Total Posts:80|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 12:16:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today"s terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.

There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.

Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.

This is counter to the taxpayer"s wishes.

Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?

If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.

Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?

Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?

Regards
DL
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 2:20:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 12:16:52 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

sure. find me a single person who paid $0 taxes in any given election period and they can be excluded. You'd be hard pressed to find a homeless person for whom this was true.


When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today"s terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.

I'd prefer someone who understood law, civics, history and cared about more than how big the candidate's flag lapel pin was. Rather than taxes, since every single American, outside of newborns, pays them in some form or another, how about the same test that a naturalized citizen must take? Why does the ground over which your mother's vagina hovered matter? If you want to be a citizen, you should put in the time to understand what that means and the history of the country.

I'm sick of people who vote by who has a donkey or elephant next to their name, and nothing else, or whose name is the cutest, having their vote count the same as mine does.


There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.

Every taxpayer receives benefit from the government, and every so-called taxtaker pays taxes.


Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.

Freedom isn't free. It's better than the taxpayer's life, which is what most in the other class you call out end up having to give to their government to move from one class to the other


This is counter to the taxpayer"s wishes.

B.F.D.


Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?

Because the mere fact that they live in a country that is set up for them to make the kind of income they do more than makes up for the taxes they pay.

I'm sure you could find a lovely 3rd world country where you could be taxed even more strenuously and have none of the benefits you have in this country, if you'd like.


If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.

Most don't. Most buy chainsaw art and a bunch of other crap that becomes worthless the moment they buy it. In most cases, and not all, but most, the public will do more good with the money than the person who paid the tax.

What you care about, though, is that the public won't do as much good for you. What you're advocating is selfish wealth hoarding and ignoring the source of your wealth (likely the wealth level of your parents, which is the greatest predictor of what your income level will be).


Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?

What does the owner of a 7-11 know about the water supply and the environmental issues associated with the lack of crop diversity in this country? Making money doesn't really take that much intelligence, it's not the only public good, and those who do it in great amounts, while arrogant and devoid of empathy (see Sociopath), they typically only vote for their own interests, and by doing so, they could quickly destroy the very apparatus with which they create their wealth.


Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?

If by that, they can dictate when they spend their time jerking off so I don't have to hear their ridiculous rhetoric, then yes.


Regards
DL
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 5:59:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are multiple types of taxpayers, including those that purposefully manipulate the system, thus making them quite intelligent.

A basic political/literacy test would more than suffice and/or a bachelors degree +
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 6:55:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 5:59:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
There are multiple types of taxpayers, including those that purposefully manipulate the system, thus making them quite intelligent.

A basic political/literacy test would more than suffice and/or a bachelors degree +

A basic literacy test would be good, but I would stop at a high school diploma, because a college degree could be seen as a poll tax.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 7:38:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 6:55:41 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 5:59:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
There are multiple types of taxpayers, including those that purposefully manipulate the system, thus making them quite intelligent.

A basic political/literacy test would more than suffice and/or a bachelors degree +

A basic literacy test would be good, but I would stop at a high school diploma, because a college degree could be seen as a poll tax.
The naturalization test. Jefferson had a 6th grade "formal" education. No level of education should be required. The test is already written and it contains everything, basic, important for voting.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 7:42:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 7:38:44 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/22/2013 6:55:41 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 5:59:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
There are multiple types of taxpayers, including those that purposefully manipulate the system, thus making them quite intelligent.

A basic political/literacy test would more than suffice and/or a bachelors degree +

A basic literacy test would be good, but I would stop at a high school diploma, because a college degree could be seen as a poll tax.
The naturalization test. Jefferson had a 6th grade "formal" education. No level of education should be required. The test is already written and it contains everything, basic, important for voting.

That test may be overly hard.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 7:46:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 7:38:44 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/22/2013 6:55:41 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 5:59:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
There are multiple types of taxpayers, including those that purposefully manipulate the system, thus making them quite intelligent.

