Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Democracy

JustJim97
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 12:39:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
No, I'm not saying we should adopt some other system. No, I'm not with the socialist guys who pester you at every archway or intersection. Yes, the swastika looks cool. No I dont want to be shot since i dont have blonde hair and blue eyes. Right lets get down to the... rant?

Democracy is great. If all the people know what is right and act towards the best interests of society as a whole. Quite frankly they don't. Although yes, average education level is increasing, we still have people who should not hold the right to vote. This is especially and painfully obvious in Australia. Yes, we have compulsory primary and secondary education which is entirely payed for by the government as well as very easy access to tertiary education which is subsidized generously well. But not every individual takes advantage of this. Why? they would rather live off taxpayer money from Centrelink (pretty much free money for anyone too lazy to work, for more info plz just consult uncle google). This is putting a very large and negative strain on the government budget. Now when some election comes forward, these parasites would rather elect the leader who acts for their interests rather than someone who acts for the interests of the whole country. Yes they are entirely entitled to do that, but at least Hitler could have them shot (no, that is not nice, angry mustache man was a bad person).

My proposition is to only allow people who pay a certain amount of tax to vote. They are the ones contributing to society. They get to determine who gets to use that money and how they do it. Not those who just want to leech.

//endrant
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 12:51:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 12:39:20 PM, JustJim97 wrote:
No, I'm not saying we should adopt some other system. No, I'm not with the socialist guys who pester you at every archway or intersection. Yes, the swastika looks cool. No I dont want to be shot since i dont have blonde hair and blue eyes. Right lets get down to the... rant?

Democracy is great. If all the people know what is right and act towards the best interests of society as a whole. Quite frankly they don't. Although yes, average education level is increasing, we still have people who should not hold the right to vote. This is especially and painfully obvious in Australia. Yes, we have compulsory primary and secondary education which is entirely payed for by the government as well as very easy access to tertiary education which is subsidized generously well. But not every individual takes advantage of this. Why? they would rather live off taxpayer money from Centrelink (pretty much free money for anyone too lazy to work, for more info plz just consult uncle google). This is putting a very large and negative strain on the government budget. Now when some election comes forward, these parasites would rather elect the leader who acts for their interests rather than someone who acts for the interests of the whole country. Yes they are entirely entitled to do that, but at least Hitler could have them shot (no, that is not nice, angry mustache man was a bad person).

My proposition is to only allow people who pay a certain amount of tax to vote. They are the ones contributing to society. They get to determine who gets to use that money and how they do it. Not those who just want to leech.

//endrant

+1
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 11:39:19 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 12:39:20 PM, JustJim97 wrote:
No, I'm not saying we should adopt some other system. No, I'm not with the socialist guys who pester you at every archway or intersection. Yes, the swastika looks cool. No I dont want to be shot since i dont have blonde hair and blue eyes. Right lets get down to the... rant?

Democracy is great. If all the people know what is right and act towards the best interests of society as a whole. Quite frankly they don't. Although yes, average education level is increasing, we still have people who should not hold the right to vote. This is especially and painfully obvious in Australia. Yes, we have compulsory primary and secondary education which is entirely payed for by the government as well as very easy access to tertiary education which is subsidized generously well. But not every individual takes advantage of this. Why? they would rather live off taxpayer money from Centrelink (pretty much free money for anyone too lazy to work, for more info plz just consult uncle google). This is putting a very large and negative strain on the government budget. Now when some election comes forward, these parasites would rather elect the leader who acts for their interests rather than someone who acts for the interests of the whole country. Yes they are entirely entitled to do that, but at least Hitler could have them shot (no, that is not nice, angry mustache man was a bad person).

My proposition is to only allow people who pay a certain amount of tax to vote. They are the ones contributing to society. They get to determine who gets to use that money and how they do it. Not those who just want to leech.

//endrant

Theoretically, we enfranchised voters would prefer that all voters were fully informed and made decisions based on society rather than on their personal gain. Unfortunately, history has shown that when only certain people are allowed to vote, society is worst off for it. Social mobility is a key feature in modern society and is generally more seen in nations with universal suffrage.

