Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[Soggy in NOLA]

Should moving money you made in America you moved offshore into Cayman limited partnerships to avoid taxes be a disqualification for voting?

Of course not... why on Earth does it matter where you keep your property?



Good grief....

 

[Toro]

Should moving money you made in America you moved offshore into Cayman limited partnerships to avoid taxes be a disqualification for voting?

Of course not... why on Earth does it matter where you keep your property?



Good grief....

Oh, I agree.

But having an economic incentive from the government to keep voting for a party cuts both ways.

Offshore tax structures exist only because we allow them to exist. We could collapse those overnight if we wished. Yet, there are powerful incentives not to do so. And the laws that we have written are based on assumptions that are basically bullshit.

So maybe the question should be if you, or if you are an executive with a company that has done so, have ever given money to a lobbyist, should you be allowed to vote?

 

[The Rabbi]

Should moving money you made in America you moved offshore into Cayman limited partnerships to avoid taxes be a disqualification for voting?

Of course not... why on Earth does it matter where you keep your property?



Good grief....

Oh, I agree.

But having an economic incentive from the government to keep voting for a party cuts both ways.

Offshore tax structures exist only because we allow them to exist. We could collapse those overnight if we wished. Yet, there are powerful incentives not to do so. And the laws that we have written are based on assumptions that are basically bullshit.

So maybe the question should be if you, or if you are an executive with a company that has done so, have ever given money to a lobbyist, should you be allowed to vote?

You're confusing the issue. Everyone has policies that he would favor for his own gain.
But corporations are trying to keep their own money by using off shore accounts and the like. Welfare recipients are trying to get other people's money.

 

[ron4342]

Should moving money you made in America you moved offshore into Cayman limited partnerships to avoid taxes be a disqualification for voting?

Of course not... why on Earth does it matter where you keep your property?



Good grief....

So, you think it is perfectly acceptable for people to enjoy the benefits from living in this country while not having to pay for those benefits.
Hummmmmmmm ... Let's suppose that it is legal to keep your money hidden in off-shore accounts. And let's suppose that because it is legal banks can start giving ordinary citizens the same opportunity to hide their money that the wealthy currently have. What do you think would happen to the taxes collected that pay for benefits available in this country? I suspect that one by one we would watch those benefits disappear. America would gradually become Somolia #2. As Somolia is a failed country its citizens pay virtually no taxes and because of that they receive no benefits in return.
What US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
said about taxes is as true today as the day he said it. “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

 

[Pennywise]

Anyone collecting any sort of tax funded aid should be disqualified. Back when common sense was more common, questions like this would be met with laughter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?

Should corporations that receive government contracts, tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, and favorable loans be barred from donating to political action committees?

Should public employee unions be allowed to donate to political action committees?

Do all of these amount to a conflict of interest with the American taxpayer?

Not only should it be a disqualification from voting, anyone on welfare should be stripped of their citizenship and deported to some deserted island.

No, no. We're just going to make the children of the poor clean up after the rich kids at school, in order to pay for any school lunch benefit they might get.

 

[The Rabbi]

Should moving money you made in America you moved offshore into Cayman limited partnerships to avoid taxes be a disqualification for voting?

Of course not... why on Earth does it matter where you keep your property?



Good grief....

So, you think it is perfectly acceptable for people to enjoy the benefits from living in this country while not having to pay for those benefits.
Hummmmmmmm ... Let's suppose that it is legal to keep your money hidden in off-shore accounts. And let's suppose that because it is legal banks can start giving ordinary citizens the same opportunity to hide their money that the wealthy currently have. What do you think would happen to the taxes collected that pay for benefits available in this country? I suspect that one by one we would watch those benefits disappear. America would gradually become Somolia #2. As Somolia is a failed country its citizens pay virtually no taxes and because of that they receive no benefits in return.
What US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
said about taxes is as true today as the day he said it. “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

ou realize that 47% of the population pays no income tax, right? So you must approve of eliminating the the exemptions for lower income people that cause that.

 

[bendog]

Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?

Should corporations that receive government contracts, tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, and favorable loans be barred from donating to political action committees?

Should public employee unions be allowed to donate to political action committees?

Do all of these amount to a conflict of interest with the American taxpayer?

Not only should it be a disqualification from voting, anyone on welfare should be stripped of their citizenship and deported to some deserted island.

No, no. We're just going to make the children of the poor clean up after the rich kids at school, in order to pay for any school lunch benefit they might get.

Well, surely, we should limit voting to white male property owners ... and no direct election of senators either. This democracy thing is clearly out of hand.

 

[Toro]

Of course not... why on Earth does it matter where you keep your property?