A basic political/literacy test would more than suffice and/or a bachelors degree +

A basic literacy test would be good, but I would stop at a high school diploma, because a college degree could be seen as a poll tax.
The naturalization test. Jefferson had a 6th grade "formal" education. No level of education should be required. The test is already written and it contains everything, basic, important for voting.

Perfect. Every citizen should have to pass the naturalization test before they can vote! I never thought of that. Basic literacy and historical knowledge all in one.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 7:50:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 7:42:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:38:44 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/22/2013 6:55:41 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 5:59:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
There are multiple types of taxpayers, including those that purposefully manipulate the system, thus making them quite intelligent.

A basic political/literacy test would more than suffice and/or a bachelors degree +

A basic literacy test would be good, but I would stop at a high school diploma, because a college degree could be seen as a poll tax.
The naturalization test. Jefferson had a 6th grade "formal" education. No level of education should be required. The test is already written and it contains everything, basic, important for voting.

That test may be overly hard.

If people are stupid, they should not be able to vote. The naturalization test isn't that hard either.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 7:54:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 7:52:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:50:12 PM, tmar19652 wrote:

If people are stupid, they should not be able to vote.

Why not?

Because if they cannot read or understand how and why politics work, then they have nothing to offer to the population by voting.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:04:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 12:16:52 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

No.


When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today"s terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.

Well... no. As recently as the 1800's it meant just that "land owner." Political movements supported by the Jacksonians ended that concept, extending universal suffrage to all white males.


There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.

Uh... no. There aren't.


Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.

Yeah, that's kind of the point of taxes.


This is counter to the taxpayer"s wishes.

Immediately, perhaps. Ultimately, perhaps not.


Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?

Because that's how the government works.


If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.

So, you're requirement is that literally everyone needs to be pleased such that absolutely no one has any complaints? Otherwise the system is a failure and needs to be scrapped? You're not asking for much, are you?


Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?

No.


Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?

Unless you're suggesting that more than 50% of the voting population aren't tax payers, then it would seem that the current situation is the answer to your question. Then again, if more than 50% of the population weren't tax payers, I struggle to imagine how your proposal could ever be implemented.


Regards
DL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:05:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 7:54:25 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:52:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:50:12 PM, tmar19652 wrote:

If people are stupid, they should not be able to vote.

Why not?

Because if they cannot read or understand how and why politics work, then they have nothing to offer to the population by voting.

Except voting isn't about offering the population anything. Voting is a right given to people to use how they please, not a service people perform to the benefit of others. The operation of a democracy is the aggregation of self-interest.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:08:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:05:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:54:25 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:52:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:50:12 PM, tmar19652 wrote:

If people are stupid, they should not be able to vote.

Why not?

Because if they cannot read or understand how and why politics work, then they have nothing to offer to the population by voting.

Except voting isn't about offering the population anything. Voting is a right given to people to use how they please, not a service people perform to the benefit of others. The operation of a democracy is the aggregation of self-interest.

So someone who cannot read should vote based on which candidates face looks the nicest? The stupid should not be able to vote because they cannot make rational decisions about politics.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:11:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:08:41 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:05:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:54:25 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:52:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:50:12 PM, tmar19652 wrote:

If people are stupid, they should not be able to vote.

Why not?

Because if they cannot read or understand how and why politics work, then they have nothing to offer to the population by voting.

Except voting isn't about offering the population anything. Voting is a right given to people to use how they please, not a service people perform to the benefit of others. The operation of a democracy is the aggregation of self-interest.

So someone who cannot read should vote based on which candidates face looks the nicest? The stupid should not be able to vote because they cannot make rational decisions about politics.

I agree.

Mind if I get to set the criteria for when a politician excludes a voter as a constituent due to his inability to vote? Do I get to pretend this will effect all races/genders equally?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:11:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:08:41 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:05:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:54:25 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:52:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:50:12 PM, tmar19652 wrote:

If people are stupid, they should not be able to vote.

Why not?

Because if they cannot read or understand how and why politics work, then they have nothing to offer to the population by voting.

