Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

[GreatestIam]

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

 

[SniperFire]

Of course.

Anything else eventually leads to collapse and tyranny.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I see nothing wrong with allowing a non-working stay-at-home mother to vote. Nor do I see a problem with someone who has been laid off in a bad economy to vote.

 

[Flopper]

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

A terrible idea:
A disable veteran who has given everything for his country shouldn't have a voice in selecting it's leaders? An elderly person who has worked all their life and paid taxes is now to be denied the right to vote? A mother with 4 kids who has been abandoned by her husband is to have no voice in how her country is run because she doesn't make enough a money.

 

[bucs90]

The arrogance of the right baffles me at times.

You are rich, in part, because of the existence of a strong and capable government. By that...I mean that you had the freedom and security to wake up, go to work, and earn a lot of money, then go home to a big house, nice car, flat screen TV, etc, etc, etc. And you did not have to worry about a horde of hungry, angry, desperate people coming to rob you, rape your family and/or kill you.

Our government, for all its flaws, maintains a relatively civil, safe society. It doesnt cause anyone to get rich, it doesn't "allow" anyone to get rich. It simply provides an open canvas for each citizen to do what they wish. Get rich, stay poor, whatever.

But admission to that canvas has a price, its called taxes. You want to live in a safe, civil society (canvas) where you can paint your life how you wish. If you get rich, and dont have to worry about mass violence, famine, or gangs of government thugs invading your home with guns (like Mexico and Iraq) to steal your wife, TV, food........that means living in a society like ours, where taxes fund a structured agency that simply keeps the peace and civility.

Government doesnt make anyone rich, or prevent anyone from being rich. It simply keeps the road open, and people drive down that road to poverty, wealth or middle class all on their own. But again, THAT road has a toll: taxes.

Dont like that? Fine. Mexico, Iraq, Africa, Asia all offer other roads...other forms of a canvas...where you can paint your life. But I got a feeling you'll pick the best one, America.

Im fine with trying to improve and fix the flaws. But you ungrateful, greedy motherfuckers have done enough whining. You have it way too good here to be crying like a damn child all the time.

 

[bucs90]

So I guess we'll have to create a heirarchy of unemployed, right?

So if you are a veteran, who now doesnt work, you'll still get to vote, because you used to work.
Or, if you are a retired NFL football player, but now dont work, you'll get to vote. You used to work.
But if you are a poor black woman who used to work at McDonalds, but got hurt in a car wreck, and now are disabled, you wont get to vote.
Or if you are a person who worked hard, but then developed Huntingtons Disease and can no longer work or drive, but aren't bad enough yet to be labeled "disabled", and are simply waiting 5-6 years for the disease to fully develop to "disabled" status, then you cant vote now, but, once you lose your mental capacity, then you can.

Right wingers are fucking sick.

 

[Flopper]

The arrogance of the right baffles me at times.

You are rich, in part, because of the existence of a strong and capable government. By that...I mean that you had the freedom and security to wake up, go to work, and earn a lot of money, then go home to a big house, nice car, flat screen TV, etc, etc, etc. And you did not have to worry about a horde of hungry, angry, desperate people coming to rob you, rape your family and/or kill you.

Our government, for all its flaws, maintains a relatively civil, safe society. It doesnt cause anyone to get rich, it doesn't "allow" anyone to get rich. It simply provides an open canvas for each citizen to do what they wish. Get rich, stay poor, whatever.

But admission to that canvas has a price, its called taxes. You want to live in a safe, civil society (canvas) where you can paint your life how you wish. If you get rich, and dont have to worry about mass violence, famine, or gangs of government thugs invading your home with guns (like Mexico and Iraq) to steal your wife, TV, food........that means living in a society like ours, where taxes fund a structured agency that simply keeps the peace and civility.

Government doesnt make anyone rich, or prevent anyone from being rich. It simply keeps the road open, and people drive down that road to poverty, wealth or middle class all on their own. But again, THAT road has a toll: taxes.

Dont like that? Fine. Mexico, Iraq, Africa, Asia all offer other roads...other forms of a canvas...where you can paint your life. But I got a feeling you'll pick the best one, America.

Im fine with trying to improve and fix the flaws. But you ungrateful, greedy motherfuckers have done enough whining. You have it way too good here to be crying like a damn child all the time.