Good grief....

Oh, I agree.

But having an economic incentive from the government to keep voting for a party cuts both ways.

Offshore tax structures exist only because we allow them to exist. We could collapse those overnight if we wished. Yet, there are powerful incentives not to do so. And the laws that we have written are based on assumptions that are basically bullshit.

So maybe the question should be if you, or if you are an executive with a company that has done so, have ever given money to a lobbyist, should you be allowed to vote?

You're confusing the issue. Everyone has policies that he would favor for his own gain.
But corporations are trying to keep their own money by using off shore accounts and the like. Welfare recipients are trying to get other people's money.

Your first paragraph is my point. My analogy was a direct and crude one, but all lobbying is done to create some advantage by someone over someone else regardless if direct tax dollars are involved. For example, if a chemical company lobbies against anti-pollution laws which cause higher rates of cancer, the company derives an economic benefit at the expense of someone else. Should the executives of that company be allowed to vote because they are using their clout to effectuate a wealth transfer from others to themselves though no tax dollars changed hands?

They should, IMO. Just like the welfare recipient should be allowed to vote. And the felon. I'm just highlighting that it is incredibly self serving by those on the right to single out only those who receive direct payments but not those who confer some other benefit from the government.

 

[ron4342]

Should moving money you made in America you moved offshore into Cayman limited partnerships to avoid taxes be a disqualification for voting?

Of course not... why on Earth does it matter where you keep your property?



Good grief....

Oh, I agree.

But having an economic incentive from the government to keep voting for a party cuts both ways.

Offshore tax structures exist only because we allow them to exist. We could collapse those overnight if we wished. Yet, there are powerful incentives not to do so. And the laws that we have written are based on assumptions that are basically bullshit.

So maybe the question should be if you, or if you are an executive with a company that has done so, have ever given money to a lobbyist, should you be allowed to vote?

Toro. Toro. Toro! Your post makes to much sense. What Publius1787 is trying to do is to justify violating the Constitution to take the vote away from people who will most likely vote Democrat. What Publius1787 is arguing is based on the fact the republican party is dying and that the only way they can cling to power is if the take the vote away from those who will not vote republican.
I don't know if that makes you sick, but it certainly makes me sick. It is my belief that if a party is losing members they need to re-evaluate the goals of the party and to change those goals accordingly. The republican party refuses to do this. What they would rather do is to take over the country and then to shove their beliefs down the throat of the rest of America. They would rather take the vote away from their fellow Americans. What republicans want is a government of republicans, by republicans, for republicans! **** anyone who is not a republican. I do not believe that paraphrase of a Lincoln quote is what the founding fathers wanted.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No.

Next question.

Of course, if welfare was a disqualification for voting the Democrat Party would cease to exist.

If elections were won or lost on ideas and not money, the current crop of GOP Pols would lose every election. Demagoguery only works on those who are easily and always fooled.

 

[The Rabbi]

No.

Next question.

Of course, if welfare was a disqualification for voting the Democrat Party would cease to exist.

If elections were won or lost on ideas and not money, the current crop of GOP Pols would lose every election. Demagoguery only works on those who are easily and always fooled.

Ironic post is ironic.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.

 

[OccamsSabre]

Why in the world would receiving money disqualify you from a fundamental right, as provided in the 14th amendment, not to mention legislated in the Voting Rights Act? Should the elderly living on social security forfeit their right to vote as well? How about we just take away the right to vote from all the poor, or the unemployed, or the homeless, or those living on pensions?

As soon as we start taking away voting rights from people arbitrarily, this country ceases to be one of liberty and instead becomes an oligarchy. Why this question is even being taken seriously baffles me. It only serves to instill hate for those receiving welfare into the hearts of radical people and gives them something to whine about.

My God there are too many people who invoke the words "fundamental right" and "14th Amendment" as if they knew what they were talking about. Indeed, if they think the 14th Amendment gives everyone the right to vote they forgot to read the last few paragraphs of the 14th Amendment. Not to mention their lack of knowledge that there is a 24th Amendment, of which, would not have been necessary had the 14th Amendment did what they think it does. I blame the typical liberal misunderstanding of the constitution that leads them to think that it does anything they want it to, and therefore, why read this magically changing document that moves to their whims?

Of course, anyone who believes that you have a fundamental right someone else's money believes that voting had magically turned from a privilege to a right. The funny thing is that when you personally steal someone's life, liberty, or property in the midst of committing a felony you lose the right to vote. Democrats, on the other hand, will reward you by hindering the liberty of others while stealing their property in exchange or a vote. A conflict of interest? I think so.

