I agree with this. You’d be surprised how many people pay a negative income tax rate and get a fat tax credit at the end of the year. Regardless that they are not doing well and need the money, I do not feel they should be able to push their agenda in the political arena. This is moral hazard like a CEO voting to approve an increase in his compensation, think that vote would ever fail? If enough of these people got together, you’d have one lazy society with 1% of the population paying 99% of the taxes…
Oooh, this has interesting implications. If you hit someone with a big enough lawsuit, then they won’t be able to vote, even if the suit isn’t criminal. Maybe you can evenprevent them from being eligible for office. Pretty soon, we’ll be like Congo, where there’s no need to vote, since everyone with money just buys as much political justice as they desire. Better yet, you can use the non-tax layers as soldiers, child soldiers even, to protect or even take away the assets of others. Hey, do the non tax payees get to have human rights too? Or do we have to buy them too? One interesting question is why should people obey the law? The Hobbesian solution is that you obey the law because someone with a big stick will punish you if you don’t, and you want someone with a big stick because they maintain an orderly society. But there is noreason that taxpayers should choose the guy with the big stick, he can dictate just as well to them too. The popular sovereignty approach is that people accept the rule of law as a social contract. We accept the legiimacy of most laws because we have a hand in selecting our leaders. If we don’t have a say in selecting the leadership, the idea is that they are not owed legitimacy. Thus, if only taxpayers can vote, then only taxpayers have a letitimate reason to obey the law. Thus, the legitimacy of political authority is eroded.
Oooh, this has interesting implications. If you hit someone with a big enough lawsuit, then they won’t be able to vote, even if the suit isn’t criminal. Maybe you can evenprevent them from being eligible for office. Pretty soon, we’ll be like Congo, where there’s no need to vote, since everyone with money just buys as much political justice as they desire. Better yet, you can use the non-tax layers as soldiers, child soldiers even, to protect or even take away the assets of others. Hey, do the non tax payees get to have human rights too? Or do we have to buy them too? One interesting question is why should people obey the law? The Hobbesian solution is that you obey the law because someone with a big stick will punish you if you don’t, and you want someone with a big stick because they maintain an orderly society. But there is noreason that taxpayers should choose the guy with the big stick, he can dictate just as well to them too. The popular sovereignty approach is that people accept the rule of law as a social contract. We accept the legiimacy of most laws because we have a hand in selecting our leaders. If we don’t have a say in selecting the leadership, the idea is that they are not owed legitimacy. Thus, if only taxpayers can vote, then only taxpayers have a letitimate reason to obey the law. Thus, the legitimacy of political authority is eroded. There is no reason for non-taxpayers to obey the law, particularly if they are unlikely to be caught. An interesting question is what this means for immigrants. Tourists and short term visitors are protected to some extent by diplomatic relation with their countries of origin. Long term immigrants should have some kind of path to naturalization, or a policy of deportation. Illegal immigrants are a difficult case, requiring more reams of typing.
Why not just go back to the way it was in ancient Athens and have a small number of ‘citizens’ who can vote. In Athens this group was exclusively wealthy male Athenians. Women, the poor and foreigners were excluded. Over the centuries some crazy liberals have obviously distorted this beautiful and pure system by encouraging a broader democracy based on equality and tolerance for all. Wooly notions like ‘human rights’ and ‘upholding dignity’ which were originally discussed only in a joking way somehow got accepted into the public consciousness as legitimate ideals. Let’s cut the cr@p and get baack to basics. What do the poor really contribute to society anyway? And why stop with the vote? I suggest anybody who doesn’t pay net positive income taxes should be segregated into gated communities on the outskirts of town.
voter turnout is very low already so what difference would it make? and if voters keep voting against taxes the pool would continue to shrink. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a8lOfoCwXbLo
Wow. Glenn Beck’s program must have ended early tonight.
The primary goal of voting is to determine the best persons or policies to collect and use public resources. If someone contribute zero or very little public resources (i.e. taxes), why should he/she have a say how to use the money contributed by others?
