Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

[PoliticalChic]

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?

 

[jillian]

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?

ok.. gotta give a thumbs up to PC when she's correct.

 

[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).

Straw Man.

Well, let me ask you directly. Should people who pay no Federal income taxes be permitted to vote for politician who promises to give them largess from the Federal treasury if elected?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Well, let me ask you directly. Should people who pay no Federal income taxes be permitted to vote for politician who promises to give them largess from the Federal treasury if elected?

Yes.

 

[regent]

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.

Well, let me ask you directly. Should people who pay no Federal income taxes be permitted to vote for politician who promises to give them largess from the Federal treasury if elected?

Some politicians, promise to lower taxes on the wealthy for campaign contributions. Some politicians promise to raise taxes on the wealthy if elected. So it all seems to work out-just good old American style politics.

 

[hazlnut]

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Everybody pays taxes, unless you live in the woods and forage for food.

This thread topic is moronic and pointless. Almost everything you said is demonstrably false.

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.

Again, everybody pays taxes. Even if you live in an apartment, you still pay sales tax, utilities tax, and federal withholding.

There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.

This is the pathetic Paul Ryan talking point. It is false, misleading, and, depending on context, racist.

Yes, we know a small percentage of people on welfare and public assistance abuse the system in various ways, exaggerating their need and prolonging their time on welfare. But all the anecdotal evidence about people misusing foot stamps and assistance only adds up to the smallest fraction of a penny on the average tax payer's check to the IRS.

If you want to start classifying the baby boomers now living longer on medicare as 'takers' or veterans using their V.A. benefits as 'takers', keep in mind the seniors entered into a public contract in good faith, paying into the system throughout their working life and the veterans through their service to the country.

So, the notion of the "taker" is usually a code word for a minority portrayed as lazy and unwilling to work. This is where racism comes in. It's a word the GOP uses to play to their fringe base.

Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.

This is counter to the taxpayer’s wishes.

Demonstrably false. We live in a Republic, a Representative government. If you don't like how tax revenue is being spent, write your congressman, write an op-ed, support another candidate in the next primary or general election. You have a voice. You can sway the direction of the country and how tax revenue is utilized.

The most recent election, the majority voted for higher taxes on the 1% and prudent spending cuts that would not reek havoc on the economy.

Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?

You have the right to spend your wealth any damn way you want.

However, living here in the United States, enjoying everything government provides in terms of property rights, public safety, infrastructure, education, and about 10,000 other things-- we all agree to pay into a general fund. The rate at which we pay is based on our ability to pay AND, most importantly, how much we benefit financially from the U.S. economy and private sector/public sector partnership. (e.g. hedge fund and equity fund managers benefit tremendously from the U.S. economy in good years and bad. However, they have lobbied for special considerations in the tax code to allow them to pull wealth out of the system while avoiding taxes. If you going to accurately classify anyone as a "taker" -- many super-wealthy people take (via the benefits of the U.S. economy) from the system more than they give.

If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.

This makes no sense. Paraphrasing: "If minorities on welfare (your perception of a 'taker' not mine) had done a good job with that wealth..." What wealth?

Try to think it through, low-income people have no wealth.

Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?

Everybody pays taxes.

Try to grasp this simple but profound concept about our Republic -- Majority rule should not trample on minority rights. That is why even the lowest income earner MUST have an equal voice.

Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?

The only "spending issues" a citizen might vote on would be special ballet initiatives involving bond issue for public works.

So, for the most part, no one 'Votes on Spending Issues' -- we elect Representatives to vote as the majority would vote and we have a judicial system to check the legislature.

And in any democratic election, the least of us MUST have a voice.

That is part of what makes this a great country. -- You want to start classifying the poor or disabled as 'less than' or second class citizens.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

which I think is what we fought a revolution over.

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

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

 

[Clementine]

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?

 

[chikenwing]

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?

 

[logical4u]

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.

How did the gov't get to be
".....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....."

could it be the "producers"? Do you think the "fed" gov't offered any assistance to the poor for the first one hundred years we were a country? Yet we did not learn that there were people starving in the streets, did we?

The wealth and power of the gov't of this country is because the "producers", supported it.

While I can understand why, you would want to give every person a "vote", fact is, they are spending other peoples' money, and are not as cautious with the spending as they would be if they were contributing. Vets, yes, they fought for this country, but if they are no longer paying taxes (by the way, most retired vets DO continue to pay taxes), they should not be able to vote. It would change the culture of this country, where you are threatened by healthy people on "assistance" when you happen to go into certain areas/neighborhoods. It would make people want to contribute so they "could" be represented. Currently, we have "taxation without representation" because the housewives, those on assistance, those on promised gov't contracts (Social Security, military retirement, etc), and those that are not working outnumber those that actuall PAY taxes.

Strange thought, but it is a very efficient system: you don't work, you don't eat (you don't work, you don't vote). Your only choice is begging and relying on the charity of others (it is what "assistance" is, only now, you would have to look into the eyes of those that are generous. You don't get to sit with your hand out and slam those that you are "taking".

 

[Flopper]

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?

Need to add them to list of voters.

 

[Politico]

What the hell happened to my post?

 

[EriktheRed]

Straw Man.

Well, let me ask you directly. Should people who pay no Federal income taxes be permitted to vote for politician who promises to give them largess from the Federal treasury if elected?

Some politicians, promise to lower taxes on the wealthy for campaign contributions. Some politicians promise to raise taxes on the wealthy if elected. So it all seems to work out-just good old American style politics.

Some politicians also promise to keep popular public programs going and somehow Americans won't actually have to pay for them.

But that's different, dontcha know.

 

[Flopper]

I'm out of here. There is no point in debating something that's pretty stupid and never is going to happen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Well, let me ask you directly. Should people who pay no Federal income taxes be permitted to vote for politician who promises to give them largess from the Federal treasury if elected?

Yes they should. Unless of course you want to deny the vote to anyone who gets anything from the government.

You could start by disqualifying anyone with a financial interest in defense contractors.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm out of here. There is no point in debating something that's pretty stupid and never is going to happen.

Understandable.

But it is troubling that some have such ignorance of – or contempt for – a fundamental right such as voting.

 

[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?

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

As a practical matter, most of them would (property tax, sales tax, etc.), but it's still theoretically possible.

 

[Freewill]

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

Absolutely yes.