You are insane. Anyone who thinks that voting is not a fundamental right in a darn democracy is completely delusional. No one has a right to money. Did anyone claim that? But the act of receiving money should not arbitrarily forfeit your right to participate in a democracy. Whatever happened to representative democracy? Everyone deserves representation.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Again and again, the United States has demonstrated that voting rights shall not be denied to anyone based on gender, race, sex, age, servitude, or failure to pay money. Do we really need to specify that receiving money also doesn't forfeit your right to vote? And yes, it is a right, as stated numerous times in these Constitutional amendments. It is not a darn privilege.

 

[The Rabbi]

[

You are insane. Anyone who thinks that voting is not a fundamental right in a darn democracy is completely delusional. No one has a right to money. Did anyone claim that? But the act of receiving money should not arbitrarily forfeit your right to participate in a democracy. Whatever happened to representative democracy? Everyone deserves representation.

Just because voting is fundamental does not mean it is universal. Plenty of people lose rights to vote or dont have them. Why not make welfare dependence one of those disqualifiers?

 

[ron4342]

Of course not... why on Earth does it matter where you keep your property?



Good grief....

So, you think it is perfectly acceptable for people to enjoy the benefits from living in this country while not having to pay for those benefits.
Hummmmmmmm ... Let's suppose that it is legal to keep your money hidden in off-shore accounts. And let's suppose that because it is legal banks can start giving ordinary citizens the same opportunity to hide their money that the wealthy currently have. What do you think would happen to the taxes collected that pay for benefits available in this country? I suspect that one by one we would watch those benefits disappear. America would gradually become Somolia #2. As Somolia is a failed country its citizens pay virtually no taxes and because of that they receive no benefits in return.
What US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
said about taxes is as true today as the day he said it. “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

ou realize that 47% of the population pays no income tax, right? So you must approve of eliminating the the exemptions for lower income people that cause that.

First of all, no one is totally immune from paying taxes. Even if a person falls below the poverty level they still end up paying state and local taxes. Second, you do realize that some of those 47% belong to the wealthy, don't you? Should a man who is able to hide his money and pay little or no tax be allowed to vote when you are saying that people living below the poverty level who are unable to pay taxes should be denied the vote?

 

[francoHFW]

It's great fun to watch the hater dupes destroying the GOP lol...

 

[francoHFW]

No FEDERAL income tax, hater dupe. If you count ALL taxes and fees, the bottom fifth pays 16 per cent, and all other fifths ALL pay 21 per cent, which is why the top 1 per cent quadrupled their wealth under trickle down while the country goes to hell...and continues to do so...

 

[Darkwind]

Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?

Should corporations that receive government contracts, tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, and favorable loans be barred from donating to political action committees?

Should public employee unions be allowed to donate to political action committees?

Do all of these amount to a conflict of interest with the American taxpayer?

To complex a situation to answer in a thread like this. The remedies and answers are a bit simplistic.

If you restrict entities from voting because they receive benefits from society, what is to prevent those who can vote from dismantling all safety nets for their own personal gain?

You see, that is what you are essentially asking.

Should we allow people to vote for their own personal gain? If not, then how do you prevent the other extreme from doing exactly that too?

If the bottom line is 'you cannot be allowed to vote for your own personal interest', then who is left that can vote?

 

[bendog]

It's great fun to watch the hater dupes destroying the GOP lol...

Well, I suppose there's that benefit, so I'm happy for you.

 

[The Rabbi]

So, you think it is perfectly acceptable for people to enjoy the benefits from living in this country while not having to pay for those benefits.
Hummmmmmmm ... Let's suppose that it is legal to keep your money hidden in off-shore accounts. And let's suppose that because it is legal banks can start giving ordinary citizens the same opportunity to hide their money that the wealthy currently have. What do you think would happen to the taxes collected that pay for benefits available in this country? I suspect that one by one we would watch those benefits disappear. America would gradually become Somolia #2. As Somolia is a failed country its citizens pay virtually no taxes and because of that they receive no benefits in return.
What US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
said about taxes is as true today as the day he said it. “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

ou realize that 47% of the population pays no income tax, right? So you must approve of eliminating the the exemptions for lower income people that cause that.

First of all, no one is totally immune from paying taxes. Even if a person falls below the poverty level they still end up paying state and local taxes. Second, you do realize that some of those 47% belong to the wealthy, don't you? Should a man who is able to hide his money and pay little or no tax be allowed to vote when you are saying that people living below the poverty level who are unable to pay taxes should be denied the vote?

You understand your second post contradicts your first, right?
The bttom line is you are OK with lower income people paying no taxes. You jsut want to stick higher income people because you think you're punishing them.