Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

[Fishlore]

Disenfranchising the poor is a radical step that would bring the country to the brink of revolution. For this reason it is a nutty idea of the type that can be heard only on low-power AM radio. Most of the people pushing this plan are secret Communist subversives attempting to overthrow our Constitution. The American pea pull are not fooled.

 

[GreatestIam]

Disenfranchising the poor is a radical step that would bring the country to the brink of revolution. For this reason it is a nutty idea of the type that can be heard only on low-power AM radio. Most of the people pushing this plan are secret Communist subversives attempting to overthrow our Constitution. The American pea pull are not fooled.

It is unjust for the rich to bribe the poor with the funds supplied to the system by taxpayers who get squeezed from both the rich and the poor.

If the taxpayers vote was not negated in this way, the taxpayer would have more control of the systems that he is paying for instead of those who do not pay for it.

That is a just system and is not what we have today.

Regards
DL

 

[Fishlore]

Disenfranchising the poor is a radical step that would bring the country to the brink of revolution. For this reason it is a nutty idea of the type that can be heard only on low-power AM radio. Most of the people pushing this plan are secret Communist subversives attempting to overthrow our Constitution. The American pea pull are not fooled.

It is unjust for the rich to bribe the poor with the funds supplied to the system by taxpayers who get squeezed from both the rich and the poor.

If the taxpayers vote was not negated in this way, the taxpayer would have more control of the systems that he is paying for instead of those who do not pay for it.

That is a just system and is not what we have today.

Regards
DL

It seems a bit tendentious to me to describe legislation passed by Congress under our Constitution as the rich bribing the poor. The franchise at this time is not determined by economic status; in fact, property qualifications were phased out state-by-state before the Civil War. A law is not a bribe.

To be sure, there are a lot more poor people than rich people and thus more poor voters than rich voters. Since self-interest, especially economic self-interest is an important consideration to almost all voter regardless of income, it stands to reason that poor voters are inclined to favor laws which aid poor people while rich voters favor laws which aid rich people

Such subjective predisposition is not a flaw in our system but a deliberately created and important feature. The Constitution recognizes voters as citizens not as members of any economic stratum because the Constitution binds "we, the people," to the government. Poor citizens can vote, millionaire aliens cannot. The demographics which tilt the government in favor of the demos (hoi palloi) is part of democracy (rule by the demos). In simple terms, the rich are motivated to keep the poor happy lest the poor use their votes to improve their lot at the expense of the rich.

Surprisingly perhaps, our history shows no steady pattern of confiscatory laws passed by poor majorities. What it does show is a society in which people want to get ahead by being rewarded for their own efforts. "A rising tide raises all boats," is the common motto.

This pattern breaks down whet two divergent tendencies happen at once: the little guy sees himself getting poorer while at the same time he sees the rich guys getting richer. When that rising tide raises all yachts but leaves the rowboats on the mud, then the little guys clamor for government help and the money has to come from where the money went.

We are in an unusual period right now. Real wages have been declining for a decade while the top 1% is capturing almost all the new wealth generated by the economy. Nobody, rich or poor, claims to be happy with this growing wealth disparity, but the political response of the majority is quite natural, as well as atypical, in these circumstances.

Conservatives who do not like the desires expressed by the ever-poorer majority ought to ask themselves: what is causing this economic situation, who did it and who has benefited from it?

 

[GreatestIam]

Disenfranchising the poor is a radical step that would bring the country to the brink of revolution. For this reason it is a nutty idea of the type that can be heard only on low-power AM radio. Most of the people pushing this plan are secret Communist subversives attempting to overthrow our Constitution. The American pea pull are not fooled.

It is unjust for the rich to bribe the poor with the funds supplied to the system by taxpayers who get squeezed from both the rich and the poor.

If the taxpayers vote was not negated in this way, the taxpayer would have more control of the systems that he is paying for instead of those who do not pay for it.

That is a just system and is not what we have today.

Regards
DL

It seems a bit tendentious to me to describe legislation passed by Congress under our Constitution as the rich bribing the poor. The franchise at this time is not determined by economic status; in fact, property qualifications were phased out state-by-state before the Civil War. A law is not a bribe.

To be sure, there are a lot more poor people than rich people and thus more poor voters than rich voters. Since self-interest, especially economic self-interest is an important consideration to almost all voter regardless of income, it stands to reason that poor voters are inclined to favor laws which aid poor people while rich voters favor laws which aid rich people

Such subjective predisposition is not a flaw in our system but a deliberately created and important feature. The Constitution recognizes voters as citizens not as members of any economic stratum because the Constitution binds "we, the people," to the government. Poor citizens can vote, millionaire aliens cannot. The demographics which tilt the government in favor of the demos (hoi palloi) is part of democracy (rule by the demos). In simple terms, the rich are motivated to keep the poor happy lest the poor use their votes to improve their lot at the expense of the rich.

Surprisingly perhaps, our history shows no steady pattern of confiscatory laws passed by poor majorities. What it does show is a society in which people want to get ahead by being rewarded for their own efforts. "A rising tide raises all boats," is the common motto.

This pattern breaks down whet two divergent tendencies happen at once: the little guy sees himself getting poorer while at the same time he sees the rich guys getting richer. When that rising tide raises all yachts but leaves the rowboats on the mud, then the little guys clamor for government help and the money has to come from where the money went.

We are in an unusual period right now. Real wages have been declining for a decade while the top 1% is capturing almost all the new wealth generated by the economy. Nobody, rich or poor, claims to be happy with this growing wealth disparity, but the political response of the majority is quite natural, as well as atypical, in these circumstances.

Conservatives who do not like the desires expressed by the ever-poorer majority ought to ask themselves: what is causing this economic situation, who did it and who has benefited from it?

I am on the left and can see the answer to your last in that statistics link. We have all gained of late but the greed at the top has not pushed the trickle down nor has it promoted the trickle up.

The rich are adding pressure on our systems even more that the poor are instead of helping out.

Like most of us, they fear change.

Regards
DL

 

[1Templar]

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

Only veterans should be allowed to vote.

 

[Seawytch]

Only veterans should be allowed to vote.

Most veterans would disagree with you.