It's been a while since we've had a good debate.

[Lukie]

My proposal:

Only taxpayers (i.e. those that are employed, report income, or own property) should be allowed to vote. The reasoning for this is that most people contribute to society via paying taxes. Thats how our entire system works. You don't contribute? You don't vote. It's that simple.

I think society would be much better off like this; of course, it makes far too much sense to ever be implemented.

[Lukie]

Also, as plainly stated above, this might not be perfect. I do think that the spirit of what I'm trying to say would be an improvement over our current system though.

[flomo]

how about if you show up you get to vote
only about 10% vote as is

[WillburForce]

how about the English decide whoes the next president? Then you might not end up with a retard like Bush running your country?

[gabe]

if only people that paid taxes got to vote, soon the law would be changed so everyone else would have to pay taxes and only the non tax payers would get to vote

[Miffed22001]

how about you make voting a legal requirement based up on having to pay tax to qualify

[pgil]

if only people that paid taxes got to vote, soon the law would be changed so everyone else would have to pay taxes and only the non tax payers would get to vote

exactly.

[pgil]

also, a much better democratic system would be to have more than 2 viable parties, since they eventually become essentially the same party and leave voters with no real choice.

[Lukie]

if only people that paid taxes got to vote, soon the law would be changed so everyone else would have to pay taxes and only the non tax payers would get to vote

I don't follow.

[Lukie]

also, a much better democratic system would be to have more than 2 viable parties, since they eventually become essentially the same party and leave voters with no real choice.

I do agree with this, but I see it as an entirely different issue altogether.

[Lukie]

how about the English decide whoes the next president? Then you might not end up with a retard like Bush running your country?

Well, I can't defend Bush as a president, but I equally couldn't justify electing a president based on the English's best interest as opposed to our own best interest.

[pgil]

if only people that paid taxes got to vote, soon the law would be changed so everyone else would have to pay taxes and only the non tax payers would get to vote

I don't follow.

It means if you only let a limited section of the populace vote, and their interests more or less lie in the same direction, then they will elect people who are going to push through laws that will benefit them to the detriment of the rest of society. In this case by shifting the tax burden to the underprivileged while also removing their ability to vote and thereby stopping them from any legal recourse at changing the system that oppresses them.

[Warpe]

No representation without taxation? Isn't that backwards?

This thread sucks, btw.

[will641]

this is a pretty silly question. its just really impractical. i understand what you are getting at, basically you are saying you only want responsible people to vote, correct? yes that would be nice.

[b-rabbit]

This thread sucks, btw.

grandpa speaks the truf

[Lukie]

It means if you only let a limited section of the populace vote, and their interests more or less lie in the same direction, then they will elect people who are going to push through laws that will benefit them to the detriment of the rest of society. In this case by shifting the tax burden to the underprivileged while also removing their ability to vote and thereby stopping them from any legal recourse at changing the system that oppresses them.[/quote]
Shifting the tax burden to the underprivileged wihle also removing their ability to vote does not apply to my proposal. Those that have any tax burden are the ones who are able to vote.

We could make some exceptions. Two that I propose: full time college students or people otherwise 'training' for a career, and retired people. I'm not overly cruel. My idea with this wouldn't be to create an elite upper class, but to attempt to create some real motivation to those who are a burden to society. You know, like an able-bodied adult that can work but choose not to, and instead live off the government (read: us).

[Lukie]

It means if you only let a limited section of the populace vote, and their interests more or less lie in the same direction, then they will elect people who are going to push through laws that will benefit them to the detriment of the rest of society. In this case by shifting the tax burden to the underprivileged while also removing their ability to vote and thereby stopping them from any legal recourse at changing the system that oppresses them.

Shifting the tax burden to the underprivileged wihle also removing their ability to vote does not apply to my proposal. Those that have any tax burden are the ones who are able to vote.

We could make some exceptions. Two that I propose: full time college students or people otherwise 'training' for a career, and retired people. I'm not overly cruel. My idea with this wouldn't be to create an elite upper class, but to attempt to create some real motivation to those who are a burden to society. You know, like an able-bodied adult that can work but choose not to, and instead live off the government (read: us).[/quote]

[Lukie]

No representation without taxation? Isn't that backwards?

