- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,443
- Reaction score
- 4,479
- Location
- Western NY and Geneva, CH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The Compromise said:On election day, officials at each polling place separate out the net taxpayers. Those individuals would be permitted to use the voting machines as usual. Everybody else would be lined up, then counted off in groups of 5 people. Each group would be handed a paper ballot and given time to discuss amongst themselves how they would like to cast their ballot. When they reach some kind of agreement, each group would then fill out their ballots, casting a total of 3 votes in each race, after which they all sign the ballot and turn it in to be counted.
If you don't like paper ballots, that's fine, I'm sure an election machine could be set up to help automate and standardize the casting of these specialized ballots.
Equating paying taxes with the right to vote..... I think we passed a Constitutional Amendment in 1964 which spoke to this type of thinking. One person = one vote.
Equating paying taxes with the right to vote..... I think we passed a Constitutional Amendment in 1964 which spoke to this type of thinking. One person = one vote.
Please read this entire post before voting in the poll. If you vote before reading the entire post, know that you are an idiot.
Turtledude thinks that you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you are not a net taxpayer (in other words, someone who pays more in taxes than they get back when they file their returns). He doesn't think it's fair that those who are not net taxpayers are permitted to vote for the politician who promises them the most goodies, since they're not feeling the bite of paying the taxes that fund those goodies.
I completely disagree with his position, but this got me to thinking. What if someone were to propose the following compromise:
And now, the question I put to all of you!
If you were given the choice between voting FOR this compromise, or voting AGAINST this compromise, which would you choose?
This is a simple yes/no, with the obligatory nonsense option. You can explain your vote after you cast it, but this thread is not for the discussion of any option other than the compromise as described above.
Everyone should have one vote.
Everyone should have a horse in the race. By that I mean, that when taxes go up, everyone's taxes go up. Someone should not be able to vote for higher taxes for someone else but not themselves.
Everyone should have one vote.
Everyone should have a horse in the race. By that I mean, that when taxes go up, everyone's taxes go up. Someone should not be able to vote for higher taxes for someone else but not themselves.
Unfortunately, that happens far too often. California is falling apart, in large part to the fact that many poor California voters keep passing massive bond issues that they want free stuff, but don't actually pay any taxes so they are never responsible for paying it back. This kind of entitlement attitude is absurd, but it's rampant.
Everyone should have one vote.
Everyone should have a horse in the race. By that I mean, that when taxes go up, everyone's taxes go up. Someone should not be able to vote for higher taxes for someone else but not themselves.
Please read this entire post before voting in the poll. If you vote before reading the entire post, know that you are an idiot.
Turtledude thinks that you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you are not a net taxpayer (in other words, someone who pays more in taxes than they get back when they file their returns). He doesn't think it's fair that those who are not net taxpayers are permitted to vote for the politician who promises them the most goodies, since they're not feeling the bite of paying the taxes that fund those goodies.
I completely disagree with his position, but this got me to thinking. What if someone were to propose the following compromise:
And now, the question I put to all of you!
If you were given the choice between voting FOR this compromise, or voting AGAINST this compromise, which would you choose?
This is a simple yes/no, with the obligatory nonsense option. You can explain your vote after you cast it, but this thread is not for the discussion of any option other than the compromise as described above.
So...... again if you have money, your vote counts according to Turtle. That is what the founding Fathers DIDNT want!!!!!! Where is Turtle so I can smack em????
And NO! This whole idea discussed in this poll is assinine.
No. The compromise is absurd and anti-American. As is turtle's position.
Everyone should have one vote.
Everyone should have a horse in the race. By that I mean, that when taxes go up, everyone's taxes go up. Someone should not be able to vote for higher taxes for someone else but not themselves.
exactly my point-since many liberals oppose this THEN I suggested that only net tax payers be able to vote. I wonder why the left has such a hard time with flat taxes or a NST or consumption tax. Because their masters cannot buy the votes of people likey Haymarket etc by promising the dem masses more and more goodies paid for by tax hikes on "The rich"
You are being dishonest too because you have seen most of what I have written on this.
exactly my point-since many liberals oppose this THEN I suggested that only net tax payers be able to vote. I wonder why the left has such a hard time with flat taxes or a NST or consumption tax. Because their masters cannot buy the votes of people likey Haymarket etc by promising the dem masses more and more goodies paid for by tax hikes on "The rich"
This is precisely what I mean in my previous post. You start off fine... and then you digress into absurdity. Maybe you do it to make it a point. The only point you are making, though, is that what you are saying is absurd.
In federal elections we vote for representatives not initiatives, we are a constitutional limited democratically elected republic. We vote for people, not taxes or any other laws.Everyone should have one vote.
Everyone should have a horse in the race. By that I mean, that when taxes go up, everyone's taxes go up. Someone should not be able to vote for higher taxes for someone else but not themselves.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?