CDZ A radical voting proposal

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We have a progressive tax, let's also have a progressive vote.

Meaning the guy who paid $110K a year in federal income tax a year's vote is weighed heavier than the guy who paid nothing, who's is weighed heavier than the guy is owes $4M a year.

Think about how fast those assholes who owe millions of dollars a year in taxes would start paying up then...

And of course the bottom feeders, well they'd still get their vote...........

 

[Mr. H.]

How can something like this be debated "cleanly" when the OP is so acerbic?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How can something like this be debated "cleanly" when the OP is so acerbic?

I fully admit to attempting to cause harm to some. Those some being those who don't pay but want a say.

 

[S.J.]

Yeah, that'll work.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yeah, that'll work.

It would work nicely for me.

 

[ogibillm]

as if we weren't close enough to an oligarchy already

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

as if we weren't close enough to an oligarchy already

well, letting people vote themselves more freebies damn sure aint working.

 

[Conservative65]

We have a progressive tax, let's also have a progressive vote.

Meaning the guy who paid $110K a year in federal income tax a year's vote is weighed heavier than the guy who paid nothing, who's is weighed heavier than the guy is owes $4M a year.

Think about how fast those assholes who owe millions of dollars a year in taxes would start paying up then...

And of course the bottom feeders, well they'd still get their vote...........

Why should the bottom feeders get to vote?

 

[Conservative65]

as if we weren't close enough to an oligarchy already

What we've already met is a two group society. One groups votes for a living and the other group works for a living to pay for the things those that vote for a living think are owed to them. Problem is those voting for a living don't pay the price for what they vote for.

 

[ogibillm]

as if we weren't close enough to an oligarchy already

What we've already met is a two group society. One groups votes for a living and the other group works for a living to pay for the things those that vote for a living think are owed to them. Problem is those voting for a living don't pay the price for what they vote for.

oh i see. that completely explains why you see so many poor people holding office.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

as if we weren't close enough to an oligarchy already

What we've already met is a two group society. One groups votes for a living and the other group works for a living to pay for the things those that vote for a living think are owed to them. Problem is those voting for a living don't pay the price for what they vote for.

oh i see. that completely explains why you see so many poor people holding office.

No, instead you see them voting for people who will keep doling out free shit.

 

[ogibillm]

as if we weren't close enough to an oligarchy already

What we've already met is a two group society. One groups votes for a living and the other group works for a living to pay for the things those that vote for a living think are owed to them. Problem is those voting for a living don't pay the price for what they vote for.

oh i see. that completely explains why you see so many poor people holding office.

No, instead you see them voting for people who will keep doling out free shit.

do you? i don't see a lot of people running on increasing entitlements.
anyhow, if what you propose were to happen, you and i wouldn't have a vote that matters. All that would matter is what the top 10% wanted, and we'd have to go along with it.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

as if we weren't close enough to an oligarchy already

What we've already met is a two group society. One groups votes for a living and the other group works for a living to pay for the things those that vote for a living think are owed to them. Problem is those voting for a living don't pay the price for what they vote for.

oh i see. that completely explains why you see so many poor people holding office.

No, instead you see them voting for people who will keep doling out free shit.

do you? i don't see a lot of people running on increasing entitlements.
anyhow, if what you propose were to happen, you and i wouldn't have a vote that matters. All that would matter is what the top 10% wanted, and we'd have to go along with it.

You might not. I certainly would.

As for the top 10%, shit most of them pay less income tax than you or I do anyway son. So , at a minimum they have to pay up if they want their vote to count.

 

[ogibillm]

as if we weren't close enough to an oligarchy already

What we've already met is a two group society. One groups votes for a living and the other group works for a living to pay for the things those that vote for a living think are owed to them. Problem is those voting for a living don't pay the price for what they vote for.

oh i see. that completely explains why you see so many poor people holding office.

No, instead you see them voting for people who will keep doling out free shit.

do you? i don't see a lot of people running on increasing entitlements.
anyhow, if what you propose were to happen, you and i wouldn't have a vote that matters. All that would matter is what the top 10% wanted, and we'd have to go along with it.

You might not. I certainly would.

As for the top 10%, shit most of them pay less income tax than you or I do anyway son. So , at a minimum they have to pay up if they want their vote to count.

no, you wouldn't. you don't make and don't have enough money - not unless you've inherited some from somewhere.

all the money that goes to lobbying, all the money that is donated to pac's and candidates by large donors and corporations - suddenly all of that is dumped into the hands of dutiful board members that will pay their taxes with it and essentially buy elections in key races.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What we've already met is a two group society. One groups votes for a living and the other group works for a living to pay for the things those that vote for a living think are owed to them. Problem is those voting for a living don't pay the price for what they vote for.

oh i see. that completely explains why you see so many poor people holding office.

No, instead you see them voting for people who will keep doling out free shit.

do you? i don't see a lot of people running on increasing entitlements.
anyhow, if what you propose were to happen, you and i wouldn't have a vote that matters. All that would matter is what the top 10% wanted, and we'd have to go along with it.

You might not. I certainly would.

As for the top 10%, shit most of them pay less income tax than you or I do anyway son. So , at a minimum they have to pay up if they want their vote to count.

no, you wouldn't. you don't make and don't have enough money - not unless you've inherited some from somewhere.

all the money that goes to lobbying, all the money that is donated to pac's and candidates by large donors and corporations - suddenly all of that is dumped into the hands of dutiful board members that will pay their taxes with it and essentially buy elections in key races.

