Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

[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 . . .".

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.

No, Gwennie, it is not fact. You have no objective evidence. You are wasting time and energy worrying about what is not happening here.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Buffett Rule Rorschach: 7,000 Millionaires Paid No Income Taxes in 2011 - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

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?

Given the fact that the top 10% of wage earners are saddled with 70% of the overall tax burden, you can believe your own nonsense if it makes you feel better.
None of you will answer the question regarding what a "fair share" of the tax burden is for high earners. In other words " if an effective tax rate averaging over 60% ( includes ALL taxes paid) how much SHOULD they pay?
A caller to the Sean Hannity show last week was given TWO segments( about 20 miuntes of air time including commercial breaks) to answer ONE question....How much is the "fair share"..The caller refused to answer. She kept spewing radical liberal talking points. Jumping from "it's not fair that some people get to have all that money" to spouting off about corporate welfare.
Then of course she whipped out that old liberal standby of the pre JFK tax rate of 91%. Which we all know did not apply to more than 200 people in the entire country AND only taxed at that rate less than 1% of their total income.
So, go ahead, come up with a number.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sean Hannitty is not an objective true-to-America source. It is a good propaganda source for an isolated minority on the reactionary far right.

 

[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.

Buffett Rule Rorschach: 7,000 Millionaires Paid No Income Taxes in 2011 - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

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?

Given the fact that the top 10% of wage earners are saddled with 70% of the overall tax burden, you can believe your own nonsense if it makes you feel better.
None of you will answer the question regarding what a "fair share" of the tax burden is for high earners. In other words " if an effective tax rate averaging over 60% ( includes ALL taxes paid) how much SHOULD they pay?
A caller to the Sean Hannity show last week was given TWO segments( about 20 miuntes of air time including commercial breaks) to answer ONE question....How much is the "fair share"..The caller refused to answer. She kept spewing radical liberal talking points. Jumping from "it's not fair that some people get to have all that money" to spouting off about corporate welfare.
Then of course she whipped out that old liberal standby of the pre JFK tax rate of 91%. Which we all know did not apply to more than 200 people in the entire country AND only taxed at that rate less than 1% of their total income.
So, go ahead, come up with a number.

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Just how many of those who stormed the beaches on Normandy and Iwo Jima would "thereisnospoon" have disenfranchised because they hadn't earn enough money to qualify to vote?

You can bet that it wasn't "thereisnospoon's" top 10% of wage earners that suffered the majority of casualties in that, or any other American war!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sean Hannitty is not an objective true-to-America source. It is a good propaganda source for an isolated minority on the reactionary far right.

That's your opinion. Of course you think anyone with a kid that hits a baseball rogth handed is a right wing extremist.
Anyway genius, the caller was the source. Not the host.
And you don't get any mileage dismissing the source just because the source does not fit your lib template.
And please, don't bother with your " I am not a liberal bullshit".
You side with the libs. You post lib.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sean Hannitty is not an objective true-to-America source. It is a good propaganda source for an isolated minority on the reactionary far right.

That's your opinion. Of course you think anyone with a kid that hits a baseball rogth handed is a right wing extremist.
Anyway genius, the caller was the source. Not the host.
And you don't get any mileage dismissing the source just because the source does not fit your lib template.
And please, don't bother with your " I am not a liberal bullshit".
You side with the libs. You post lib.

"That's your opinion. Of course you think anyone with a kid that hits a baseball

handed is a

wing extremist."

The source made no sense, and often Hannitty does not either. I oppose radical reactionary nonsense in the Republican Party. If you support Hannitty nonsense, you are supporting radical reactionary nonsense out of touch with the great majority of America.

You are not a conservative, merely a lamewit reactionary.​

 

[Dante]

................................................................................................................................

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sean Hannitty is not an objective true-to-America source. It is a good propaganda source for an isolated minority on the reactionary far right.

That's your opinion. Of course you think anyone with a kid that hits a baseball rogth handed is a right wing extremist.
Anyway genius, the caller was the source. Not the host.
And you don't get any mileage dismissing the source just because the source does not fit your lib template.
And please, don't bother with your " I am not a liberal bullshit".
You side with the libs. You post lib.

"That's your opinion. Of course you think anyone with a kid that hits a baseball

handed is a right wing extremist."

The source made no sense, and often Hannitty does not either. I oppose radical reactionary nonsense in the Republican Party. If you support Hannitty nonsense, you are supporting radical reactionary nonsense out of touch with the great majority of America.

