivist society is not a negative. Doing it badly certainly can be, but doing it right can create a dramatically better society -- on all metrics from education to health to crime -- than any form of anti-collectivism ever will. And that is what the better-run collectivist states have done. They are simply better places to live, whether you're working and wealthy or poor and in need of assistance.

That is all well and good.

The question is not whether or not the needy should be provided for.

The question is whether or not the needy should be afforded a vote in the allocation of the benefits they receive.

The story you present is that the good People of Minnesota have decided to support those that need it and that the segment needing this support is small. The fact that "homeless" in Minnesota is synonymous with "popsicle" 10 months each year might have something to do with the lower number than most states.

 

[ocean515]

Depends where you are. You could really cut California into three different states, in a lot of ways.

You haven't responded to any of my points, including the point that the wealthy get their own "freebies," and plenty of candidates -- particularly in the GOP -- pander specifically to them.

Why are you less concerned about the freebies the wealthy get? What, you think they put that into the workers? Obviously not. Wages have been stagnant for 30 years, despite continually falling taxes on the wealthy.

What is wrong with providing for the social programs they created? You haven't pointed out any reason why those programs are bad, per se. By itself, providing for the programs you create seems like common sense.

And given how much less our higher earners pay in taxes compared to even 50 years ago (which is ironically what some conservatives believe was the heyday of the country), what is wrong with them paying more? It's still less than they paid during that supposed heyday.

I didn't address your points about the wealthy because that just wanders into Progressive talking points, which are relevant to those who want to believe them. I got it. The rich are never taxed enough, and they are responsible for all the troubles the 99% have. Blah, blah, blah. BS. So, I have no interest in derailing the thread to debate this tired meme.

As best as I can understand, this thread is about the issue of voters who have "no skin" in the game. Much has been written about what "no skin in the game" means.

That fact is, such practices are true, and as seen in California, has resulted in a former economic powerhouse now being home to the highest poverety in the country.

It's an interesting issue that opens up an interesting conversation.

 

[code1211]

I don't think California is uber-progressive. I think it's a weird combination of uber-progressive and uber-cut-throat-capitalist, and furthermore, it's not really one state. And I am also excluding one of the most conservative states because it is nothing like any of the other conservative states. They are both kind of their own ecosystem.

If you believe that, you should come down to Minnesota. I have the option of paying 100% of my energy bill ONLY to environmentally clean energy. And like I said, until I was 23, I got an array of medical benefits no matter how much money I was making. I got them simply for being young.

How is it that Minnesota has such generous benefits, and yet we still have a fantastically well-oiled economy compared to any state except those to our northeast which have a similar kind of society?

And how can you argue collectivism is inherently bad when the societies that have adopted that ethos have to collect welfare from my state in order to avoid collapse?

Properly run collectivism is very simple: the culture as a whole must believe we all work for each other. We all want to live in a good society and we are all part of making that happen. This incentivises everyone to work if at all possible, and incentivises everyone to help when necessary.

Minnesota isn't blue, actually. It's purple. It's the most conservative of any state that functions this way, in fact. Minneapolis is bright blue, of course, but the rest of the state is red-ish. I think this actually lends us a bit more stability than the Northeastern states.

It is not a matter of conservative and liberal, per se, because let's not forget that old-school conservatism focuses on its own community. But much of mainstream conservatism seems to have left that behind and instead views its community with a touch of malice.

Mainstream Conservatism?

Can you point to a politician or person that is a "Mainstream Conservative"?

As of this moment, I can think of about 4 who are conservative and this is difficult to describe as a "Mainstream".

 

[code1211]

Depends where you are. You could really cut California into three different states, in a lot of ways.

You haven't responded to any of my points, including the point that the wealthy get their own "freebies," and plenty of candidates -- particularly in the GOP -- pander specifically to them.

Why are you less concerned about the freebies the wealthy get? What, you think they put that into the economy and the workers? Obviously not. Wages have been stagnant for 30 years, despite continually falling taxes on the wealthy, while the salaries they pay themselves just increase.

What is wrong with providing for the social programs they created? You haven't pointed out any reason why those programs are bad, per se. By itself, providing for the programs you create seems like common sense.

And given how much less our higher earners pay in taxes compared to even 50 years ago (which is ironically what some conservatives believe was the heyday of the country), what is wrong with them paying more? It's still less than they paid during that supposed heyday.