Except voting isn't about offering the population anything. Voting is a right given to people to use how they please, not a service people perform to the benefit of others. The operation of a democracy is the aggregation of self-interest.

So someone who cannot read should vote based on which candidates face looks the nicest?

They should vote based on whatever criteria they decide.

The stupid should not be able to vote because they cannot make rational decisions about politics.

So? Why should that be a requirement?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:14:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can't see anything good coming out of voter disenfranchisement. Either the people smart or stupid can be trusted to look out for each other, or democracy is a sham.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:16:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, you need to demonstrate that intelligence/education/whatever somehow nets rational political decisions. I'm smelling a bit of denying the antecedent here (not intelligent -> no rational political decisions; intelligent; ergo rational political decisions).

Comparatively, I'm politically ignorant. And while I'm fairly intelligent (I'd like to think), my intelligence is not wasted on political nonsense; to wit, my decisions are probably not rational ones, when it comes to politics (though I don't perceive politics as field overflowing with rationality as it is).

So, you'd obviously not want me to vote, as I'm not making the decisions you'd want me to make, so on what basis would you exclude me. I'm educated and a taxpayer. What now?

Do you feel that Democrats, on the whole, make "rational political" decisions? Should we just deny the vote to anyone that thinks differently than you? Let's be honest, you'd like that and that's exactly where this is going.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:23:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:16:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
Also, you need to demonstrate that intelligence/education/whatever somehow nets rational political decisions. I'm smelling a bit of denying the antecedent here (not intelligent -> no rational political decisions; intelligent; ergo rational political decisions).

Comparatively, I'm politically ignorant. And while I'm fairly intelligent (I'd like to think), my intelligence is not wasted on political nonsense; to wit, my decisions are probably not rational ones, when it comes to politics (though I don't perceive politics as field overflowing with rationality as it is).

So, you'd obviously not want me to vote, as I'm not making the decisions you'd want me to make, so on what basis would you exclude me. I'm educated and a taxpayer. What now?

Do you feel that Democrats, on the whole, make "rational political" decisions? Should we just deny the vote to anyone that thinks differently than you? Let's be honest, you'd like that and that's exactly where this is going.

Can you pass a nationalization test. All I am asking for is a basic understanding of american history, politics, and literacy. You are free to make stupid decisions, but when someone votes, I want them to understand the ramifications of what they are doing.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 8:30:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:23:44 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:16:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
Also, you need to demonstrate that intelligence/education/whatever somehow nets rational political decisions. I'm smelling a bit of denying the antecedent here (not intelligent -> no rational political decisions; intelligent; ergo rational political decisions).

Comparatively, I'm politically ignorant. And while I'm fairly intelligent (I'd like to think), my intelligence is not wasted on political nonsense; to wit, my decisions are probably not rational ones, when it comes to politics (though I don't perceive politics as field overflowing with rationality as it is).

So, you'd obviously not want me to vote, as I'm not making the decisions you'd want me to make, so on what basis would you exclude me. I'm educated and a taxpayer. What now?

Do you feel that Democrats, on the whole, make "rational political" decisions? Should we just deny the vote to anyone that thinks differently than you? Let's be honest, you'd like that and that's exactly where this is going.

Can you pass a nationalization test. All I am asking for is a basic understanding of american history, politics, and literacy. You are free to make stupid decisions, but when someone votes, I want them to understand the ramifications of what they are doing.

The government is such a gigantic bureaucratic nightmare that there isn't a single person that understands the ramifications of what they are doing. Anyone that believes that do is deluded. The government, despite it's appearances, is a machine without a head or - more accurately - a machine with thousands of heads.

But, you contradict yourself. If I understand the ramifications of what I'm doing, how can it be a stupid decision?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 2:26:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I do think that those who pay no taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote, but there is no pragmatic way to acheive this.

To those who say there is no non-taxpayers, I disagree.
You may be technically correct, in the sense that they will pay payroll, sales, and/or property taxes, but effectively, there are some who do in fact pay zero in net taxes.

