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

[Stoney]

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.

At least for me that's not true. What I do understand is that we're all self interested and lack of motivation to do something that we don't want to do results in not doing.

 

[Stoney]

Equating a social safety net to "taking by force the property of others" is a little extreme.

Do you think its fair that the wealthiest in the U.S. dictate economic policy that benefits them unproportionately?

Using a misleading soft term for what's happening does not make it right. Would you think it right for me to come knock on your door and tell you that you had to give me money to support my charity or I would take it by force? That is what's happening in this country. And a significant percentage of the people and companies getting the money could fend for themselves.

I want an economic system that is neutral. And if our system benefits the wealthy its because of statist ideas. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer because our government is protecting and feeding GE, GM, big Banks, the stock market....

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

At least for me that's not true. What I do understand is that we're all self interested and lack of motivation to do something that we don't want to do results in not doing.

Motivation is not a finite thing, and most of us find motivation just fine without having the spears of starvation aimed at our back.

Of course we're all self-interested. But that isn't mutually exclusive with caring about our society, or about other individuals. It's simply not being a sociopath.

 

[Stoney]

Won't the rich also vote for people who will give them free stuff? It seems to me that the wealthy get their share of government subsidies. They also can afford to hire lobbyists to make sure that the goodies keep coming.

VEry true, crony capitalism is alive and well. Government should not be in the business of taking from some and giving to others, individuals or companies.

 

[Stoney]

Because voter id disproportionately excludes those at lower income levels as they are more likely to not have an id. I know its ridiculous that they don't have id but that is the way it is.

If they want to vote and we don't make it too hard to get and id, and we don't, they would do what's necessary to vote. My wife and I spend a lot of time on the road and its hard to vote absentee and it requires identification. Yet we vote because we want to vote. The political parties spend a lot of time and energy getting people to vote who don't care about voting. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

We need to keep the system honest.

 

[Respecthelect]

Motivation is not a finite thing, and most of us find motivation just fine without having the spears of starvation aimed at our back.

Not true. Most will not work, when provided with food, shelter, health-care and video games/TV. Why should they?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Not true. Most will not work, when provided with food, shelter, health-care and video games/TV. Why should they?

Well, given that most of our benefit receivers do work, obviously not. Given that most of them go on to be working and contributing more in taxes than the previous year, obviously not. Given that benefits are so readily available here and yet we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, obviously not.

Most of us wanted to get out of our parent's homes, even though parents these days are not so quick to get their kids out. I left at 18. My dad actually wanted me to stay a bit longer.

You rest on the assumption the poor are selfish and lazy. The only selfishness I hear is coming from everyone else.

 

[Stoney]

Motivation is not a finite thing, and most of us find motivation just fine without having the spears of starvation aimed at our back.

Of course we're all self-interested. But that isn't mutually exclusive with caring about our society, or about other individuals. It's simply not being a sociopath.

I often see this claim about starvation but can never find any statistics except about a subjective judgement about hunger. When I'm in line in a store behind someone using their food stamp card I can't help but notice the smartphone and items in their shopping cart that are far beyond meager sustenance, TVs, beer, cigarettes, etc.

 

[code1211]

Returning to the real argument and once again applying critical thinking skills to make arguments that are relevant to the discussion we are talking about workers making enough money to support themselves. Taking figures from full time workers ignores the transition to part time workers in the U.S. and does not include those that work less than 40 hours a week. This gives a distorted view of real median income in the U.S.

May 2013 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

The median hourly wage is about $17 an hour, which is actually more than I thought it was. For a family of three this is not very much money at all and would put them near poverty.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2012.pdf

There is also the working poor that constitute about 10% of the workforce, a bit more than your misleading 1% figure you threw out earlier.

Walmart is the largest employer in the U.S. and most of their workers make poverty or near poverty wages.

More Than Half of Wal-Mart's Hourly Workers Make Less Than $25,000 - Businessweek

Once again the problem is not "moochers", it is suppressed, low wages that pay the people a pittance so that the investment class can make billions more in profits. The problem in the U.S. is a compensation issue, not a welfare issue.

I was responding to your tangent about the median income.

The idea of the thread is simply to ask if people be allowed to vote if they are not paying taxes.

I say no.

If they are not contributing to the fund to pay for the activities of government, they should have no say in how those funds are allocated.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Since you seem so offended by my support for one-man - one-vote...

I'm not sure exactly what you're on about here. But if you say it's so that's cause for skepticism,

may we assume you support three-fifths vote for those on the dole?

You're free to go on & assume most any ol' thing you like.
Your assumptions don't confront me none.
I say what I say and that's all I can do.
The understanding is up to you.