It shouldn't baffle you. The Right, at least those on this board look for simplistic knee jerk solutions to complex problems without considering the ramifications.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The arrogance of the right baffles me at times.

You are rich, in part, because of the existence of a strong and capable government. By that...I mean that you had the freedom and security to wake up, go to work, and earn a lot of money, then go home to a big house, nice car, flat screen TV, etc, etc, etc. And you did not have to worry about a horde of hungry, angry, desperate people coming to rob you, rape your family and/or kill you.

Our government, for all its flaws, maintains a relatively civil, safe society. It doesnt cause anyone to get rich, it doesn't "allow" anyone to get rich. It simply provides an open canvas for each citizen to do what they wish. Get rich, stay poor, whatever.

But admission to that canvas has a price, its called taxes. You want to live in a safe, civil society (canvas) where you can paint your life how you wish. If you get rich, and dont have to worry about mass violence, famine, or gangs of government thugs invading your home with guns (like Mexico and Iraq) to steal your wife, TV, food........that means living in a society like ours, where taxes fund a structured agency that simply keeps the peace and civility.

Government doesnt make anyone rich, or prevent anyone from being rich. It simply keeps the road open, and people drive down that road to poverty, wealth or middle class all on their own. But again, THAT road has a toll: taxes.

Dont like that? Fine. Mexico, Iraq, Africa, Asia all offer other roads...other forms of a canvas...where you can paint your life. But I got a feeling you'll pick the best one, America.

Im fine with trying to improve and fix the flaws. But you ungrateful, greedy motherfuckers have done enough whining. You have it way too good here to be crying like a damn child all the time.

Without a capable private sector there is no existence of a strong government.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Id add veterans to the mix but yeah, for the most part only taxpayers should vote

 

[Wonky Pundit]

How about entrepreneur/investors during their first year (or maybe two) starting up their company? It's quite common for them not to make any money.

Should they not be allowed to vote?

 

[bucs90]

The arrogance of the right baffles me at times.

You are rich, in part, because of the existence of a strong and capable government. By that...I mean that you had the freedom and security to wake up, go to work, and earn a lot of money, then go home to a big house, nice car, flat screen TV, etc, etc, etc. And you did not have to worry about a horde of hungry, angry, desperate people coming to rob you, rape your family and/or kill you.

Our government, for all its flaws, maintains a relatively civil, safe society. It doesnt cause anyone to get rich, it doesn't "allow" anyone to get rich. It simply provides an open canvas for each citizen to do what they wish. Get rich, stay poor, whatever.

But admission to that canvas has a price, its called taxes. You want to live in a safe, civil society (canvas) where you can paint your life how you wish. If you get rich, and dont have to worry about mass violence, famine, or gangs of government thugs invading your home with guns (like Mexico and Iraq) to steal your wife, TV, food........that means living in a society like ours, where taxes fund a structured agency that simply keeps the peace and civility.

Government doesnt make anyone rich, or prevent anyone from being rich. It simply keeps the road open, and people drive down that road to poverty, wealth or middle class all on their own. But again, THAT road has a toll: taxes.

Dont like that? Fine. Mexico, Iraq, Africa, Asia all offer other roads...other forms of a canvas...where you can paint your life. But I got a feeling you'll pick the best one, America.

Im fine with trying to improve and fix the flaws. But you ungrateful, greedy motherfuckers have done enough whining. You have it way too good here to be crying like a damn child all the time.

Without a capable private sector there is no existence of a strong government.

No, you are wrong.

Human history shows there will ALWAYS be some form of government. Freedom is a nice cliche' term, but it rarely truly exists.

The quesiton is WHO will govern you?

See, in Afghanistan rural areas, the official government doesnt govern shit. The religious tribes to. In Mexico, many areas are ruled by drug cartels more than the government.

So it is true a "strong government" can, and does, exist without a capable private sector, and vice versa. Someone will govern you, no matter where you live. It may be a God, and that God's followers. It may be true criminal gangs, cartels, etc. It may be a formal government, like your city or our country.

