Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Should Felons who have paid their debt to society be allowed to vote?

If they are not taxtakers, yes.

Their debt to society has been paid and the term felon should not be on any tax form because he is no longer a working felon. If he cannot vote then he should not have to pay taxes as representation is not allowed him. Government is a service and no one should have to pay for services not rendered. Right?

My basic view is what was the law of the land in many countries in the past. No taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. IOW, of you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.

The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by tkwasny

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by tkwasny
I would revise that to only is you are receiving govt welfare. Social security and retirement income , military retirement pay (retainer fee as all are subject to recall into active duty with the stroke of a pen, for life), unemployment compensation does not serve as govt welfare.

No more food stamps for anyone. Return to the days of federal food distribution. Pay the farmers to produce, not pay the farmers to not produce. I remember the days of govt distributed cheese, dry milk, flour, rice, sugar, butter, canned meats, etc. to the poor. You were inspired to get off it and get an income to buy your own food.

You actually had to cook from a cook book.

edit on 27-1-2013 by tkwasny because: trypo fix

There would be a fairly long list ef exemption from losing your vote.
This policy should only be used to penalize the continued abusers of the taxpayers by those who do not want to or cannot contribute taxes to the system.

Regards
DL

How about you must pass a proficiency test in civics, economics, and US history every 4 years? Problem is questions can be structured to guide TPTB desired social engineered state. How can we ensure unbiased TRUTH and neutrality in the tests? Who is pure and uncorruptable in these days?

edit on 27-1-2013 by tkwasny because: typo fix

There should be some basic requirement but testing should only be done the one time. The three R's should be included for sure. To what level, I don't know. Flexibility should be part of it. Idiot savants can be quite bright yet have other deficiencies.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by flexy123
Let's cut down people's jobs so much they get under the required threshold and do not need to pay tax!
And then forbid them to vote as a result! BRILLIANT!!

Thank you for thinking that my straight logic is brilliant. I blush.

My basic view is what was the law of the land in many countries in the past. No taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. IOW, of you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.

The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

You can now either slink away after your unhelpful comment or actually contribute to the taxation problem that we all face.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Yes only taxpayers!

Why my friend?
Please give a short argument.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I think the elitist that think only they know how to vote responsibly should be required to prove it with a test.

edit on 22-1-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

I think all who vote should show that they have enough on the ball to make informed decisions.
Being able to earn a living and pay taxes is a good bench mark.

Regards

DL

What about the people who don't pay income taxes because they work a full time job, but have to claim top-up benefits due to employers paying less than a living wage?

Personally, I think politicians should be forced to prove they have enough on the ball to make informed decisions, before they are allowed to stand for election.

Everything that is wrong with any country is the fault of it's government - it is the only body which can make changes for the better and for it's citizens, the buck ultimately stops there. So instead of bashing people whom are too poor to pay income tax, maybe you should be pointing the finger at your gov, because if EVERYONE who works were paid enough to live on, they would also be earning enough to pay taxes too.

Originally posted by doobydoll

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I think the elitist that think only they know how to vote responsibly should be required to prove it with a test.

edit on 22-1-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

I think all who vote should show that they have enough on the ball to make informed decisions.
Being able to earn a living and pay taxes is a good bench mark.

Regards

DL

What about the people who don't pay income taxes because they work a full time job, but have to claim top-up benefits due to employers paying less than a living wage?

Personally, I think politicians should be forced to prove they have enough on the ball to make informed decisions, before they are allowed to stand for election.

Everything that is wrong with any country is the fault of it's government - it is the only body which can make changes for the better and for it's citizens, the buck ultimately stops there. So instead of bashing people whom are too poor to pay income tax, maybe you should be pointing the finger at your gov, because if EVERYONE who works were paid enough to live on, they would also be earning enough to pay taxes too.

Governments are elected by the people and if they elect poor ones it is hardly the fault of the politicians.
If they fool the people once, shame on them. If the people allow themselves to be fooled twice, shame on them.

Was it Bushes fault that the U S public voted him in a second time or was it the foolishness of those who voted for him?

As to your first. Any that work full time as you say are contributing to the economy and would not lose their vote.

Regards
DL

So my wife, who has decided to not work so she can stay home and properly raise our kids, can't vote under your system???

A soldier who is on disability because his legs were blown off can't vote under your system?

A retired citizen who worked their entire life, paid into social security and medicare their entire life, and is now living on a small fixed income while on medicare can't vote under your system?

The business owner who is just starting out and taking a loss on his business to get it going can't vote under your system?


Your plan sucks and is not very well thought out.

Originally posted by xedocodex
So my wife, who has decided to not work so she can stay home and properly raise our kids, can't vote under your system???

A soldier who is on disability because his legs were blown off can't vote under your system?

A retired citizen who worked their entire life, paid into social security and medicare their entire life, and is now living on a small fixed income while on medicare can't vote under your system?

The business owner who is just starting out and taking a loss on his business to get it going can't vote under your system?


Your plan sucks and is not very well thought out.

My basic view is what was the law of the land in many countries in the past. No taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. IOW, of you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.
The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

Payment can be made in various ways so do not think I am going after the poor. In the case of Vets, representation can be earned by serving to protect the country. Those who sometimes pay taxes and at other times take taxes would have to be looked at once a standard is set. If a person pays 15 years out of 20 for instance, he would vote. Someone who only paid 5 years out of 20 and was on the dole or public purse for 15 may not get a vote.

The point is that when more and more fall into the poor categories, their vote can and is bought by the unscrupulous politicians who are elected by promises of a raise in welfare checks.

The rich are getting richer and the poor better off and the middle is squeezed by both side and any election basically becomes a war against the middle thanks to the fact that politicians are owned by the rich.

This is unjust and unsustainable and must end.


Move your view to the left a bit. That is where I am.
Your examples would likely not lose their vote.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am

My basic view is what was the law of the land in many countries in the past. No taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. IOW, of you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.
The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

Your logic is not sound...your logic isn't even logic.

It is "no taxation without representation" NOT "no representation without taxation".

Do you even understand the difference?

No taxation without representation means that a person can not be taxed unless they are represented in the government by someone. It has nothing to do with paying taxes in order to be represented.

You have things backwards, and I'm personally offended you claim that this is "logic".

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

My basic view is what was the law of the land in many countries in the past. No taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. IOW, of you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.
The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

Your logic is not sound...your logic isn't even logic.

It is "no taxation without representation" NOT "no representation without taxation".

Do you even understand the difference?

No taxation without representation means that a person can not be taxed unless they are represented in the government by someone. It has nothing to do with paying taxes in order to be represented.

You have things backwards, and I'm personally offended you claim that this is "logic".

You have forgotten how equasions work.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am

You have forgotten how equasions work.

The statement "No Taxations Without Representation" is an implication, not an equality or bidirectional.

"No Representation" implies "No Taxation"

You can not turn that into, "No Taxation" implies "No Representation".


I don't believe you are very well educated in formal logic.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

You have forgotten how equasions work.

The statement "No Taxations Without Representation" is an implication, not an equality or bidirectional.

"No Representation" implies "No Taxation"

You can not turn that into, "No Taxation" implies "No Representation".


I don't believe you are very well educated in formal logic.

Your belief is wrong and so is your logic.

Regards
DL