 

[code1211]

So no one on Social Security gets to vote? No middle-class parents of young children? Is this just the FIT we're talking about? How exactly is the "balance sheet" calculated?

People on Social security do pay tax and those earnings are not charity.

When I retire, I will have paid less into my 401K accounts and yet they will yield more than the SS payments. Social Security is not charity. It is a contract arrangement.

With parents who have children, that is the same as anyone else. Especially regarding the families with children in school, they are getting a great deal of value for the dollars of tax that they spend. The value of the public education system for each student is debatable with the cost per student being about 50% higher than the private option and outcomes being lower, but still the education is a value if the tuition is zero for the student.

Benefits Planner: Income Taxes And Your Social Security Benefits

 

[code1211]

Because voter id disproportionately excludes those at lower income levels as they are more likely to not have an id. I know its ridiculous that they don't have id but that is the way it is.

I've heard the stories about the old lady in West Texas who has to travel to the moon to get a photo ID and she doesn't have a rocket ship or whatever. Very sad.

Are there any actual surveys that have been conducted to actually find out how many Americans don't have a photo ID? I'm sure the Republican Party would be glad to create and issue the million or so that the illiterate hermits would need.

I need a photo ID to get cough syrup at the drug store. My goodness! Who are these people?

 

[code1211]

How would people qualify to vote ? A test ? Multiple choice, fill in the blank ?

A tax return.

 

[rathi]

Its amazing how people can become so utterly disconnected from reality.

The ability to look at the U.S. political system and think that welfare recipients are running the show is absurd. Do you think that people on foodstamps are the ones giving billions in campaign donations with superpacs or hiring lobbyists to write legislation? How the **** do you look at the people with no money and think "these guys are totally rigging the system in their favor"? If people could vote themselves benefits, don't you think they'd vote themselves above the poverty line?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I often see this claim about starvation but can never find any statistics except about a subjective judgement about hunger. When I'm in line in a store behind someone using their food stamp card I can't help but notice the smartphone and items in their shopping cart that are far beyond meager sustenance, TVs, beer, cigarettes, etc.

Yup, at the grocery store with a TV in their cart. Uh-huh. :roll:

You are aware smartphones and what-have-you last for a while, and they may or may not have been in the same financial position they are now when they bought it? I mean, you do realize in this kind of economy that many people don't have much job security, right?

Or that some smartphones cost as little as a dumb phone these days -- especially a refurb. There's lots of cheap Androids around. Or that cheap apartments usually come with TV's. Trust me, I've lived trashy -- they all have one. They usually have lots of little stuff, actually. It's supposed to make it seem less cheap (it doesn't -- it's all semi-functional crap and usually ancient). It's mostly stuff left behind by a previous tenant who had to get out in a hurry.

I get so tired of hearing this crap. Yes, let's judge someone by an object that lasts for years, or that doesn't really cost anything anyway, or that might not even be technically theirs, or something you never actually saw but you heard about on hack radio.

 

[Verax]

Using a misleading soft term for what's happening does not make it right. Would you think it right for me to come knock on your door and tell you that you had to give me money to support my charity or I would take it by force? That is what's happening in this country. And a significant percentage of the people and companies getting the money could fend for themselves.

I want an economic system that is neutral. And if our system benefits the wealthy its because of statist ideas. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer because our government is protecting and feeding GE, GM, big Banks, the stock market....

I would like a neutral system as well. However to get there we would have to unwind in a manner that didn't cause extreme suffering for people. Simply cutting off welfare benefits for the poor in isolation will not fix the system. The lion's share of the problems come from crony capitalism with government and business in bed together. If we could fix that the poor wouldn't need welfare and that problem would take care of itself.

Unfortunately I mostly only hear people advocating for cutting welfare for the poor, that's really not the issue imo, it is a symptom.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

All are free to use the roads, flush their toilets and to attend the schools regardless of contribution and are therefore beneficiaries of the largess of the community whether they have contributed or not.

Sure.
And those who have the most to protect have the most protected via the myriad infra-structures and securities of our country.
Additionally, for all but a few Americans, we would not be wherever we are today in life if we had started off in one the countries where something as simple as contract enforceability is questionable. If people cannot count on contracts being reliably enforced, they are less likely to make contracts, and will require greater security measures for whatever contracts they do make.
A generation may fund the court system of its time, but the confidence in a system that comes from generation after generation of contracts being enforceable is a large part of what allows for the trillions and trillions of dollars in commerce to take place annually here in the US.
That sort of a thing, that confidence, is something which cannot be bought or constructed except through the passage of time.

