Should voting rights be changed?

[Capitalist]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no. You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."[/FONT]

From an article written by Prof. Walter Williams.

 

[goldcatt]

No.

 

[rightwinger]

Our elected officials represent ALL Americans. This includes the wealthy, land owners, retired, employed, unemployed and those living under a bridge.

ALL Americans have a right and an obligation to vote

 

[Nosmo King]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no. You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."[/FONT]

From an article written by Prof. Walter Williams.

Here we see the thought process and the motivation of Conservative "pundits". Consolidate wealth, consolidate power, screw the middle class in the workplace and the ballot box.

How can anyone working hard to make a living support such an ideology?

 

[Polk]

This is an inevitable by-product of thinking the government should be ran like a business.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Here we see the thought process and the motivation of Conservative "pundits". Consolidate wealth, consolidate power, screw the middle class in the workplace and the ballot box.
How can anyone working hard to make a living support such an ideology?

And then the opposite of that is people on the lower end of the economy voting themselves ever larger benefits from government paid for by those that pay the most taxes.

The solution is smaller government and less government control of our lives.

 

[nraforlife]

Certainly worthy of discussion.

Personally I would fund the Federal Government by a single VOLUNTARY per capita tax of $10K (in2010 dollars) on every legal resident over the age of 21 plus a series of excise taxes on non-necessities. Federal Voting Rights (and eligibility for elective public office) would extend only to those with a history of paying the tax for three consecutive years. No employee of any federal agency would be eligible to either pay the tax or cast a vote. Neither would any person receiving a subsidy in any form from the Feds with the exception of a national dividend paid to ALL legal residents in an equal amount. The House of Representatives would be apportioned so as to have each district represent an approximately equal number of tax payers.

No corporate person would be permitted to donate to any federal election, nor to communicate privately to any federal office holder or employee by any means whatsoever. The ONLY contributions to a federal office seeker allowed would be from constituents with all such being fully public information.

No elected public official would receive compensation in any form whatsoever.

 

[Capitalist]

Certainly worthy of discussion.

Personally I would fund the Federal Government by a single VOLUNTARY per capita tax of $10K (in2010 dollars) on every legal resident over the age of 21 plus a series of excise taxes on non-necessities. Federal Voting Rights (and eligibility for elective public office) would extend only to those with a history of paying the tax for three consecutive years. No employee of any federal agency would be eligible to either pay the tax or cast a vote. Neither would any person receiving a subsidy in any form from the Feds with the exception of a national dividend paid to ALL legal residents in an equal amount. The House of Representatives would be apportioned so as to have each district represent an approximately equal number of tax payers.

No corporate person would be permitted to donate to any federal election, nor to communicate privately to any federal office holder or employee by any means whatsoever. The ONLY contributions to a federal office seeker allowed would be from constituents with all such being fully public information.

No elected public official would receive compensation in any form whatsoever.

What you you think of a head tax,
Since all citizens receive the same services from the federal government. Example, the military protects each citizen equally, then all should pay the same tax.
BTW
I do agree with your notion of "voluntary tax", because after all we do live in a free society.
Some people seem to think that the government is the owner of an individuals property.

 

[JBeukema]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no. You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."[/FONT]

From an article written by Prof. Walter Williams.

It was fucking retarded when posted as Dude and it's fucking retarded when posted by this 'new user'

 

[HUGGY]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no. You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."[/FONT]

From an article written by Prof. Walter Williams.

I think Williams living stutus should be changed.

 

[The T]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no. You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."[/FONT]

From an article written by Prof. Walter Williams.

Do you have a link for this sport? I'm sure I could find it rapidly in a Giggle search...but I thought the rule here was to post links/references?

Besides? I'd like to read the entire thing.

Thanks.

 

[Againsheila]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no. You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."[/FONT]

From an article written by Prof. Walter Williams.

Personally, I'm all in favor of granting the right to vote ONLY to those who've served their country. The people who own it are already dragging it down.

 

[Sheldon]

Not sure what board policy is on this, but source links to the content are a good thing to include in the OP.

Taxes and Voting by Walter E. Williams on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

I don't like the idea. Too many people in our history have struggled for enfranchisement for us to now disenfranchise poor people. On this, I'll take egalitarianism over pseudo-oligarchy.

 

[Capitalist]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no. You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."[/FONT]

From an article written by Prof. Walter Williams.

Do you have a link for this sport? I'm sure I could find it rapidly in a Giggle search...but I thought the rule here was to post links/references?

Besides? I'd like to read the entire thing.

Thanks.

The forum rules prevent me from posting a link to the article until I have 15 posts. Its very cumbersome trying to circumvent the rule. Sometimes rules sort of collide with each other. No harm intended and I did reference the author.

 

[Capitalist]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no. You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."[/FONT]

From an article written by Prof. Walter Williams.

I think Williams living stutus should be changed.

I never thought of that argument when I first came across the article.
Thanks for the input.

 

[manifold]

Holy shit!

What a fucking ludicrous idea.

 

[Capitalist]

The Constitutional Convention Debates



Madison: “It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property.”

 

[Polk]

It would take conservatives to find a way to argue that rich people have too little voice in the political process. Then again, these are the same people who think straight, white, Christian males are the most oppressed people in the nation, so it's not like they're breaking the intellectual bank.

 

[rdean]

If you are going to consider such a thing, then my vote is that every person who served in the military and received an "honorable discharge" after a minimum of three years of service, should get two votes. THEY EARNED IT.

 

[rdean]

it would take conservatives to find a way to argue that rich people have too little voice in the political process. Then again, these are the same people who think straight, white, christian males are the most oppressed people in the nation, so it's not like they're breaking the intellectual bank.

omg!

you said "white". You must be racist!!!!