Voting Requirements

[martybegan]

Don't you DARE take away my personal and business tax cuts, deduction, credits, subsidies, and exemptions!

We will vote out anyone who takes away our $1.2 trillion of annual gifts from the goverenment, buddy!


Oh, wait.


Were you talking about the darkies who get food stamps and Obamaphones?


Never mind!

again, unless the government is directly paying someone, and not for a good or service, it is not a subsidy, it is a tax write off/deduction. As above, your case relies on the assumption that everyone's money and property belong to the government, and they graciously allow you to keep some of it.

Tax deductions are not handouts.

They most certainly are. Every tax expenditure has to be paid for by others through higher tax rates, or by borrowing.

That you do not know or understand this is astonishing.

Or we can GASP cut government expenditures. Figures a progressive can't see that one.

 

[g5000]

When a nation modifies the elective qualification, it may easily be foreseen that sooner or later that qualification will be entirely abolished. There is no more invariable rule in the history of society: the further electoral rights are extended, the greater is the need of extending them; for after each concession the strength of the democracy increases, and its demands increase with its strength. The ambition of those who are below the appointed rate is irritated in exact proportion to the great number of those who are above it. The exception at last becomes the rule, concession follows concession, and no stop can be made short of universal suffrage.

But perhaps the most powerful of the causes which tend to mitigate the excesses of political association in the United States is Universal Suffrage. In countries in which universal suffrage exists the majority is never doubtful, because neither party can pretend to represent that portion of the community which has not voted. The associations which are formed are aware, as well as the nation at large, that they do not represent the majority: this is, indeed, a condition inseparable from their existence; for if they did represent the preponderating power, they would change the law instead of soliciting its reform. The consequence of this is that the moral influence of the Government which they attack is very much increased, and their own power is very much enfeebled.

Democracy in America, Part I. by Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[rightwinger]

that operates under the assumption that person's money belongs to the government, and it graciously allows you to keep part of it.

Actually, a person is expected to contribute to your society.

As such, tax cuts are "free stuff" especially when others don't receive them

Oil companies contribute to society, and so do we considering the taxes on the gasoline is 5-10 times the profit an oil company makes on each gallon.

And even with their deductions they pay out tons in taxes, corporate, drill fees, the income taxes on the employees, the FICA taxes they cannot deduct avoid.

Oil companies have benefitted immensely from our society....thank you very much

 

[Peach]

Tax deductions are not handouts.

They most certainly are. Every tax expenditure has to be paid for by others through higher tax rates, or by borrowing.

That you do not know or understand this is astonishing.

Yes, and deciding who "pays taxes" will be cumbersome. There are many taxes. Do receipts from a grocery store PROVE one has paid sales tax? The precincts will be filled with documents.

 

[DGS49]

In all honesty, about the worst way to make significant decisions is to allow "everyone" to have a single vote and run with the majority decision. Statistically speaking, half the population is "below average" and a lot of the ones on the upper half of the Bell Curve don't have enough common sense to come in out of the rain. About the most discouraging thing one can see in politics is after a long and hard-fought political campaign to see "man on the street" interviews of people coming out of the polling places, and listen to the idiotic reasons why they voted the way they did. Most of them (us) have no idea what the issues were, what the elected officials will be able to do, or, honestly, what their respective positions on the major issues were.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the idiocy of the popular vote and there is very, very little that is left to the population in the U.S. Constitution. Laws are made by Congress, war is declared by congress, the President appoints the judges, and so on. The People vote for the people who make the decisions, but God forbid the people themselves make decisions. We are, collectively, idiots.

But having said all that, I think it is fair to consider that the right to vote ought not be absolute. You should have to prove who you are, speak English well enough to understand the communications of the campaign, and understand American government at the same level as immigrants who are applying for citizenship, as confirmed by a simple, short, written test.

Democrats recoil in horror at such concepts because they heavily depend on ignorant, uninformed, semi-literate voters to keep them in power. In fact, if payment of at least $1,000 in FIT were a prerequisite to voting (which would be fair and reasonable), the Democrat party would dry up and float away.

 

[blastoff]

We don't want those pesky poors voting.

Amen! Plus, those have-nots look sooo tacky at the polls. No sense of style/fashion whatsoever. And some of them are very...odorous too.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, a person is expected to contribute to your society.

As such, tax cuts are "free stuff" especially when others don't receive them

Oil companies contribute to society, and so do we considering the taxes on the gasoline is 5-10 times the profit an oil company makes on each gallon.

And even with their deductions they pay out tons in taxes, corporate, drill fees, the income taxes on the employees, the FICA taxes they cannot deduct avoid.

Oil companies have benefitted immensely from our society....thank you very much

Government benefits far more from every gallon of gas sold than the oil company does.

So businesses cannot benefit from providing a product or a service?

 

[g5000]

again, unless the government is directly paying someone, and not for a good or service, it is not a subsidy, it is a tax write off/deduction. As above, your case relies on the assumption that everyone's money and property belong to the government, and they graciously allow you to keep some of it.

Tax deductions are not handouts.

They most certainly are. Every tax expenditure has to be paid for by others through higher tax rates, or by borrowing.

That you do not know or understand this is astonishing.

Or we can GASP cut government expenditures. Figures a progressive can't see that one.

It's a good thing I am not a progressive then. I have posted many, many times on this forum the types of expenditures we need to cut. My solutions would generate trillions in surpluses.

Progressives don't want to cut spending, "conservatives" don't want to level the tax playing field.