Just depends on how the government and private sector cooperate. And it seems in America, its done pretty well, as both have prospered, right? We have the best governments in the world (city, state, federal) compared to most of the world: Government isnt something to celebrate, its like a football refereee. They enforce stuff, and let the people play the game. Ours are the least-bad in the world, in my opinion. Which govt is better?

And the cooperation of our govt and private sector has cleared a path where people and companies....through THEIR OWN hard work...have aquired massive wealth. The govt simply kept society civil, and the people earned the wealth on their own legally. But that never happened in Afghanistan, or Mexico. Because the govt couldnt keep the civility.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Everyone pays some sort of tax.

If you have a phone you pay federal tax, if you buy gas you pay federal tax etc.

Do you mean should only those that pay income tax vote?

 

[bucs90]

Id add veterans to the mix but yeah, for the most part only taxpayers should vote

Why veterans? Simply because they once worked, and now dont? Lots of people do that.

Is voting a "RIGHT" that must be earned? If so, how do I "EARN" the right to bear arms?

A right is a right, remember??? If you are talking about who should or shouldnt enjoy that right, then talk about how the right to arms cannot be infringed on, then you arent being consistent.

 

[AmyNation]

These threads are always so pathetic. The desire to disinfranchise Americans is a desire to control the government by limiting whose voice is heard, a very totalitarian desire.

Btw- everyone pays taxes.

Dumbass.

 

[regent]

Sure all should be stopped, but then the hue and cry arises to let the disabled veterans vote and the whole thing starts going down the drain. Why can we just say that only white male, taxpayers with a good reputation in the business-world be allowed to vote?

 

[SniperFire]

These threads are always so pathetic. The desire to disinfranchise Americans is a desire to control the government by limiting whose voice is heard, a very totalitarian desire.

Btw- everyone pays taxes.

Dumbass.

You are effective making the argument that people should be allowed to vote themselves money.

Hard to imagine how any Nation could survive that once the underclass is encouraged to do that in exchange for free gubmint stuff (the Democrat platform).

 

[Caroljo]

How about entrepreneur/investors during their first year (or maybe two) starting up their company? It's quite common for them not to make any money.

Should they not be allowed to vote?

They still pay taxes don't they? This isn't about only people that make money should vote, it's people that pay taxes....

 

[AmyNation]

These threads are always so pathetic. The desire to disinfranchise Americans is a desire to control the government by limiting whose voice is heard, a very totalitarian desire.

Btw- everyone pays taxes.

Dumbass.

You are effective making the argument that people should be allowed to vote themselves money.

Hard to imagine how any Nation could survive that once the underclass is encouraged to do that in exchange for free gubmint stuff (the Democrat platform).

Straw Man.

 

[jwoodie]

That idea is actually close to what our Constitutional Framers had in mind when they created a bicameral federal legislature with only members of the House of Representatives elected by popular vote. Unfortunately, we have devolved into a Jerry Springer-level electoral circus as the means for selecting our political leaders.

Having at least one legislative body elected by taxpayers may be rational, but it would be politically untenable. Maybe we should have a simple voting test for federal elections: Being able to identify your U.S. Senators and Representative. Even with a 2/3 passing score. this would probably eliminate over half of current voters.

 

[freedombecki]

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

I've lost confidence in voting. There's too many people bragging how they voted 2-30 times or more; too many Philadelphia voting booths that simply counted heads for one party; too many Senator/house reversals after the same party's precinct chair "found" just enough votes to delare his party the winner.

While I was growing up, I heard nothing but blather about third world countries cheating at the polls. Now, all I hear is about US cheating in the same way. There's no integrity in voting any more. It's gotten way too far out of control, plus the same party that benefits from "irregularities" also benefits by allowing foreigners to vote in our elections.

The excuse seems to be we're headed for one-world rule. We already know from the story of the tower of Babel how too much power in too few hands works--it doesn't, and the house of cards crumbles.

I don't know exactly what to do about this corruption, but it's not the American people who are deciding naitonal elections any more, imho, and no, I have no other proof except a hearty distrust of omerta and "the honor system" when there are dishonorable and unprincipled people too willing to use their power to cancel credibility and foist their party's desire on people who really don't go for one-worldism and strong-central power that was discouraged by our forefathers and founders.

All this is my opinion. I think one-worlders will erase America's history and contributions in stimulating science and industry for the past 130 years.