Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

[Dante]

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

Socrates you are not. Everyone pays taxes. Land taxes, income taxes, gasoline taxes, food taxes, ..... get it yet?

And property taxes do not amount for huge enough proportion...so maybe I agree...

tax the shit out of property.

btw, Socrates times..they had slaves to do the grunt work while people like Socrates could sit around, pay a small tax and philosophize

 

[jgarden]

Buffett Rule Rorschach: 7,000 Millionaires Paid No Income Taxes in 2011
22Sep 21 2011

..... among families making more than $100,000, there were also half a million tax units -- enough to replace the population of Tucson, Arizona -- that also paid no income tax. Even more surprising, 7,000 millionaires also paid no individual income tax.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ionaires-paid-no-income-taxes-in-2011/245469/

Conservative equate wealth wih responsible behanior and contributing to the success of the nation, while criticizing the poor for not doing their fair share.

Upon closer examination, a substantial number of those to which conservatives hold in high esteem, are in a financial position to pay taxes - but don't!

Since the poor are not in a financial position to lobby Congress for preferential treatment, whose best interests does the current tax system serve?

 

[JFK_USA]

How dare people participate in a democracy when they are in a temporary economic situation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
L

yep. absolutely.

So long as the jake starkeys and dantes get to vote they will be supporting welfare/warfare state politicians . His ilk don't give a shit about taxes - they don't have any income.

.

Considering I pay far more in income taxes than many of the far righties and libertarians combined, I can grin at Conty's comment. I doubt if he pays any income tax at all.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EAyiA5Rmf0]RACHEL MADDOW - THE NEW POLL TAX - PAYING TO VOTE - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[rightwinger]

Even someone who lives in a box under an overpass deserves a vote

Elected officials are representing him too

 

[edthecynic]

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. ...
Regards
DL

May 13, 2010
RUSH: Conservatives remember that "we, the people" are the government. ... We do not divide people by groups. We do not see groups.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

everyone pays taxes...of some kind....

In right wing land its a little more complicated than that.

If, for example, we wish to argue that taxing business is bad, then you are correct - everyone pays taxes - because the businesses just pass their taxes down to the consumer.

On the other hand, if we wish to portray the poor as not contributing to tax collection, we would argue that in fact it is the business itself that pays the taxes, not their customers.


(If we were right wingers.)

 

[gwennie]

No, Gwennie you are wrong. Obama etc have no intention of doing anything of the sort, and you have no concrete evidence except your own worries. Be of good cheer. You merely fear fear itself.

You have no concrete "evidence" to prove that he won't.....it goes both ways. Stop being so damn condescending....

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Gwennie you are wrong. Obama etc have no intention of doing anything of the sort, and you have no concrete evidence except your own worries. Be of good cheer. You merely fear fear itself.

You have no concrete "evidence" to prove that he won't.....it goes both ways. Stop being so damn condescending....

One, the burden of proof is yours. Two, I can't disprove what does not exist.

Give us evidence, good and solid evidence, Gwennie.

You are letting your fears of whatever to get the better of you.

 

[g5000]

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

The argument of whether or not non-property owners or non-taxpayers should be allowed to vote is as old as our Republic.

The Founders ultimately decided that since society eventually causes an imbalance of property, and therefore creates a world that violates natural rights, that preventing non-property owners/non-taxpayers from voting would be adding insult to injury.

In this letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, we find Jefferson arguing that our country needs to exempt a portion of the country from taxes.


He makes this argument because:

Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

Clearly, those who suffer from that violation of natural right should not be also prevented from the inalienable right to vote.

Rather than finding ways to **** over the poor even more, we should be finding ways to restore balance to the natural order of things and diminishing the concentrationg of wealth "in a very few hands".

Read the letter. It will open your eyes.

 

[gwennie]

No, Gwennie you are wrong. Obama etc have no intention of doing anything of the sort, and you have no concrete evidence except your own worries. Be of good cheer. You merely fear fear itself.

You have no concrete "evidence" to prove that he won't.....it goes both ways. Stop being so damn condescending....

One, the burden of proof is yours. Two, I can't disprove what does not exist.

Give us evidence, good and solid evidence, Gwennie.

You are letting your fears of whatever to get the better of you.