This thread sucks, btw.

Cool. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

[Lukie]

this is a pretty silly question. its just really impractical. i understand what you are getting at, basically you are saying you only want responsible people to vote, correct? yes that would be nice.

I fully acknowledge that this is impractical and will likely never happen in this country in the future.

[Warpe]

No representation without taxation? Isn't that backwards?

This thread sucks, btw.

Cool. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

Think about my first paragraph a bit more and you'll realize that it is.

[Lukie]

No representation without taxation? Isn't that backwards?

This thread sucks, btw.

Cool. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

Think about my first paragraph a bit more and you'll realize that it is.

Taxation without representation is far different than representation without taxation. Not that it would necessarily lead to a different conclusion, but I'm sure a smart man like yourself could come up with a far better argument to refute my proposal than that.

[zook]

You know, like an able-bodied adult that can work but choose not to, and instead live off the government (read: us).

Do you know any of these people "living off the government"? It's a lot harder than you might imagine.

[will641]

i actually agree with you lukie, despite how unrealistic it is. i didnt read everything you said, so not sure if this was said already. our elected officials are paid by tax payers. tax payers give them the money necessary for all their programs. why should people who dont pay taxes get a say in who is in power?

another way of looking at this is, if a corporation is holding a share holders meeting, should people who dont own shares be able to voice their opinions?

[Pythonic]

this is a pretty silly question. its just really impractical. i understand what you are getting at, basically you are saying you only want responsible people to vote, correct? yes that would be nice.

In simpler terms: you mean only the educated.

[Ragnar4]

Wait a minute?

Name one person that votes and doesn't pay taxes? Because last time I checked you had to be a registered voter, and in order to be a registered voter had to be a card carrying american, and all card carrying americans, pay taxes.

[will641]

this is a pretty silly question. its just really impractical. i understand what you are getting at, basically you are saying you only want responsible people to vote, correct? yes that would be nice.

In simpler terms: you mean only the educated.

no. just because you are educated doesnt mean you are responsible. and ragnar, there are tons of people that dont pay taxes. just look at wesley snipes . and i dont know what the number is, but if you make a low enough income you dont pay income tax.

thats another thing, what kind of tax are you saying you should be paying in order to be a voter lukie? income tax? property tax?

[zook]

Everyone pays taxes, but not everyone pays the federal income tax. The poor still pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, gas tax, phone tax, etc.

[Lukie]

I'm not sure I had thought this idea out as well as I had originally thought. I have to go out for a bit but I'm going to think about this more later and we'll see what I come up with.

[Ash256]

One's financial contribution to the governmental system is a byproduct of contribution to society, and not a contribution in itself.

Implementing the idea that everyone gets exactly the same amount of say in how the country is run regardless is a contribution to society.

[Warpe]

I'm sure a smart man like yourself could come up with a far better argument to refute my proposal than that.

Your idea is patently absurd so I don't think it needs refuting but, fwiw, you're proposing taking away the only political power poor people have to improve their circumstances. That's where terrorists come from.

[Lukie]

to clarify, I didn't propose taking away the right to vote from poor people. Poor people without a job (or more ideally, ones that *won't* get a job) is a different breed.

Like I said, there are a ton of holes in my idea (that's an understatement). I still think the general principle is solid. Maybe I'm just spoiled and selfish though, I'm not sure. still need to think it over.

take this scenario: an able-bodied 30 year old male lives in his parent's basement. he mooches off the government and the people around him. he doesn't have a job nor is looking for work nor is going to school or getting training for a job. yet he has the same amount of 'say' in government as someone who immediately pays a large portion of his/her income to the government. i don't like that.

Maybe I'm just spoiled and selfish though, I'm not sure.

[Lukie]

Ok scratch this one. I lose. Next one won't be so easy.

I still agree with the spirit of what I'm trying to say, but I'm not sure it's practical whatsoever or fair.

[Ash256]

take this scenario: an able-bodied 30 year old male lives in his parent's basement. he mooches off the government and the people around him. he doesn't have a job nor is looking for work nor is going to school or getting training for a job. yet he has the same amount of 'say' in government as someone who immediately pays a large portion of his/her income to the government. i don't like that.

Tell me about this guy and/or other people you've met who do this.