This sort of immense "invisible" benefit is not just limited to the effects of our court systems and relative low levels of corruption, but also applies to institutions such as our military and public education system.

I repeat all this for a point to come later.

However, to enjoy the privilege of helping to guide the expenditure of the contributions, they should also contribute.
There are those that have much and they also contribute much. There are those that have little and contribute little. There are those that have little and the community supports them.
The first two groups should have the right to help direct the expenditure of the funds. The last group should have the right to not get in the way. If they would like the right to have a voice, they should first have the responsibility to help with the contributions.
Pay to play.

Just paying any taxes at all is enough?
Why not just call it a voting fee?
Hardly a soul pays no taxes whatsoever.
Sales tax near ubiquitous.

 

[Stoney]

Yup, at the grocery store with a TV in their cart. Uh-huh. :roll:

You are aware smartphones and what-have-you last for a while, and they may or may not have been in the same financial position they are now when they bought it? I mean, you do realize in this kind of economy that many people don't have much job security, right?

Or that some smartphones cost as little as a dumb phone these days -- especially a refurb. There's lots of cheap Androids around. Or that cheap apartments usually come with TV's. Trust me, I've lived trashy -- they all have one. They usually have lots of little stuff, actually. It's supposed to make it seem less cheap (it doesn't -- it's all semi-functional crap and usually ancient). It's mostly stuff left behind by a previous tenant who had to get out in a hurry.

I get so tired of hearing this crap. Yes, let's judge someone by an object that lasts for years, or that doesn't really cost anything anyway, or that might not even be technically theirs, or something you never actually saw but you heard about on hack radio.

I've spent too much time rambling around HUD Housing, and yes, TVs in their cart at Walmart. I don't believe you're naive enough not to know that the system is filled with fraud and abuse, people who don't need what they get and people who get enough to spend on what they don't need.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

People on Social security do pay tax and those earnings are not charity.

When I retire, I will have paid less into my 401K accounts and yet they will yield more than the SS payments. Social Security is not charity. It is a contract arrangement.

With parents who have children, that is the same as anyone else. Especially regarding the families with children in school, they are getting a great deal of value for the dollars of tax that they spend. The value of the public education system for each student is debatable with the cost per student being about 50% higher than the private option and outcomes being lower, but still the education is a value if the tuition is zero for the student.

Benefits Planner: Income Taxes And Your Social Security Benefits

With families, I was referring to the Earned Income Credit, which pushes many into net tax beneficiaries, assuming we're only counting income tax and not other taxes like sales, payroll, etc. Of course, if you're not going to count SS as a public benefit for voting calculations, then you can't fairly leave out payroll taxes in your formula, can you?

What about business owners who benefit indirectly from corporate tax breaks -- say a Dunkin Donuts franchise relocates and gets a 10-year tax abatement, does the owner still get to vote? What if you live totally off of acquired wealth for a year and don't earn any income? Do you lose your vote?

It seems this scheme ultimately is less about fairness than it is about aligning voting rights with certain demographics -- hence seniors get to keep their votes while young working families lose theirs.

 

[code1211]

Sure.
And those who have the most to protect have the most protected via the myriad infra-structures and securities of our country.
Additionally, for all but a few Americans, we would not be wherever we are today in life if we had started off in one the countries where something as simple as contract enforceability is questionable. If people cannot count on contracts being reliably enforced, they are less likely to make contracts, and will require greater security measures for whatever contracts they do make.
A generation may fund the court system of its time, but the confidence in a system that comes from generation after generation of contracts being enforceable is a large part of what allows for the trillions and trillions of dollars in commerce to take place annually here in the US.
That sort of a thing, that confidence, is something which cannot be bought or constructed except through the passage of time.

This sort of immense "invisible" benefit is not just limited to the effects of our court systems and relative low levels of corruption, but also applies to institutions such as our military and public education system.

I repeat all this for a point to come later.



Just paying any taxes at all is enough?
Why not just call it a voting fee?
Hardly a soul pays no taxes whatsoever.
Sales tax near ubiquitous.

The invisible benefits as you call them are enjoyed and counted on by all. As such, i have no idea why you bring them up.

If hardly a soul pays not taxes then hardly a sold would due affected.

However, I would call for a net payer as opposed to a net receiver. Given the ubiquity of sales taxes, it is likely that only hermits don't pay them. hermits are likely to maintain their privacy on voting day.

The kind of taxes I'm talking about, though, are income taxes.

Laking that, at least citizenship would a nice bar to get over and that can be determined only with photo ID's. We know that these are illegal because it's illegal to know who's voting and if they are legal or not.