It is ridiculous our tax structure is such that two people earning identical incomes pay radically different federal income taxes.

You are a total fool for buying into the "getting to keep more of their own money" bullshit.

They keep that money at someone else's expense! Wake up.

 

[hazlnut]

Not wanting to step on states rights with federal intervention, but what should the requirements be for voting rights in the United States? In ancient Greece only men who had served in the military could vote.I like the idea of military service, but doubt its feasible. My bar would be that if you A.) Paid taxes B.) Were not a convicted felon C.) Not on public aid of any kind (that makes YOU a political issue and public liability, therefore not an eligible voter).
D.) Legal residence of the United States for at least 5 years. E.) Any veteran or active duty military member with a Combat Action Ribbon gets two ballots at the polls. They have earned it. Simple courtesy. F.) At least 24 years old.

"Not on public aide of any kind"


So, you mean...


--senior citizens

--veterans

--all public employees who receive public employee health and pensions


--any Corp showing negative net taxes owed on April 15….


Keep in mind, seniors on medicare are already taking out of the system more than they ever put into it...

 

[martybegan]

They most certainly are. Every tax expenditure has to be paid for by others through higher tax rates, or by borrowing.

That you do not know or understand this is astonishing.

Or we can GASP cut government expenditures. Figures a progressive can't see that one.

It's a good thing I am not a progressive then. I have posted many, many times on this forum the types of expenditures we need to cut. My solutions would generate trillions in surpluses.

Progressives don't want to cut spending, "conservatives" don't want to level the tax playing field.

It is ridiculous our tax structure is such that two people earning identical incomes pay radically different federal income taxes.

You are a total fool for buying into the "getting to keep more of their own money" bullshit.

They keep that money at someone else's expense! Wake up.

And the old "zero sum game" concept rears its ugly head.

And **** off and die for calling me a fool.

 

[Peach]

They most certainly are. Every tax expenditure has to be paid for by others through higher tax rates, or by borrowing.

That you do not know or understand this is astonishing.

Or we can GASP cut government expenditures. Figures a progressive can't see that one.

It's a good thing I am not a progressive then. I have posted many, many times on this forum the types of expenditures we need to cut. My solutions would generate trillions in surpluses.

Progressives don't want to cut spending, "conservatives" don't want to level the tax playing field.

It is ridiculous our tax structure is such that two people earning identical incomes pay radically different federal income taxes.

You are a total fool for buying into the "getting to keep more of their own money" bullshit.

They keep that money at someone else's expense! Wake up.

When income taxes were cut, my state raised every tax & fee that could be located. I want sensible spending, and reasonable taxation. (I will add, Iraq cost a trillion +, plenty of waste there).

 

[rightwinger]

Oil companies contribute to society, and so do we considering the taxes on the gasoline is 5-10 times the profit an oil company makes on each gallon.

And even with their deductions they pay out tons in taxes, corporate, drill fees, the income taxes on the employees, the FICA taxes they cannot deduct avoid.

Oil companies have benefitted immensely from our society....thank you very much

Government benefits far more from every gallon of gas sold than the oil company does.

So businesses cannot benefit from providing a product or a service?

The taxpayer spent trillions on a transportation infrastructure that made those oil profits possible

 

[Avorysuds]

Oh i totally agree, we should only allow Government employee's allowed to vote........

 

[g5000]

Or we can GASP cut government expenditures. Figures a progressive can't see that one.

It's a good thing I am not a progressive then. I have posted many, many times on this forum the types of expenditures we need to cut. My solutions would generate trillions in surpluses.

Progressives don't want to cut spending, "conservatives" don't want to level the tax playing field.

It is ridiculous our tax structure is such that two people earning identical incomes pay radically different federal income taxes.

You are a total fool for buying into the "getting to keep more of their own money" bullshit.

They keep that money at someone else's expense! Wake up.

And the old "zero sum game" concept rears its ugly head.

And **** off and die for calling me a fool.

I'm sorry the facts hurt your ass so much.

 

[martybegan]

It's a good thing I am not a progressive then. I have posted many, many times on this forum the types of expenditures we need to cut. My solutions would generate trillions in surpluses.

Progressives don't want to cut spending, "conservatives" don't want to level the tax playing field.

It is ridiculous our tax structure is such that two people earning identical incomes pay radically different federal income taxes.

You are a total fool for buying into the "getting to keep more of their own money" bullshit.

They keep that money at someone else's expense! Wake up.

And the old "zero sum game" concept rears its ugly head.

And **** off and die for calling me a fool.

I'm sorry the facts hurt your ass so much.

Nice job not answering the statement. and again, as always, go **** yourself.

 

[martybegan]

Oil companies have benefitted immensely from our society....thank you very much

Government benefits far more from every gallon of gas sold than the oil company does.

So businesses cannot benefit from providing a product or a service?

The taxpayer spent trillions on a transportation infrastructure that made those oil profits possible

The corporations are the taxpayers as well, as are their stockholders, as are their employees. and the average taxpayer uses the roads for a value far in excess of what they pay for them.

 

[rightwinger]

Government benefits far more from every gallon of gas sold than the oil company does.

So businesses cannot benefit from providing a product or a service?

The taxpayer spent trillions on a transportation infrastructure that made those oil profits possible

The corporations are the taxpayers as well, as are their stockholders, as are their employees. and the average taxpayer uses the roads for a value far in excess of what they pay for them.

Who sells them the gas?