You are not a conservative, merely a lamewit reactionary.​

The source made no sense? The caller made no sense? What the **** are you yammering about?
Your opinion of Hannity makes no sense.
Hannity has the second largest radio audience of ALL radio shows. Second only to that other "right wing extremist", Rush Limbaugh..Once again you prove the intolerance of the left. And your complete and utter lack of credibility.
You lefties attempt to marginalize conservative talk because you are incensed at it's very existence. Those on the left( you included) cannot handle the fact that there is a point of view not in lockstep with yours.
There is nothing radical about conservative talk radio. You consider it and all listeners to be extremist.
"Lamewit"?....Go play in the sand box with someone who cares what you think.
Go listen to Stacy Miller or Ed Schultz.​

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Balance? What balance? I don't know anyone who has a lot of money that hasn't worked for it.
All of this class envy shit is a call for government to institute confiscation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's your opinion. Of course you think anyone with a kid that hits a baseball rogth handed is a right wing extremist.
Anyway genius, the caller was the source. Not the host.
And you don't get any mileage dismissing the source just because the source does not fit your lib template.
And please, don't bother with your " I am not a liberal bullshit".
You side with the libs. You post lib.

"That's your opinion. Of course you think anyone with a kid that hits a baseball

handed is a right wing extremist."

The source made no sense, and often Hannitty does not either. I oppose radical reactionary nonsense in the Republican Party. If you support Hannitty nonsense, you are supporting radical reactionary nonsense out of touch with the great majority of America.

You are not a conservative, merely a lamewit reactionary.​

The source made no sense? The caller made no sense? What the **** are you yammering about?
Your opinion of Hannity makes no sense.
Hannity has the second largest radio audience of ALL radio shows. Second only to that other "right wing extremist", Rush Limbaugh..Once again you prove the intolerance of the left. And your complete and utter lack of credibility.
You lefties attempt to marginalize conservative talk because you are incensed at it's very existence. Those on the left( you included) cannot handle the fact that there is a point of view not in lockstep with yours.
There is nothing radical about conservative talk radio. You consider it and all listeners to be extremist.
"Lamewit"?....Go play in the sand box with someone who cares what you think.
Go listen to Stacy Miller or Ed Schultz.​

Just means you are wrong.

That Hannitty and Glenn and Rush's shows harness only 3% of the population when the anti-semetic Father Charles Cpughlin's programs would get 20% of the audience in the 1930s shows this: that Americans are far less fooled in numbers by radio creeps like these guys.

They are not conservatives, they are radicals and reactionaries, all that is wrong with American on the far right.​

 

[JimH52]

You realize allowing on the people who pay taxes to vote would leave a lot of the 1% out of the voting booth?

 

[Bill Angel]

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.

I know that some think that there are zombies wandering about in their communities, but is there actually any current evidence that dead people are voting?

Gay Zombie in Wedding Dress for Obama

 

[thereisnospoon]

"That's your opinion. Of course you think anyone with a kid that hits a baseball

handed is a right wing extremist."

The source made no sense, and often Hannitty does not either. I oppose radical reactionary nonsense in the Republican Party. If you support Hannitty nonsense, you are supporting radical reactionary nonsense out of touch with the great majority of America.

You are not a conservative, merely a lamewit reactionary.​

The source made no sense? The caller made no sense? What the **** are you yammering about?
Your opinion of Hannity makes no sense.
Hannity has the second largest radio audience of ALL radio shows. Second only to that other "right wing extremist", Rush Limbaugh..Once again you prove the intolerance of the left. And your complete and utter lack of credibility.
You lefties attempt to marginalize conservative talk because you are incensed at it's very existence. Those on the left( you included) cannot handle the fact that there is a point of view not in lockstep with yours.
There is nothing radical about conservative talk radio. You consider it and all listeners to be extremist.
"Lamewit"?....Go play in the sand box with someone who cares what you think.
Go listen to Stacy Miller or Ed Schultz.​

Just means you are wrong.

That Hannitty and Glenn and Rush's shows harness only 3% of the population when the anti-semetic Father Charles Cpughlin's programs would get 20% of the audience in the 1930s shows this: that Americans are far less fooled in numbers by radio creeps like these guys.

They are not conservatives, they are radicals and reactionaries, all that is wrong with American on the far right.​

You keep telling yourself that shit. Doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it accurate.
Now if you wish to continue arguing your idiotic point, you'll do so with some one else.
I know thew facts. You protest because the facts don't fit your template.
You are what's wrong with this country. You support all the policies that are weakening the country.​

 

[Pheonixops]

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

Well that would pretty much include everyone who pays a sales tax, real estate tax, income tax, inheritance tax,,etc.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You realize allowing on the people who pay taxes to vote would leave a lot of the 1% out of the voting booth?

