Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/28/2012 5:29:23 AM EDT
Spread the word: NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!

The notion is simple: If one does not pay Federal taxes, one does not vote in elections that send representatives, senators or the president to Washington.

The voter qualification card and the infrastructure verifying and producing it are already in place: A certified copy Ones 1040, showing at least $0.01 was paid in Federal income tax is the qualification card.

We have to do something; and although I hope we're still far from it, and know that I surely don't want it, we're headed toward civil war. We have to act quickly fro the sun is setting on the possibility of enacting this idea. We're close to the who-pays and who-pays-not scale tipping forever (forever without violence relieving it) toward the beggers and slackers holding the majority; calling the shots.

Yes, I'm skeer'd!
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 6:34:52 AM EDT

This fucking shit again? Didn't we just do this yesterday? WTF!?!
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 6:38:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RECONSIX:

This fucking shit again? Didn't we just do this yesterday? WTF!?!


Yes we did, but like Ford, someone has a better idea.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 7:54:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RECONSIX:

This fucking shit again? Didn't we just do this yesterday? WTF!?!


Did the Leftists "win" that thread?

I reckon the notion of "everyone should have the right to vote" is the Left's most coveted lie.

A lack of voter qualification is killing us. We have stupid politicians because it's what the slackers want.

Put the word out.

Link Posted: 3/28/2012 7:56:40 AM EDT
I support restricting people from voting.

First order of business: find out exactly what restrictions we need to implement to keep injun-ear away from the ballot box.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:00:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Snips:
I support restricting people from voting.

First order of business: find out exactly what restrictions we need to implement to keep injun-ear away from the ballot box.


I know these are invalid debate points, but, this is GD after all:

I pay taxes. You don't?

Where do you think allowing the slackers to call the shots is going to lead? No, seriously? Where?

Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:04:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2012 8:08:24 AM EDT by Snips]
Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Originally Posted By Snips:
I support restricting people from voting.

First order of business: find out exactly what restrictions we need to implement to keep injun-ear away from the ballot box.


I know these are invalid debate points, but, this is GD after all:

I pay taxes. You don't?

Where do you think allowing the slackers to call the shots is going to lead? No, seriously? Where?



I pay taxes as well. The post is to illustrate that for all the Arfcom masturbation over excluding only people they don't like from voting can easily be turned against them.

Edit: Now answer me this. Why should I have to pay income tax to get representation? If I buy gas, I'm paying a Federal tax. If I buy alcohol, I'm paying part of a Federal tax. If I buy cigarettes, I'm paying Federal taxes. There's a lot of Federal taxes out there, US Code, yet you seem to have a hard-on for just the income tax. Why is that, I wonder?

Edit 2: Left out FICA/Medicare taxes.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:05:43 AM EDT
No representation without military service. Make Heinlein proud.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:06:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Snips:
I support restricting people from voting.

First order of business: find out exactly what restrictions we need to implement to keep injun-ear away from the ballot box.


Easy. Taxpaying producers will not be allowed to vote.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:07:18 AM EDT
every single consumer pays federal taxes.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:11:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rangermonroe:
every single consumer pays federal taxes.


Yes.

Every single consumer pays taxes. But, if that consumer lives solely on the largess of the tax payers, they do not pay taxes with their own money.

That, I believe, is the crux of the OP's argument.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:12:44 AM EDT
If you buy something with money you pay taxes.

So, are you advocating a national, digital only money system?
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:15:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2012 8:17:05 AM EDT by Snips]
Originally Posted By SplintNicket:
Originally Posted By rangermonroe:
every single consumer pays federal taxes.


Yes.

Every single consumer pays taxes. But, if that consumer lives solely on the largess of the tax payers, they do not pay taxes with their own money.

That, I believe, is the crux of the OP's argument.


Then his criteria is poor. He wants to exclude everyone who doesn't pay Federal income taxes. It doesn't matter if the amount they get back in rebates is less than the amount the pay in overall taxes. He just cares about screwing poor folks out of their right to vote because he thinks they're all shiftless and lazy.

Edit: Read this article. It's by an actually intelligent person who use to be poor.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:17:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2012 8:20:05 AM EDT by hourglassing]
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Originally Posted By Snips:
I support restricting people from voting.

First order of business: find out exactly what restrictions we need to implement to keep injun-ear away from the ballot box.


I know these are invalid debate points, but, this is GD after all:

I pay taxes. You don't?

Where do you think allowing the slackers to call the shots is going to lead? No, seriously? Where?



I pay taxes as well. The post is to illustrate that for all the Arfcom masturbation over excluding only people they don't like from voting can easily be turned against them.