Do you really think I'm going to waste my time posting anything to people who will only turn around and claim that the evidence provided is false anyway because they don't agree with it? Sorry, but not gonna do it. But if you claim that obama isn't doing or wanting to do these things, then you provide proof of it. Seeing as how you feel you can insist that others provide "good solid evidence" to prove their claim, then certainly you can see to it to do the same yourself. But to say obama's intentions don't exist is pure bullshit.....and you know it. All you and your ilk intend to do is spew the liberal talking points, flood websites and engage in distort/deny/distract tactics, and generally create chaos......none of you can stand being confronted on obama's faults/inconsistencies/lies, so you make attempts to drown out anyone who dares to make negative statements about him. You people are so obvious......

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your opinions are not evidence, Gwennie, not proof. I don't have to post anything until you build a case on more than "but . . . but . . .".

 

[gwennie]

Your opinions are not evidence, Gwennie, not proof. I don't have to post anything until you build a case on more than "but . . . but . . .".

It's not opinion; it's fact. Go look it up. Or simply look around from an objective point of view and you won't have to spend time looking it up.

 

[dblack]

Straw Man.

No....that's the truth of the situation we now face. obama is creating more of the "underclass" so that dems keep getting voted into office. If people can get free anything, no matter what it is, they will vote to get their free shit. End of story. To say this is a Straw Man argument is idiotic at best. It's obvious that's what's occurring in this country.

Let's put the ideological pant-shitting aside for a moment.

Let's compare this to ecology. Let's assume for a moment that we really do have a case in our country of one class effectively preying off a second class. Liberals will say it's the rich feeding off the poor, conservatives will say its the poor feeding off the rich, both sides will mostly agree that both groups are themselves feeding off the middle class in some way or another. In any event, which ever way that you view it happening, a fundamental food chain is established.

Now, what happens when the coyotes eat too many rabbits and there aren't enough rabbits to feed everyone anymore? Well it's simple--coyotes start dying off when they can't get enough food. What happens then? Again, it's simple--rabbits start rebounding because there are fewer predators killing them. Probably, they'll reach a point of over population. What happens third? The coyotes start bouncing back because they have ample food supplies, and establish a more sustainable balance than existed before.

So, even if we were to entertain this doom-and-gloom argument that the "welfare queens" are going to swell in numbers like rampant parasites, it's pretty silly to expect it to be some kind of zombie apocalypse that will destroy the country. Bases on such an argument, we should already expect a cyclic fluctuation to go back and forth.

The purpose of government is to prevent people from preying on each other. What we have now is a perverse inversion of that goal where government is our primary tool for the "preying". Under such conditions voting rights will naturally be a target.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most conservatives claim, when talking about the corporate tax, that corporations pay no taxes,

they just pass the cost along to the consumer.

By that argument, every American who buys anything from any corporation that pays taxes is thus a taxpayer.

The idea of only taxpayers being able to vote is idiocy, which, of course, explains why it is so popular with USMB conservatives.

 

[Gadawg73]

Most conservatives claim, when talking about the corporate tax, that corporations pay no taxes,

they just pass the cost along to the consumer.

By that argument, every American who buys anything from any corporation that pays taxes is thus a taxpayer.

The idea of only taxpayers being able to vote is idiocy, which, of course, explains why it is so popular with USMB conservatives.

Where else would corporations get ANY of their $$$ other than consumers?
Trees?

 

[LeftofLeft]

I would say only taxfilers can. Meaning, if you file a tax return, whether you pay $0 or $1M, you must file and the information must be crossed checked (e.g. Soc, address, etc.) with what you have on your voter registration. This would reduce the number of dead people voting. Will be fun to watch how this would disenfranchise voters.

 

[ecinicola]

yes, and no foreigners allowed to vote. There are too many people out there that don't even know what is going on and they should not vote.

 

[Gadawg73]

I would say only taxfilers can. Meaning, if you file a tax return, whether you pay $0 or $1M, you must file and the information must be crossed checked (e.g. Soc, address, etc.) with what you have on your voter registration. This would reduce the number of dead people voting. Will be fun to watch how this would disenfranchise voters.

So someone that has no income and lives off of their cash in a Mason jar can not vote.

Citizens vote, nothing to do with taxes.