Please give examples of these "freebies" and demonstrate the the wealthy who receive them are not paying more than they receive.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

What is wrong with providing for the social programs they created? You haven't pointed out any reason why those programs are bad, per se. By itself, providing for the programs you create seems like common sense.

He isn't saying that the programs are bad. He is offering a preventive measure to keep them from becoming too lucrative to the beneficiary which would in turn make these good programs become bad.

Democracy has been described as three wolves and two lambs voting on what to have for dinner. The potential for disaster does exist and I think that is pretty obvious even to a political novice. Fortunately the framers of our constitution had the benefit of witnessing failed democracies and preferred a Republic which is government by a constitution formed by the people to prevent the abuses of a voting public. We already have a pretty good system of checks and balances in place. The reason I know is because AFDC checks (aka Welfare checks) aren't high enough for me to quit my job and start my permanent vacation. I'm still working. Our Republic has done a fair job protecting our nations wealth. I say fair not fantastic, not wonderful, not super, not good, not great or anything like that. It has lasted longer than it would have lasted under a more democratic form of government.

The programs aren't bad. He is just suggesting we prevent them from becoming bad.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Mainstream Conservatism?

Can you point to a politician or person that is a "Mainstream Conservative"?

As of this moment, I can think of about 4 who are conservative and this is difficult to describe as a "Mainstream".

They do talk like mainstream conservatives to put on a show for the voter base. That has been very evident. The Republicans in congress vote reasonably and are very sensible pragmatic politicians. You wouldn't know it by watching C-Span. They speak like rabid hillibillies with no intentions of being reasonable. You have to admit that the confusion is justified. They say one thing and do another. The things they do is pretty good. They things they say are pretty outrageous at times. Some of them sound like Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh when they speak on the floor of congress.

I'm smart enough to see through that. It can be easily summed up like this: Actions speak louder than words but very few people listen to the actions.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I disagree.

Obviously, those who have a greater amount of money can afford to contribute more.

However, if there is no contribution whatever, that is, no responsibility accepted, then there should be an equal amount of rights afforded.

As someone has already pointed out, contributions vary greatly over a lifetime, while voting is a right endowed by citizenship. Nearly every citizen will at some point be "on the dole." Your petard will hoist us all!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: The greatest nation on Earth taken for granted

I don't see where people who pay no taxes contribute to any of those things. Your argument seems to be that because we pay for the things that you describe and others don't that we should be grateful for what we provide to ourselves and people who don't contribute. Sorry. I don't see it.

At no point did I even come remotely close to saying anything resembling "people who pay no taxes contribute" to that infra-structure.
I just plain old did not say anything like that at all.

I am not sure what I can do about you thinking that what I wrote is in anyway related to that.

I certainly won't defend some argument that you made up and assigned to me.
So feel free to carry on trashing the argument you have created.
:shrug:

I am pointing out that:

1) There are huge, pre-existing infra-structures of many sorts in our country.
[Do you disagree with this point?]

2) When you take advantage of the opportunities in this country, you are benefiting from these various infra-structures and securities.
[Do you disagree with this point?]

3) The harder you work and the more opportunities you take advantage of, the more you can benefit from our country's infra-structures ans securities.
[Do you disagree with this point?]

4) People who take advantage of opportunities get more out of the opportunities than people who do not take advantage of the opportunities.
[Do you disagree with this point?]

I ... are.

That's a lovely anecdotal non-sequitur.
Should I assume that you think the anecdote is a rebuttal to the idea that people who take advantage of an opportunity benefit more from that opportunity than those who do not take advantage of that opportunity?
Or, do you, like Stoney, think that I am saying something entirely different and unrelated to what I actually wrote?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

That is all well and good.

The question is not whether or not the needy should be provided for.

The question is whether or not the needy should be afforded a vote in the allocation of the benefits they receive.

The story you present is that the good People of Minnesota have decided to support those that need it and that the segment needing this support is small. The fact that "homeless" in Minnesota is synonymous with "popsicle" 10 months each year might have something to do with the lower number than most states.

You're not just talking about voting on the allocation of welfare benefits. You're talking about stripping citizens of their say in every matter of governance, from prohibitions to criminal penalties to township zoning regulations. How do you justify that?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Hmmm. I'm sorry, but waving the magic wand to eliminate ubber Progressive California from discussion doesn't work. It epitimizes the social justice approach, and it perfectly represents the issue being presented in the OP.

