Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

[GreatestIam]

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.

I agree. Legislation would insure fairness based on what if anything all contribute both is taxes for families and even reproduction which we now reward in other ways.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

[
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.

Your veteran and elderly would be judged on a long term basis as would all citizens. They would retain a vote.

Your abandoned wife is able to chase her husband for support and would likely vote.

An unwed mother living on the dole with her kids would not make the grade.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

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.

If this rant was for me then you should know that I am well over to the left.

Being left, I think I and my fellow taxpayers should decide how deep our pockets are and not the poor who just want more for themselves and less for those who have.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

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

As to your list. Think long term merit.
Think, not rant.

What I am looking for is value for dollar. Not scalps.

Have you not noticed that we already have that?

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

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

The list would be longer than that but we are on the same page.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

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?

Most start-ups fail but yes they would vote.
Unless they are on the dole.

Regards
DL

 

[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

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?

Nope. Net taxpayers only and not what you describe which might be a net taxtaker.

Sure. Even those on the dole pay VAT's but they are paying with funds that came out of taxpayers pockets.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

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.

Sure but some are paying it with your tax dollars and as a dumbass, you don't seem to care if they are trying to help the country or not.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

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?

With all the pot smokers and other victims of victimless crimes off the voting list and them being predominantly black or non-white, the U S is trying to do just that.

Regards
DL

 

[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

No.

1. That is not the nature of the United States.

2. People move seamlessly from one group to the other.

3. Should only voters or taxpayers serve the nation in time of emergency?

Only taxpayers should decide what is considered an emergency because they are the ones paying the bill to address it.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

[qu.

You are correct that with VAT's most pay taxes.
Unfortunately, many of them are paying back the funds they got from taxpayer pockets to begin with.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

[

As long as we define taxpayers as anyone who pays at least $1 into the system. There are tons of people who file tax returns who not only DO NOT pay into the system, they extract taxpayer funds without making one dime of contribution.

+ 1

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

[

If that were the case, then any attempt to add non-taxpayers to the tax rolls would be taxation without representation,



And btw, every person who buys gasoline, booze, or cigarettes is a taxpayer. lol

So busy laughing you forget that those on the dole pay those taxes with your money.


If he is a non-taxpaying person then there is no taxation without representation is there?

I guess you were too busy laughing to recognize your the illogic in your statement.



Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

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.

The stay-at-home mother/homemaker pays taxes through her spouse's pay. Anyone who has been laid off, but who is not accepting public subsistence, I see no problem with their voting, either. But anyone who accepts public assistance (taxpayer money) for any reason should be suspended from voting until such time as they no longer depend on taxpayer funds to live.
I will go a step further to exclude those who receive retirement payments from funds to which they contributed during their working lives.

I would not be so quick with those who are off and on the dole for whatever reason and would look to the long run. Working 15 years out of 20, I would not touch his vote. Working 5 years out of 20, I would.
Legislation would come up with an appropriate formula and list of exemption. Wives vets and any others of merit.

Regards
DL

 

[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

Citizens are all allowed to vote. What went wrong was the creation of the welfare state. Once the government decided to steal from one group and give it to another, they tilted the playing field and now people can vote themselves money from the taxpayers. No, it's not fair. Government increases the benefits and the number of people on the doles to keep themselves in power. If they wanted to actually help people to their feet, they would, but it's much more beneficial to their careers to keep people dependent.

What needs to happen is that no able bodied person should be allowed to soak off the tax payers indefinitely. They should be given jobs that benefit the tax payers, such as lawn care, snow removal or other tasks that tax payers need done. That way, they'd be working for the money taken from us and they could maintain some dignity. I'm sure they'd appreciate the opportunity. Personally, if I were in need, I would want to earn any money I received. I have pride, which the government can't dole out, so a little kick in the pants for some might be in order.

We have no welfare to work program that is helping. Of course, the current policies are making jobs disappear faster than ice cubes in hell, so it's hard for anyone to find work.

Ads continue to run in Mexico encouraging more illegal immigration, welfare rolls continue to grow and aid to foreign countries continues like we have money to burn.

If someone wanted to destroy us, this would be the way to do it. How much longer can we stay on this path?

You ain't seen the half of it.
When we are forced to change, it will be quick and dirty.

It is not so much the welfare state that is the problem. It is how the welfare is doled out by politicians who cater to the poor vote.

Regards
DL

 

[RandallFlagg]

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

Citizens are all allowed to vote. What went wrong was the creation of the welfare state. Once the government decided to steal from one group and give it to another, they tilted the playing field and now people can vote themselves money from the taxpayers. No, it's not fair. Government increases the benefits and the number of people on the doles to keep themselves in power. If they wanted to actually help people to their feet, they would, but it's much more beneficial to their careers to keep people dependent.