Edit: Now answer me this. Why should I have to pay income tax to get representation? If I buy gas, I'm paying a Federal tax. If I buy alcohol, I'm paying part of a Federal tax. If I buy cigarettes, I'm paying Federal taxes. There's a lot of Federal taxes out there, US Code, yet you seem to have a hard-on for just the income tax. Why is that, I wonder?

Edit 2: Left out FICA/Medicare taxes.


Because, Einstein, if you're not generating an income through wages or investment interest, then the other taxes you pay are most likely the result of the government handing you the money to buy shit in the first place.

Perhaps the detail criterion (show at least .01 tax paid) is a poor choice, but the concept is sound. Show your tax form to vote. Even if you got every penny back, you're still a producer and not a leach.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:21:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2012 8:27:01 AM EDT by Renegade13B]
How about this:
A somewhat successful business owner of a sole proprietorship pays a large amount of federal income tax for many years. After a turn in the economy, and some bad luck, this business owner losses money on the business. He survives by living off savings. Due to the way above the line deductions are set up on the federal tax return, this business owner pays no federal income tax this year. Should this person lose their vote?

Or:
An elderly person has paid a large amount of federal income tax their entire life. Having lived through the great depression, this person stopped trusting the banks. This person saved for retirement by keeping all excess funds in physical cash. This elderly person now lives off this pile of money and pays no federal income tax. Should this person lose their vote?

Even better:
A veteran returns from fighting in Iraq. After doing two tours, this soldier saved up enough money to not have to work for a few years. This Veteran decided to go to school full time and not work while living off savings acquired during deployments. Because this veteran is not working, and the way the standard deduction is set up, this veteran paid no federal income tax. Should I lose my vote?
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:22:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hourglassing:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Originally Posted By Snips:
I support restricting people from voting.

First order of business: find out exactly what restrictions we need to implement to keep injun-ear away from the ballot box.


I know these are invalid debate points, but, this is GD after all:

I pay taxes. You don't?

Where do you think allowing the slackers to call the shots is going to lead? No, seriously? Where?



I pay taxes as well. The post is to illustrate that for all the Arfcom masturbation over excluding only people they don't like from voting can easily be turned against them.

Edit: Now answer me this. Why should I have to pay income tax to get representation? If I buy gas, I'm paying a Federal tax. If I buy alcohol, I'm paying part of a Federal tax. If I buy cigarettes, I'm paying Federal taxes. There's a lot of Federal taxes out there, US Code, yet you seem to have a hard-on for just the income tax. Why is that, I wonder?

Edit 2: Left out FICA/Medicare taxes.


Because, Einstein, if you're not generating an income through wages or investment interest, then the other taxes you pay are most likely the result of the government handing you the money to buy shit in the first place.

Perhaps the detail criterion (show at least .01 tax paid) is a poor choice, but the concept is sound. Show your tax form to vote. Even if you got every penny back, you're still a producer and not a leach.


If I work a job that pays low enough that I pay $0.00 in Federal income taxes and get back $1000, but pay $2000 in Federal non-income taxes, I'm a leech?
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:23:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RECONSIX:

This fucking shit again? Didn't we just do this yesterday? WTF!?!


Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:30:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2012 8:40:05 AM EDT by Hydguy]
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By SplintNicket:
Originally Posted By rangermonroe:
every single consumer pays federal taxes.


Yes.

Every single consumer pays taxes. But, if that consumer lives solely on the largess of the tax payers, they do not pay taxes with their own money.

That, I believe, is the crux of the OP's argument.


Then his criteria is poor. He wants to exclude everyone who doesn't pay Federal income taxes. It doesn't matter if the amount they get back in rebates is less than the amount the pay in overall taxes. He just cares about screwing poor folks out of their right to vote because he thinks they're all shiftless and lazy.

Edit: Read this article. It's by an actually intelligent person who use to be poor.


NOT a very intelligent article to use to argue your point.....


If you receive more than 20% of your financial net worth through programs such as welfare, food stamps, SSI, or other incentives not paid into, you should not be allowed to vote, the exception being for those on active duty (and reserves if mobilized and serving), until you are aged out by federal standards, at which point the figure then becomes 35-40%





Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:35:54 AM EDT
What does the Constitution say about voting?

I started digging a little and found that the Constitution does not specifically state a right to vote. Some Amendments were created for the purposes of equality though. Take the 15th Amendment for example.

Section. 1. 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.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


If there is no talk in the Constitution of the right to vote...then how can the 15th Amendment even mention the right to vote? "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied" this implies some underlying right to vote that exists...and now thanks to the 15th Amendment, this right is extended to all races. So what is this previous right that is referenced in the 15th Amendment?