I understand your frustration, but ultimately we need it: it's a necessary evil.

Second, it's very easy to demonize people who are on Centrelink (the dole) and brand them as parasites, but until you actually know what that person is going through, it's not fair to judge them. Just because the system might have worked for YOU, irrespective of how poor you might have been, that doesn't mean that the system works for everyone. That's why not many people can say 'I know what it's like to be poor' because even if you were poor, and then became successful, you think the system worked, so you don't see a problem with the system; if that makes sense?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 12:20:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
So... quadraplegics, blind, deaf, amputees, retirees, down sized industrialist, terminally ill (cancer, heart liver pancreatic brain spine end stage renal intestinal gastric, etc...)

Would all be precluded to vote?
JustJim97
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 11:36:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I am not demonizing people on the dole, I am saying this system is being overly exploited by people who do not need it. I did not mention removing such aid, but reducing the bias people have towards voting for just purely their own interests.

As for people with disabilities, I am sure they can still provide value for society despite their unfortunate circumstances. If not, this is an unemployment issue, rather than monetary support issue. As for those who are chronically ill and disabled who can not contribute to society, it can be argued if it's worth keeping them alive at all?

In a harsher light, if a disabled person can do something, there will probably be a normal person that can do it better. But hey, that's the case with anything. If you can do something, chances are that there will be someone better than you. The main difference is that in the disabled persons case, they require more resources to do the same jobs. I am not trying to discriminate against them in any way here. I am just saying there is a place for everyone in society if they are willing to contribute and everyone should be subject to the same conditions.

To address this issue from a perspective devoid of any emotional bias, no one begs you to live and contribute. There are a few billion people in the world. Please note how this applies to all people not just the disadvantaged.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 12:11:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 12:39:20 PM, JustJim97 wrote:
My proposition is to only allow people who pay a certain amount of tax to vote. They are the ones contributing to society. They get to determine who gets to use that money and how they do it. Not those who just want to leech.

What tax amount is sufficient? Who decides that amount? How do we keep the tax amount from climbing? Wouldn't cutting welfare programs solve leeching better?
JustJim97
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 12:20:04 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 12:11:50 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/10/2016 12:39:20 PM, JustJim97 wrote:
My proposition is to only allow people who pay a certain amount of tax to vote. They are the ones contributing to society. They get to determine who gets to use that money and how they do it. Not those who just want to leech.

What tax amount is sufficient? Who decides that amount? How do we keep the tax amount from climbing? Wouldn't cutting welfare programs solve leeching better?

It would be easier to determine a tax amount that is sufficient than cutting welfare. Or even partially cutting welfare, who knows what people really need?
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 12:40:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 12:20:04 AM, JustJim97 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:11:50 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/10/2016 12:39:20 PM, JustJim97 wrote:
My proposition is to only allow people who pay a certain amount of tax to vote. They are the ones contributing to society. They get to determine who gets to use that money and how they do it. Not those who just want to leech.

What tax amount is sufficient? Who decides that amount? How do we keep the tax amount from climbing? Wouldn't cutting welfare programs solve leeching better?

It would be easier to determine a tax amount that is sufficient than cutting welfare. Or even partially cutting welfare, who knows what people really need?

And what happens when the rich unanimously decide to leech the tax money themselves?
JustJim97
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 12:53:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 12:40:26 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:20:04 AM, JustJim97 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:11:50 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/10/2016 12:39:20 PM, JustJim97 wrote:
My proposition is to only allow people who pay a certain amount of tax to vote. They are the ones contributing to society. They get to determine who gets to use that money and how they do it. Not those who just want to leech.

What tax amount is sufficient? Who decides that amount? How do we keep the tax amount from climbing? Wouldn't cutting welfare programs solve leeching better?

It would be easier to determine a tax amount that is sufficient than cutting welfare. Or even partially cutting welfare, who knows what people really need?

And what happens when the rich unanimously decide to leech the tax money themselves?