What needs to happen is that no able bodied person should be allowed to soak off the tax payers indefinitely. They should be given jobs that benefit the tax payers, such as lawn care, snow removal or other tasks that tax payers need done. That way, they'd be working for the money taken from us and they could maintain some dignity. I'm sure they'd appreciate the opportunity. Personally, if I were in need, I would want to earn any money I received. I have pride, which the government can't dole out, so a little kick in the pants for some might be in order.

We have no welfare to work program that is helping. Of course, the current policies are making jobs disappear faster than ice cubes in hell, so it's hard for anyone to find work.

Ads continue to run in Mexico encouraging more illegal immigration, welfare rolls continue to grow and aid to foreign countries continues like we have money to burn.

If someone wanted to destroy us, this would be the way to do it. How much longer can we stay on this path?

Thank You!!

I sincerely doubt that even the most hardened "Capitalist" or stupid, liberal "Communist" would, if they were to be completely honest with themselves, argue that America is in it's "death throes".

At some point in our existence, we succumbed to the "pity party" that is the left. We are the most generous nation on earth,giving to countries that despise us. We ship billions of dollars to Africa every year, yet nothing EVER changes there. The status quo remains. The same for every other impoverished country on the planet. The US has provided enough in aid to foreign countries over the years to completely erase our national debt twice over. What have we to show for it? The majority of the worlds nations despise us.

We have nearly 1 in 2 people in OUR country living off the taxpayers. Generation after generation of inner city black families are kept in abject poverty. It's all they have ever known. They exist on food stamps, AFDC and the like, like water from a "well". The Left has forwarded an agenda of "a hand out - not a hand up". Thus, we have a permanent segment of society that the left can point to as an example of our "failings".

Our government "leaders" have convinced the vast amount of "liberals" that government holds the "key" to life. The STATE giveth, and the STATE taketh. We now have more people on unemployment and "assistance" than at ANY time in our history. Some of these folks have now been on "assistance" for over 5 years with little hope of EVER getting off due to nearly constant extensions by the "STATE". Because, we all know, it just wouldn't be "right" to end these "programs".

Illegal "immigrants" have flooded into this country like an invasion of Army Ants - taking the few jobs that might be taken by out of work Americans and we offer them a "pathway" to "citizenship". They couldn't care less about becoming tax-paying "citizens". They are here to rape this country and then they will simply move on to Canada like a swarm of locusts. If they desired to be "citizens", they would stay home and affect change in their OWN country.

We have professional "politicians" in this country who have never held a private sector job in their lives. Most of these "professionals", once elected, never leave Washington DC again. The only time they deal with constituents is during re-election season. Washington DC real estate is considered the most expensive in the US. Unemployment is among the lowest in the entire country. Idiots on the left AND the right look at politics like it is nothing more than cheap entertainment ala the "World Wrestling Federation". We all want OUR guy to win - whether he/she is best for the country or not.

Corporations have all but left the US, in favor of lower wages and more "healthy" business climates in third world countries. It's MUCH more uncommon today to see a "made in America" sticker on a product. "Made in China" is the norm in America. America no longer "builds things". Even the Auto industry is being outclassed by their Japanese counterparts. Businesses close their doors faster than crap through a goose these days, in favor of bankruptcy.

Now, we have come full circle. Americans are allowing the left to dictate to the rest of America in pushing their agenda of surrender. We are now being told that we should "regulate and dissipate" the amount of "rights" that we are "allowed" to have in America. After all - it's for the ""collective good" that law-abiding citizens, guilty of nothing, should NOT be allowed to purchase firearms or ammunition; regardless of the FACT that the criminals who perpetrate these heinous crimes are seldom dealt with BEFORE they commit their deeds, because, after all, THEY have "rights".

We are in the middle if insanity. We are in the middle of the "end".

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang, but a whimper

 

[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

Maybe at one time but not now,a little colonial?

Then we are bound to lose as compared to the rest of the world unless we can drag them up to our standards. The poor will inherit the earth.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

America allowed Washington, Jefferson, Adams and others to vote and they didn't pay federal income taxes. Perhaps we should be trying to create economic conditions so all Americans are rich and all would have to pay federal income taxes?

I do not see it so much as rich or poor but as to who is contributing in a real way to society.

Taxpayers do. Taxtakers, when getting to second and third generation welfare bums do not and they are who I get upset with. Not so much the funds either but the total waste of good human stock.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

No.

And the Constitution wouldn't allow that.

Ever hear of amendments?

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Everyone pays taxes of some sort,so no you cant base voting rights on that.
Now if you said no welfare kings and queens are allowed to vote? I'm good with that.
And while you're at it make drug testing mandatory for anyone on welfare for more then a year.

And screw up their chances of working. Sigh.
And you started off so well.

Regards
DL