I am off to Google to try and find this...
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:44:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By hourglassing:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Originally Posted By Snips:
I support restricting people from voting.

First order of business: find out exactly what restrictions we need to implement to keep injun-ear away from the ballot box.


I know these are invalid debate points, but, this is GD after all:

I pay taxes. You don't?

Where do you think allowing the slackers to call the shots is going to lead? No, seriously? Where?



I pay taxes as well. The post is to illustrate that for all the Arfcom masturbation over excluding only people they don't like from voting can easily be turned against them.

Edit: Now answer me this. Why should I have to pay income tax to get representation? If I buy gas, I'm paying a Federal tax. If I buy alcohol, I'm paying part of a Federal tax. If I buy cigarettes, I'm paying Federal taxes. There's a lot of Federal taxes out there, US Code, yet you seem to have a hard-on for just the income tax. Why is that, I wonder?

Edit 2: Left out FICA/Medicare taxes.


Because, Einstein, if you're not generating an income through wages or investment interest, then the other taxes you pay are most likely the result of the government handing you the money to buy shit in the first place.

Perhaps the detail criterion (show at least .01 tax paid) is a poor choice, but the concept is sound. Show your tax form to vote. Even if you got every penny back, you're still a producer and not a leach.


If I work a job that pays low enough that I pay $0.00 in Federal income taxes and get back $1000, but pay $2000 in Federal non-income taxes, I'm a leech?


That's an issue for another argument, reform of the tax code. I think I was pretty clear in that if you worked and could show a tax form, even if you got a full refund, you were in the producer/voter group.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:45:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Where do you think allowing the slackers to call the shots is going to lead? No, seriously? Where?


If I didn't pay taxes, and people like you kept me from the ballot box, I would only presume that you expect that the government has no authority over me. Criminal laws, tax laws, property laws, whatever.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:48:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2012 8:49:01 AM EDT by hourglassing]
Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Where do you think allowing the slackers to call the shots is going to lead? No, seriously? Where?


If I didn't pay taxes, and people like you kept me from the ballot box, I would only presume that you expect that the government has no authority over me. Criminal laws, tax laws, property laws, whatever.


Interesting. I would assume it would provide incentive for you to get a fucking job so you could participate in the process.

But thanks for the insight into your thought processes.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 8:51:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2012 8:52:13 AM EDT by badfish274]
Originally Posted By hourglassing:
Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Where do you think allowing the slackers to call the shots is going to lead? No, seriously? Where?


If I didn't pay taxes, and people like you kept me from the ballot box, I would only presume that you expect that the government has no authority over me. Criminal laws, tax laws, property laws, whatever.


Interesting. I would assume it would provide incentive for you to get a fucking job so you could participate in the process.

But thanks for the insight into your thought processes.


No, it would provide great incentive to vote from the rooftops. I'm sure you understand there are plenty of people who don't want/need/aren't able to work and who are not a drain on society.

No free man should be subjected to a law he has had no opportunity to influence.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 9:17:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hourglassing:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By hourglassing:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Originally Posted By Snips:
I support restricting people from voting.

First order of business: find out exactly what restrictions we need to implement to keep injun-ear away from the ballot box.


I know these are invalid debate points, but, this is GD after all:

I pay taxes. You don't?

Where do you think allowing the slackers to call the shots is going to lead? No, seriously? Where?



I pay taxes as well. The post is to illustrate that for all the Arfcom masturbation over excluding only people they don't like from voting can easily be turned against them.

Edit: Now answer me this. Why should I have to pay income tax to get representation? If I buy gas, I'm paying a Federal tax. If I buy alcohol, I'm paying part of a Federal tax. If I buy cigarettes, I'm paying Federal taxes. There's a lot of Federal taxes out there, US Code, yet you seem to have a hard-on for just the income tax. Why is that, I wonder?

Edit 2: Left out FICA/Medicare taxes.


Because, Einstein, if you're not generating an income through wages or investment interest, then the other taxes you pay are most likely the result of the government handing you the money to buy shit in the first place.

Perhaps the detail criterion (show at least .01 tax paid) is a poor choice, but the concept is sound. Show your tax form to vote. Even if you got every penny back, you're still a producer and not a leach.


If I work a job that pays low enough that I pay $0.00 in Federal income taxes and get back $1000, but pay $2000 in Federal non-income taxes, I'm a leech?


That's an issue for another argument, reform of the tax code. I think I was pretty clear in that if you worked and could show a tax form, even if you got a full refund, you were in the producer/voter group.


Work a minimum wage job with withholding set properly. You won't pay any taxes.