And ?

We're talking probably hundreds of millions of dollars in added revenue, and if you don't think the government would keep giving handouts well you know they will. The difference is we won't be broke doing so.

 

[ogibillm]

oh i see. that completely explains why you see so many poor people holding office.

No, instead you see them voting for people who will keep doling out free shit.

do you? i don't see a lot of people running on increasing entitlements.
anyhow, if what you propose were to happen, you and i wouldn't have a vote that matters. All that would matter is what the top 10% wanted, and we'd have to go along with it.

You might not. I certainly would.

As for the top 10%, shit most of them pay less income tax than you or I do anyway son. So , at a minimum they have to pay up if they want their vote to count.

no, you wouldn't. you don't make and don't have enough money - not unless you've inherited some from somewhere.

all the money that goes to lobbying, all the money that is donated to pac's and candidates by large donors and corporations - suddenly all of that is dumped into the hands of dutiful board members that will pay their taxes with it and essentially buy elections in key races.

And ?

We're talking probably hundreds of millions of dollars in added revenue, and if you don't think the government would keep giving handouts well you know they will. The difference is we won't be broke doing so.

so in the end you're okay with ceding total power of the government to the extremely rich because you think it'll produce a better balance sheet?

you don't think those with the money won't simply vote to give themselves more of it? won't put the military in harms way to protect more of their assets? that they won't push subsidies and sweet government contracts for their businesses?
don't we have enough of that going on already?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No, instead you see them voting for people who will keep doling out free shit.

do you? i don't see a lot of people running on increasing entitlements.
anyhow, if what you propose were to happen, you and i wouldn't have a vote that matters. All that would matter is what the top 10% wanted, and we'd have to go along with it.

You might not. I certainly would.

As for the top 10%, shit most of them pay less income tax than you or I do anyway son. So , at a minimum they have to pay up if they want their vote to count.

no, you wouldn't. you don't make and don't have enough money - not unless you've inherited some from somewhere.

all the money that goes to lobbying, all the money that is donated to pac's and candidates by large donors and corporations - suddenly all of that is dumped into the hands of dutiful board members that will pay their taxes with it and essentially buy elections in key races.

And ?

We're talking probably hundreds of millions of dollars in added revenue, and if you don't think the government would keep giving handouts well you know they will. The difference is we won't be broke doing so.

so in the end you're okay with ceding total power of the government to the extremely rich because you think it'll produce a better balance sheet?

you don't think those with the money won't simply vote to give themselves more of it? won't put the military in harms way to protect more of their assets? that they won't push subsidies and sweet government contracts for their businesses?
don't we have enough of that going on already?

I say there would be no more of that going on than there is now, but there would be more money in the US treasury.

Look , it doesn't matter WHAT system you have, the uber wealthy will always control things, ALWAYS. So why not have a system which tells them "no matter how rich you are, if you don't pay taxes, you don't get to say squat"

 

[ogibillm]

do you? i don't see a lot of people running on increasing entitlements.
anyhow, if what you propose were to happen, you and i wouldn't have a vote that matters. All that would matter is what the top 10% wanted, and we'd have to go along with it.

You might not. I certainly would.

As for the top 10%, shit most of them pay less income tax than you or I do anyway son. So , at a minimum they have to pay up if they want their vote to count.

no, you wouldn't. you don't make and don't have enough money - not unless you've inherited some from somewhere.

all the money that goes to lobbying, all the money that is donated to pac's and candidates by large donors and corporations - suddenly all of that is dumped into the hands of dutiful board members that will pay their taxes with it and essentially buy elections in key races.

And ?

We're talking probably hundreds of millions of dollars in added revenue, and if you don't think the government would keep giving handouts well you know they will. The difference is we won't be broke doing so.

so in the end you're okay with ceding total power of the government to the extremely rich because you think it'll produce a better balance sheet?

you don't think those with the money won't simply vote to give themselves more of it? won't put the military in harms way to protect more of their assets? that they won't push subsidies and sweet government contracts for their businesses?
don't we have enough of that going on already?

I say there would be no more of that going on than there is now, but there would be more money in the US treasury.

Look , it doesn't matter WHAT system you have, the uber wealthy will always control things, ALWAYS. So why not have a system which tells them "no matter how rich you are, if you don't pay taxes, you don't get to say squat"

there wouldn't be any more money in the treasury. they'd have their stooges vote to return to them, in one form or another, as quickly as it came in. additionally, taxes for the average person would likely be lowered - and the tragedy of the commons says we'll pay less, because on our own we can't make the difference. That'll mean the rich will get to buy their portion of votes for less and less, and the treasury will be left with less than before.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have a progressive tax, let's also have a progressive vote.

Meaning the guy who paid $110K a year in federal income tax a year's vote is weighed heavier than the guy who paid nothing, who's is weighed heavier than the guy is owes $4M a year.

Think about how fast those assholes who owe millions of dollars a year in taxes would start paying up then...

And of course the bottom feeders, well they'd still get their vote...........

This is un-Constitutional, it violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment. The right to vote is inalienable and fundamental – one person, one vote.The right to vote cannot be 'weighed' (see, e.g., Reynolds v Sims (1964)).

 

[S.J.]

Our Constitution allows for the subversion of itself. If politicians didn't have the power to redistribute wealth, the parasites wouldn't be able to vote themselves free anything.