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The primary goal of voting is to determine the > best persons or policies to collect and use public > resources. > > If someone contribute zero or very little public > resources (i.e. taxes), why should he/she have a > say how to use the money contributed by others? This is so messed up I don’t even know where to begin. Your premise is wrong, which invalidates your conclusion. Why the focus on federal income taxes? Individual income taxes make up only ~45% of federal government revenues? Corporations have 0 zero votes despite making up 12% of federal revenues (but let me guess, you’d be fine give corporations a vote, probably in sized based upon their tax bill?). Furthermore, payroll taxes, which you continue to ignore, make up a sizable chunk as well. I propose a basic level of understanding of civics and public policy before being allowed to make political posts on AF.
Naked, lower your blood pressure… bro. Payroll taxes are peanuts… It’s the income tax that the government uses to rob from some and give to others, which is quite unfair…
Tell me a Democratic country that doesn’t have a progressive income tax structure, please.
"The primary goal of voting is to determine the best persons or policies to collect and use public resources. " Wrong. That is just one component of a representative democracy. We elect our representatives not just to allocate resources but to make policies regarding a whole host of social issues (abortion, seperation of church and state, gay marriage, women’s rights, civil rights, equality), foreign policy issues (establishing relations with other countries, going to war), enviromental issues etc. You seem to be in favor of trampling the rights of certain groups and letting a few decide their fate which is fine for a dictatorship/ totalitarian regime but dosen’t mix well with a democratic system.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We elect our > representatives not just to allocate resources but > to make policies regarding a whole host of social > issues (abortion, seperation of church and state, > gay marriage, women’s rights, civil rights, > equality), foreign policy issues (establishing > relations with other countries, going to war), > enviromental issues etc. Ditto, Marcus. All these things cost money… why should someone have a say if he/she doesn’t contribute, or not contribute enough?
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Naked, lower your blood pressure… bro. > > Payroll taxes are peanuts… It’s the income tax > that the government uses to rob from some and give > to others, which is quite unfair… Payroll taxes are 36% of federal revenue. Individual income taxes are 45%. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm Payroll taxes are regressive, as there’s an income cutoff limit. The people who you claim “pay no taxes” likely pay a higher % of their income in taxes than many hedge fund managers, with their carry taxed at 15%.
Im all for it. Everyone who wants to contribute to Alphaseeker to move out of the US and start his own country please feel free to contribute. This is a great idea for a new country not founded on the values that Lockean philospophy helped to shape. Of course your country will soon be bankrupt as all the “tax paying voters” will vote to lower their taxes, depleting infrastructure and legal property right enforcement, or simply be taken over by a country who actually has a military. Besides the fact that SCOTUS recently ruled that corporations have the same free speech rights as citizens when it comes to political contributions, and some of the largest ones pay zero income tax, I would say that the judiciary is moving in the opposite direction of your philosophy. In the immortal words of all my friends on the right “Why do you hate America?”
When this country started only White Property Owners had the right to vote. They were the only one deemed smart enough to know what’s in the country’s best interest. I think the Tea Party clowns would love going back to a similar system where “White Tax Payers” are the only individuals allowed to vote.
DanLieb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tell me a Democratic country that doesn’t have a > progressive income tax structure, please. Lieb, there is nothing wrong with progressive taxes. Actually most countries use a combo of progressive and regressive tax structure. The problem with the US is that the tax or the proposed tax change is “progressive” enough that about half of the population are free-riders when it comes to income taxes. That’s not right… Agree, buddy?
^^^ Not true at all. Remember the payroll tax hikes by Reagan? Sales taxes, property taxes, etc.? Before you continue to sound like a Glenn Beck tool, I suggest you study civics (and history) as posted prior.
Got to run. will post later. markets moved up in the last 45 min…
^^ But at least he was nice enough to close mental hospitals and throw vets and mental patients out on the street. And start a drug “war” that has done nothing but cost us money.
Did the other “you cant vote” threads get nuked?