No other state in the US has adopted a more Progressive approach to taxation and social welfare programs. No other state has adopted a more Progressive approach to business, environment, and energy.

These massive government programs must be paid for, and that is why California has adopted it's tax a fee structure to pay for it. With almost 25% of the population receiving the type of benefits referrenced in the OP, this voter block has seen to it that only those politicians who will protect those payouts are elected to office.

Again, that dovetails directly to the point in the OP.

As to the Red State/Blue State meme, I have no interest in debating this Progressive Machine invention.

That's a couple of times the State of California has come up. That issue is of interest to me, since I've lived here for a long time and can remember when the sales tax was 5% instead of nearly 10% (depending on the city) and income taxes were not enough to bother with monthly deductions.

Oh, and we had the best education system in the country, and free tuition at state colleges. Yes, really!

But, most of that social welfare is paid for directly or indirectly by the federal government, not the state. Not that the state doesn't waste plenty of money on such things as trains to nowhere.

Moreover, the State of California is still a net payer to the federal government. Most of the "red" states are not, Texas being an exception.

 

[code1211]

They do talk like mainstream conservatives to put on a show for the voter base. That has been very evident. The Republicans in congress vote reasonably and are very sensible pragmatic politicians. You wouldn't know it by watching C-Span. They speak like rabid hillibillies with no intentions of being reasonable. You have to admit that the confusion is justified. They say one thing and do another. The things they do is pretty good. They things they say are pretty outrageous at times. Some of them sound like Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh when they speak on the floor of congress.

I'm smart enough to see through that. It can be easily summed up like this: Actions speak louder than words but very few people listen to the actions.

Can you name a true Conservative in the US Government?

I only ask because the definitions are so wide that citing one will help define what you think a conservative might be.

 

[code1211]

As someone has already pointed out, contributions vary greatly over a lifetime, while voting is a right endowed by citizenship. Nearly every citizen will at some point be "on the dole." Your petard will hoist us all!

Again, if the balance sheet is positive this year, you have the right to vote. Negative, you do not.

This would not even require a photo ID. Just a tax return.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

That is all well and good.

The question is not whether or not the needy should be provided for.

The question is whether or not the needy should be afforded a vote in the allocation of the benefits they receive.

The story you present is that the good People of Minnesota have decided to support those that need it and that the segment needing this support is small. The fact that "homeless" in Minnesota is synonymous with "popsicle" 10 months each year might have something to do with the lower number than most states.

We have homeless like everyplace does, and it's quite hot here for about 4 or 5 months, and moderate for another 3 or 4.

Our neighbors have bad winters too, but they don't have anywhere near the level of collectivism that we do, and they have far more poverty. So obviously desire not to be in the winter cold is not the only thing motivating Minnesota's working attitude.

Asking whether we should help the needy is asking whether we should live in societies, or in the woods by ourselves. There is no successful society that does not help its needy to some degree or another. I don't think it's a coincidence that the US as a whole is one of the worst at it in the developed world, and that we also have one of the worst qualities of life amongst developed nations.

As I already said, everyone no matter how needy is invested in both the freedoms and the benefits, and the wealthy get their own types of benefits. There's an argument to be made that they've been benefiting at everyone else's detriment for decades. Shall we cut them off from voting?

 

[Stoney]

Re: The greatest nation on Earth taken for granted

At no point did I even come remotely close to saying anything resembling "people who pay no taxes contribute" to that infra-structure.
I just plain old did not say anything like that at all.

I am not sure what I can do about you thinking that what I wrote is in anyway related to that.

I certainly won't defend some argument that you made up and assigned to me.
So feel free to carry on trashing the argument you have created.
:shrug:

I am pointing out that:

1) There are huge, pre-existing infra-structures of many sorts in our country.
[Do you disagree with this point?]

2) When you take advantage of the opportunities in this country, you are benefiting from these various infra-structures and securities.
[Do you disagree with this point?]

3) The harder you work and the more opportunities you take advantage of, the more you can benefit from our country's infra-structures ans securities.
[Do you disagree with this point?]

4) People who take advantage of opportunities get more out of the opportunities than people who do not take advantage of the opportunities.
[Do you disagree with this point?]