Well what stops them from doing that in the current system?
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 1:10:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 12:53:47 AM, JustJim97 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:40:26 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:20:04 AM, JustJim97 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:11:50 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/10/2016 12:39:20 PM, JustJim97 wrote:
My proposition is to only allow people who pay a certain amount of tax to vote. They are the ones contributing to society. They get to determine who gets to use that money and how they do it. Not those who just want to leech.

What tax amount is sufficient? Who decides that amount? How do we keep the tax amount from climbing? Wouldn't cutting welfare programs solve leeching better?

It would be easier to determine a tax amount that is sufficient than cutting welfare. Or even partially cutting welfare, who knows what people really need?

And what happens when the rich unanimously decide to leech the tax money themselves?

Well what stops them from doing that in the current system?

The fact that they're about 1% of the vote.
JustJim97
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 1:13:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 1:10:50 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:53:47 AM, JustJim97 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:40:26 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:20:04 AM, JustJim97 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:11:50 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/10/2016 12:39:20 PM, JustJim97 wrote:
My proposition is to only allow people who pay a certain amount of tax to vote. They are the ones contributing to society. They get to determine who gets to use that money and how they do it. Not those who just want to leech.

What tax amount is sufficient? Who decides that amount? How do we keep the tax amount from climbing? Wouldn't cutting welfare programs solve leeching better?

It would be easier to determine a tax amount that is sufficient than cutting welfare. Or even partially cutting welfare, who knows what people really need?

And what happens when the rich unanimously decide to leech the tax money themselves?

Well what stops them from doing that in the current system?

The fact that they're about 1% of the vote.

How is that going to change? by having a tax threshold for voting, it dosent increase the value of their votes. Sure they might take up a larger percentage of the votes but that difference should be marginal.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 1:17:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 1:13:58 AM, JustJim97 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:10:50 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
The fact that they're about 1% of the vote.

How is that going to change? by having a tax threshold for voting, it dosent increase the value of their votes. Sure they might take up a larger percentage of the votes but that difference should be marginal.

The bolded part is how the value of their votes increases. Denying people the vote is just not a good idea.
JustJim97
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 1:19:11 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 1:17:26 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:13:58 AM, JustJim97 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:10:50 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
The fact that they're about 1% of the vote.

How is that going to change? by having a tax threshold for voting, it dosent increase the value of their votes. Sure they might take up a larger percentage of the votes but that difference should be marginal.

The bolded part is how the value of their votes increases. Denying people the vote is just not a good idea.

yes, but also the value of the votes for everyone who is not the 1% and not a useless leech would also be increased by the same amount?
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 1:23:37 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 1:19:11 AM, JustJim97 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:17:26 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:13:58 AM, JustJim97 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:10:50 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
The fact that they're about 1% of the vote.

How is that going to change? by having a tax threshold for voting, it dosent increase the value of their votes. Sure they might take up a larger percentage of the votes but that difference should be marginal.

The bolded part is how the value of their votes increases. Denying people the vote is just not a good idea.

yes, but also the value of the votes for everyone who is not the 1% and not a useless leech would also be increased by the same amount?

True, but how do you stop the threshold for usefulness from being increased? If voting isn't an absolute right, there's nothing to stop it from being withdrawn by the ruling party.
JustJim97
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 1:35:04 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 1:23:37 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:19:11 AM, JustJim97 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:17:26 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:13:58 AM, JustJim97 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:10:50 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
The fact that they're about 1% of the vote.

How is that going to change? by having a tax threshold for voting, it dosent increase the value of their votes. Sure they might take up a larger percentage of the votes but that difference should be marginal.

The bolded part is how the value of their votes increases. Denying people the vote is just not a good idea.

yes, but also the value of the votes for everyone who is not the 1% and not a useless leech would also be increased by the same amount?

True, but how do you stop the threshold for usefulness from being increased? If voting isn't an absolute right, there's nothing to stop it from being withdrawn by the ruling party.

Thats another issue, im sure there is a viable way to do that. Predetermined amount indexed yearly to inflation. Using some legal manner to fix that amount?