"That is humor. I recognize that"

 

[JakeStarkey]

The source made no sense? The caller made no sense? What the **** are you yammering about?
Your opinion of Hannity makes no sense.
Hannity has the second largest radio audience of ALL radio shows. Second only to that other "right wing extremist", Rush Limbaugh..Once again you prove the intolerance of the left. And your complete and utter lack of credibility.
You lefties attempt to marginalize conservative talk because you are incensed at it's very existence. Those on the left( you included) cannot handle the fact that there is a point of view not in lockstep with yours.
There is nothing radical about conservative talk radio. You consider it and all listeners to be extremist.
"Lamewit"?....Go play in the sand box with someone who cares what you think.
Go listen to Stacy Miller or Ed Schultz.

Just means you are wrong.

That Hannitty and Glenn and Rush's shows harness only 3% of the population when the anti-semetic Father Charles Cpughlin's programs would get 20% of the audience in the 1930s shows this: that Americans are far less fooled in numbers by radio creeps like these guys.

They are not conservatives, they are radicals and reactionaries, all that is wrong with American on the far right.

You keep telling yourself that shit. Doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it accurate.
Now if you wish to continue arguing your idiotic point, you'll do so with some one else.
I know thew facts. You protest because the facts don't fit your template.
You are what's wrong with this country. You support all the policies that are weakening the country.

You "know" nothing of the sort, and your opinions are not facts, merely assertions.

The template is this: radical reactionaries like those three are not conservatives and they do not speak for the mainstream of Republicanism.

I support honest discussion and objective facts, not propaganda and weakness.

 

[gwennie]

Sean Hannitty is not an objective true-to-America source. It is a good propaganda source for an isolated minority on the reactionary far right.

You claim you are conservative.....yet it's obvious you're not. Anyone who goes against the liberal agenda, you rail against....doesn't that seem strange to you???? Hannity IS a true conservative. I don't particulary care for him, but he IS conservative. What the hell are you???? You claim you are conservative, yet you push the liberal agenda. What the hell is wrong with that picture???? I say....you are full of shit...from the tip of your head to the tip of your toes. You are like the Colin Powells....you claim to be part of a particular party, but then you do nothing but try to tear that party down claiming that they are a bunch of assholes. Just do everyone a favor and switch sides......we ALL know which side you are really on. For God's sake, man, just make the move!!! LMAO!!!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Just means you are wrong.

That Hannitty and Glenn and Rush's shows harness only 3% of the population when the anti-semetic Father Charles Cpughlin's programs would get 20% of the audience in the 1930s shows this: that Americans are far less fooled in numbers by radio creeps like these guys.

They are not conservatives, they are radicals and reactionaries, all that is wrong with American on the far right.

You keep telling yourself that shit. Doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it accurate.
Now if you wish to continue arguing your idiotic point, you'll do so with some one else.
I know thew facts. You protest because the facts don't fit your template.
You are what's wrong with this country. You support all the policies that are weakening the country.

You "know" nothing of the sort, and your opinions are not facts, merely assertions.

The template is this: radical reactionaries like those three are not conservatives and they do not speak for the mainstream of Republicanism.

I support honest discussion and objective facts, not propaganda and weakness.

What's "main stream republicanism"?....
Here is why you have such struggles with the facts.
"Republican" is the name of a political party.
Conservatism is an ideology.
Huge difference.


You're not even debating the issue now. You are just arguing in an attempt to get the last word.
Ok, you have it. Now post something clever.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sean Hannitty is not an objective true-to-America source. It is a good propaganda source for an isolated minority on the reactionary far right.

You claim you are conservative.....yet it's obvious you're not. Anyone who goes against the liberal agenda, you rail against....doesn't that seem strange to you???? Hannity IS a true conservative. I don't particulary care for him, but he IS conservative. What the hell are you???? You claim you are conservative, yet you push the liberal agenda. What the hell is wrong with that picture???? I say....you are full of shit...from the tip of your head to the tip of your toes. You are like the Colin Powells....you claim to be part of a particular party, but then you do nothing but try to tear that party down claiming that they are a bunch of assholes. Just do everyone a favor and switch sides......we ALL know which side you are really on. For God's sake, man, just make the move!!! LMAO!!!

jake is a card carrying liberal. Period

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

Surely someone has pointed out that "tax payers" is damn everyone. If you buy something, you're a tax payer.

If you mean only those who pay income taxes, OMG, there is so much wrong with that, I don't know where to start.

But, surely others have pointed out that, in spite of the election rigging on the part of the right, this is still the US and you don't have be rich in order to get a vote. But, if the GObP gets their way, our votes won't be counted next time.