That's a lovely anecdotal non-sequitur.
Should I assume that you think the anecdote is a rebuttal to the idea that people who take advantage of an opportunity benefit more from that opportunity than those who do not take advantage of that opportunity?
Or, do you, like Stoney, think that I am saying something entirely different and unrelated to what I actually wrote?

Sorry. I was assuming your remarks were relevant to this discussion. Now that I see that they weren't I can see your points. You seemed to be suggesting that I should be grateful for the contributions that I make to the four numbered points that I contribute to and therefore should be happy to support those who don't contribute. Well, I am grateful to those of us who contribute.

 

[code1211]

Re: The greatest nation on Earth taken for granted

That's a lovely anecdotal non-sequitur.
Should I assume that you think the anecdote is a rebuttal to the idea that people who take advantage of an opportunity benefit more from that opportunity than those who do not take advantage of that opportunity?
Or, do you, like Stoney, think that I am saying something entirely different and unrelated to what I actually wrote?

That you think that it's a non-sequitur displays your utter misunderstanding of what I wrote.

I have no interest in any philosophical understanding of the value of a person simply due to personhood as it relates to taxations and the rights within a society.

The society is an agreement between all to pool resources for the common good. If no resources are contributed to the pool, why should the non-contributor be afforded a vote in how to allocate the resources?

If the contributor is the source of avery large contribution, why should that contributor be forced to contribute even more by the non contributors?

What is the responsibility of a person within society and from what action does that derive? That is the basic question of this thread.

The meaning of the little anecdote was that the city fathers killed the Golden Goose trying to have dinner.

 

[Anomalism]

Poor people living paycheck to paycheck worrying about how they will pay rent and feed themselves have more skin in the game than anybody.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Again, if the balance sheet is positive this year, you have the right to vote. Negative, you do not.

This would not even require a photo ID. Just a tax return.

So, if I have a bad year, all I have to do is borrow someone else's papers. Sweet.

 

[code1211]

You're not just talking about voting on the allocation of welfare benefits. You're talking about stripping citizens of their say in every matter of governance, from prohibitions to criminal penalties to township zoning regulations. How do you justify that?

I'm not sure I can be any more clear. The act of governing is the act of allocating wealth for the common good.

If there is not contribution by anyone, there is no wealth to allocate. If there is no allocation by an individual, why should that individual have a voice in the allocation?

It's like admission to a movie. If you don't buy a ticket, you don't get a seat in the theatre. Not too complicated.

 

[code1211]

We have homeless like everyplace does, and it's quite hot here for about 4 or 5 months, and moderate for another 3 or 4.

Our neighbors have bad winters too, but they don't have anywhere near the level of collectivism that we do, and they have far more poverty. So obviously desire not to be in the winter cold is not the only thing motivating Minnesota's working attitude.

Asking whether we should help the needy is asking whether we should live in societies, or in the woods by ourselves. There is no successful society that does not help its needy to some degree or another. I don't think it's a coincidence that the US as a whole is one of the worst at it in the developed world, and that we also have one of the worst qualities of life amongst developed nations.

As I already said, everyone no matter how needy is invested in both the freedoms and the benefits, and the wealthy get their own types of benefits. There's an argument to be made that they've been benefiting at everyone else's detriment for decades. Shall we cut them off from voting?

In my mind, any government is engaged solely in the allocation of funds collected from the group that has agreed to be governed.

Is this a fair statement? What would you amend in that statement?

As such, those who pay would seem to have a right to help decide where the funds they have paid will be allocated.

Those who have not paid would seem to have the right to know where the allocations have been made.

If those who have not paid would like to have a voice in the allocation of funds, they will be allowed to allocate some of their own funds to the government and then help decide how the whole is spent.

If you want to drive a car, buy one.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

The entire premise of this debate seems to be that the poor are never anything but selfish, and if permitted to vote, will never do anything but try to benefit themselves at other people's expense.

And on the flip side, the wealthy are paragons of morality, and will always act as such in their voting habits.

The premise of this idea rests on the assumption that the poor are evil. And apparently not just the poor, but also students, the disabled, the elderly, and even veterans.

I wonder, in a country that has seen benefits for the wealthy rise dramatically, and has seen that some of them don't do anything with that advantage but benefit themselves at other people's expense, and that it is sometimes the poor voting to allow them to do so, what sort of alternate planet this idea even comes from.

 

[code1211]

Poor people living paycheck to paycheck worrying about how they will pay rent and feed themselves have more skin in the game than anybody.

What game?