Take a single mother with two kids making $30,000/year.
Due to EIC and the child tax credits, claiming HOH with 3 exemptions...
Her tax liability is $0, with refundable credits totaling $3,519 in from the feds, and another $686 from MN. This is a total of $4,205.

Now, there are only four taxes this woman would have paid: sales tax, payroll tax (7.65%), local taxes, and property tax. Since this hypothetical woman rents, she does not directly pay any property taxes, so it shouldn't count. However, let's assume she paid $1,000/mo in rent, she would receive a rental rebate from MN for another $1,395, regardless of how much of her rent actually went to property taxes.

So, tax forms pay out $4,205
- N/A property taxes
- $2,295 payroll taxes (even though in 2012 it would be less)
- $0 for local taxes
- $2,062.50 sales tax (assuming every dollar was spent on taxable goods at 6.875%)

Total net taxes would be $152.50, but if only $2,218.18 was spent on non-taxable goods (like rent, clothes, and most food), there would be no net taxes.

How, in this example, does the individual pay any taxes?
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 4:11:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 7:42:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:38:44 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/22/2013 6:55:41 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 5:59:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
There are multiple types of taxpayers, including those that purposefully manipulate the system, thus making them quite intelligent.

A basic political/literacy test would more than suffice and/or a bachelors degree +

A basic literacy test would be good, but I would stop at a high school diploma, because a college degree could be seen as a poll tax.
The naturalization test. Jefferson had a 6th grade "formal" education. No level of education should be required. The test is already written and it contains everything, basic, important for voting.

That test may be overly hard.

Then the person is overly lazy. With an IQ of 80 and rudimentary English skills, most potentially naturalized citizens are able to pass it (potentially...obviously the naturalized ones make it).

Again, why does the soil over which your mother's vagina hovered matter? If the test isn't too hard for those among us who have to earn citizenship, it isn't to hard for those to whom citizenship was given.

If it is, they're first lazy (didn't study) and second retards (not smart enough with minimal study).

I don't care where these people were when their placenta broke, nor their parents when they were conceived. For that, (luck of the draw) they can have every other right imbued to Americans, but since they don't care enough to work as hard as they need to work to learn both about the system of government, as well as the players their vote could help to put into that system, then they don't deserve the vote.

I don't care if they have 180 degrees of different ideas about what will be best for this country than I do, but "because John McCain says so and he's the leader of the republican party and I'm a republican" is not acceptable.

That leads to what we had this last election - Can anyone tell me what the positions of the major candidates on the big issues they care about were in the last election?

I know some of the senatorial and house candidates' positions, and I know Obama supports gay marriage (which is meaningless since the federal government has no purview over ANY marriage), but other than that, all I know is that Obama was anti-Romney and Romney was anti-Obama.

With all the issues we were facing last election, we got glamour shots of Obama in a disaster zone (as he "wasn't" campaigning...yeah right) and a bunch bad information about Bain Capital, which wasn't a half bad company, and didn't do half the horrible stuff they were accused of doing under Romney's tenure as CEO, and nothing on an economic plan (I was able to figure out Romney's corporate, but not personal tax ideas, and I can't trust Obama even on that because he made the Bush Tax cuts permanent, but let's say I could trust him - he didn't use any of his high profile media events to lay any of that stuff out...

But I digress...if people were more informed, they would have demanded the information we didn't get in the last election, and perhaps then this country would be moving in a direction that wasn't the big sinkhole at Yosemite.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BillKace
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 8:04:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Curious of everyone's thoughts...
If we as a country, are subsidizing more and more people than we ever have, at a faster rate than we ever have, are we doomed to fail? I understand some people truly need help (unemployment, welfare, disability), but I believe more and more people are taking advantage of the system primarily in the form of not working, in turn, not paying income tax which is a large portion of revinue for the country to pay the benefits of others.
I understand that everyone pays some form of a tax. It would be impossible not to (sales tax, an overhead price in there rent, etc.).
So, isn't it reasonable to think that people (selfish in their morals if they are already taking advantage of the system) would never "Vote" themselves out of free benefits? I believe people too often place their votes to the immediate issue of maintaining their unwarranted benefits. Voting is our responsibility to survival of our country. If the country's economy fails, life as we know it is gone.
So if the majority (if that happens) of people become dependent, will they vote themselves out of a paycheck, for the good of the country?