 

[Stoney]

I would like a neutral system as well. However to get there we would have to unwind in a manner that didn't cause extreme suffering for people. Simply cutting off welfare benefits for the poor in isolation will not fix the system. The lion's share of the problems come from crony capitalism with government and business in bed together. If we could fix that the poor wouldn't need welfare and that problem would take care of itself.

Unfortunately I mostly only hear people advocating for cutting welfare for the poor, that's really not the issue imo, it is a symptom.

I'd be willing to try to "unwind in a manner that didn't cause extreme suffering for people." And I absolutely agree with you that crony capitalism is a bigger problem. But the source of the problem is the regulation of business by government. If politicians had no ability to grant the wishes of lobbyists there would be no lobbyists.

I don't hold any ill will toward people who have less ability than others for whatever reason. I do tire of the claim that they are all squeaky clean and have no ability to help themselves. I do tire of those who claim that without government there would be no charity.

We had a plan created by bipartisan legislation during the Clinton Administration to encourage people to seek work and by all accounts I've seen it had some success. One of the first things the current administration did was to relax those rules and the roles of government assistance have grown. I think there are too many politicians who see the welfare roles as votes and hove no interest in getting those voters work. Our government has grown so big and has so much power that our representatives are only interested in wielding that power.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[code1211]

With families, I was referring to the Earned Income Credit, which pushes many into net tax beneficiaries, assuming we're only counting income tax and not other taxes like sales, payroll, etc. Of course, if you're not going to count SS as a public benefit for voting calculations, then you can't fairly leave out payroll taxes in your formula, can you?

What about business owners who benefit indirectly from corporate tax breaks -- say a Dunkin Donuts franchise relocates and gets a 10-year tax abatement, does the owner still get to vote? What if you live totally off of acquired wealth for a year and don't earn any income? Do you lose your vote?

It seems this scheme ultimately is less about fairness than it is about aligning voting rights with certain demographics -- hence seniors get to keep their votes while young working families lose theirs.

I've been paying taxes since I started working full time. Who are these young people who are not paying taxes?

Payroll taxes are paid to create the illusion that the system is working as something other than a ponzi scheme which it is. I would feel much better about that if the 12.5% of income went to a 401K for the individual that could not be touched until retirement or death. That, however, is not a tax paid to support the community. It would be exactly what a 401K plan is and would actually accrue to wealth that could be possessed and perhaps inherited by the next generation.

How would it affect the lives of the working young to receive 100 or 200 thousand dollars when dad dies instead of having to come up with 5000 dollars to pop him in the ground?

When there is a tax break for the business owner, does this mean the the tax is reduced or that the tax is reversed so the business owner receives instead of pays? What "tax breaks" in particular are you referring to?

Is it unfair in your mind that some can buy a car and others cannot? Some can attend a movie and others cannot? Some can fly on an airplane and others cannot?

In the real world, you receive what you pay to get. I see no reason that people who have no money in the public find can decide how that fund is spent.

What is the reason that you offer?

 

[beefheart]

I was listening to a discussion of this idea on talk radio this morning.

The started with the interesting little news story about 110 million Americans getting one sort of government dole or other. Then the conversation turned to people voting themselves more government goodies.

The point was brought up that, originally, only property owners voted.

No one pointed out that only white, male property owners voted, but then, no one is suggesting that the former two should be qualifications once again.

Now, the question is this: 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?

OK, so my nephew who just got out of the Navy after 5 years, including a stint in Afghanistan, who just started college under the G.I. Bill shouldn't have the right to vote?

No...you are a citizen, you have the right to vote.

 

[Deuce]

OK, so my nephew who just got out of the Navy after 5 years, including a stint in Afghanistan, who just started college under the G.I. Bill shouldn't have the right to vote?

No...you are a citizen, you have the right to vote.

He's in Mitt Romney's 47%, a leech on society.

 

[kamikaze483]

I was listening to a discussion of this idea on talk radio this morning.

The started with the interesting little news story about 110 million Americans getting one sort of government dole or other. Then the conversation turned to people voting themselves more government goodies.

The point was brought up that, originally, only property owners voted.

No one pointed out that only white, male property owners voted, but then, no one is suggesting that the former two should be qualifications once again.

Now, the question is this: 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 say this is a great idea. I think not only should you not be receiving any federal public assistance in order to vote, you should have to pass a basic literacy/intelligence test. The only reason liberals do as well as they do in this country is their ability to garner votes from the impoverished people on the dole, while at the same time encouraging more of them to cross the border. I am all for more stringent voting restrictions.