The same thing would/could happen with the issue of Illegal Immagrants. They are "granted" citizens, in a country with a problem with unemployment already, wether they would want to work or not, would receive benefits we can't afford to pay, and would be a legit vote possibly swaying an election determining the outcome of continued or even more financial benefits for people.
*Please note I am not trying to harp on Immagration, just trying to show that once the majority of voters are dependent on the Government, financially, they will not vote to have anything taken away from them.

I would state that at this point, I would probably not apose the notion of someone who pays no "income tax" could lose their right to vote on issues pertaining to decisions regarding financial assistance of any kind.

*Not applying to (for example) a "stay at home spouse", who's significant other Does pay taxes, and receives no financial benefit, who I believe should get the vote- since it would be a type of "collective income"

Just some thoughts. Thanks for listening (reading)!
Judge me on my actions, but please do not persecute me for my thoughts! (even though putting my thoughts to text Was an action.... Crap.)
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 11:26:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 12:16:52 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today"s terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.

There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.

Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.

This is counter to the taxpayer"s wishes.

Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?

If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.

Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?

Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?

Regards
DL

Well what about the question: should all taxpayers be allowed to vote? because Green Card holders - who live and work and pay taxes in the United States - are not allowed to vote.

I'm a Green Card holder and personally don't care because I don't think voting (in a representative democracy) gets you much at all anway.

Harry.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 11:31:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 11:26:59 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/22/2013 12:16:52 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today"s terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.

There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.

Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.

This is counter to the taxpayer"s wishes.

Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?

If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.

Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?

Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?

Regards
DL

Well what about the question: should all taxpayers be allowed to vote? because Green Card holders - who live and work and pay taxes in the United States - are not allowed to vote.

I'm a Green Card holder and personally don't care because I don't think voting (in a representative democracy) gets you much at all anway.

Harry.

Not to mention the illegals who are illegal only in that they stepped over an imaginary line. They work as hard as a legal alien like yourself, pay taxes, and like you will never see the benefit of things like the social security tax they pay.

In fact, while talking a good game, the US Federal government relies on these people who will pay for our current elderly without ever dipping into the fund themselves, and then treats these hard working men and women like criminals...which they are in some small regard, but no one puts a gun in my face for going 65 in a 25, and a lot more people are gonna get hurt that way than if Jesus picks a few apples.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 6:22:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 7:54:25 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:52:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:50:12 PM, tmar19652 wrote:

If people are stupid, they should not be able to vote.

Why not?

Because if they cannot read or understand how and why politics work, then they have nothing to offer to the population by voting.

Oh really? They have the experiences that they've undergone. Plus, voting isn't about being a slave to society. It's about changing society for your interests
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 6:23:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 8:08:41 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 8:05:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:54:25 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:52:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/22/2013 7:50:12 PM, tmar19652 wrote:

If people are stupid, they should not be able to vote.

Why not?

Because if they cannot read or understand how and why politics work, then they have nothing to offer to the population by voting.

Except voting isn't about offering the population anything. Voting is a right given to people to use how they please, not a service people perform to the benefit of others. The operation of a democracy is the aggregation of self-interest.

So someone who cannot read should vote based on which candidates face looks the nicest?
Yes. That is their right, just as it was the right of many Mormons to vote for Mitt Romney because he was a Mormon.
The stupid should not be able to vote because they cannot make rational decisions about politics.
Proof?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 6:24:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, you haven't proven that intelligent people make rational political decisions for the community and don't vote for selfish reasons. All you are advocating is setting up an aristocracy.