This also leaves out the very good examples Renegade provided earlier of a people living off of their savings for a period of time and not paying taxes that year. Better hope you don't need to do that during an election year.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 9:18:24 AM EDT
You do realize that income tax is not the only tax, right?
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 9:23:42 AM EDT
Words alone will not fix the problem. Wake me up when the shooting starts. I'm going for a nap.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 9:28:00 AM EDT
Actually only people who don't pay taxes should be allowed to vote. They obviously aren't working and therefore have time to put serious thought and consideration into who is the best candidate.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:01:36 AM EDT
It will never happen but it's a nice fantasy.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:06:52 AM EDT
The issue is this: Is he/she a NET taxpayer? IOW, do they directly pay more into, than they directly take out of the system? We are talking cash or equivalents, not general, or intangible benefits provided to all citizens because you are breathing (military protection, LEO, etc...)

OP has a valid point: Where will it lead us if self-interest supplants all moral duties to your country?
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:31:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SplintNicket:
Originally Posted By rangermonroe:
every single consumer pays federal taxes.


Yes.

Every single consumer pays taxes. But, if that consumer lives solely on the largess of the tax payers, they do not pay taxes with their own money.

That, I believe, is the crux of the OP's argument.


Thank you. Indeed it is––of course it is.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:35:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By SplintNicket:
Originally Posted By rangermonroe:
every single consumer pays federal taxes.


Yes.

Every single consumer pays taxes. But, if that consumer lives solely on the largess of the tax payers, they do not pay taxes with their own money.

That, I believe, is the crux of the OP's argument.


Then his criteria is poor. He wants to exclude everyone who doesn't pay Federal income taxes. It doesn't matter if the amount they get back in rebates is less than the amount the pay in overall taxes. He just cares about screwing poor folks out of their right to vote because he thinks they're all shiftless and lazy.


What "right to vote"?

Originally Posted By Snips:
Edit: Read this article. It's by an actually intelligent person who use to be poor.


I didn't read it, but doesn't it support the idea? Should the idea become law, he/she would have transitioned from being unqualified to being qualified? Where's the problem?

Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:36:09 AM EDT
Everyone buys something eventually, therefore they have paid a state tax (sales tax).

It's reasonable to believe everyone over 18 has made at least one gas purchase in their life, therefore they have paid a federal tax (fuel tax).

You will never be able to say that the people who don't pay taxes, don't pay taxes.

If we want to restrict voting to responsible, productive, non-leach, citizens, we will have to go back to land owners, the only way.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:37:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FreeFloater:
What does the Constitution say about voting?

I started digging a little and found that the Constitution does not specifically state a right to vote. Some Amendments were created for the purposes of equality though. Take the 15th Amendment for example.

Section. 1. 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.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


If there is no talk in the Constitution of the right to vote...then how can the 15th Amendment even mention the right to vote? "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied" this implies some underlying right to vote that exists...and now thanks to the 15th Amendment, this right is extended to all races. So what is this previous right that is referenced in the 15th Amendment?


I am off to Google to try and find this...


Indeed. The idea opposes neither Section.


Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:38:30 AM EDT
Well, I guess I don't get to vote

I'm right wing and pro-gun, but I have alot of kids so I end up not paying.

Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:40:17 AM EDT
I will ask this again as I did in the other thread. Should a person who decides to venture out on their own and start a business and shows a loss for a couple years and does not pay into the tax system deserve to lose his/her vote.

Also, wtf do so many people want the .gov to decide who votes, they can't even read a fucking financial statement properly.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:41:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
How about this:
A somewhat successful business owner of a sole proprietorship pays a large amount of federal income tax for many years. After a turn in the economy, and some bad luck, this business owner losses money on the business. He survives by living off savings. Due to the way above the line deductions are set up on the federal tax return, this business owner pays no federal income tax this year. Should this person lose their vote?

Or:
An elderly person has paid a large amount of federal income tax their entire life. Having lived through the great depression, this person stopped trusting the banks. This person saved for retirement by keeping all excess funds in physical cash. This elderly person now lives off this pile of money and pays no federal income tax. Should this person lose their vote?

Even better:
A veteran returns from fighting in Iraq. After doing two tours, this soldier saved up enough money to not have to work for a few years. This Veteran decided to go to school full time and not work while living off savings acquired during deployments. Because this veteran is not working, and the way the standard deduction is set up, this veteran paid no federal income tax. Should I lose my vote?


I think a way to quantify that is that you have to have a certain number of years of tax payments made vs. years eligible to pay. In other words you set the bar at 5 years of tax payments and say that they have to have 3 years payments out of the last 5 years.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:42:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hugo_Stiglitz:
Everyone buys something eventually, therefore they have paid a state tax (sales tax).

It's reasonable to believe everyone over 18 has made at least one gas purchase in their life, therefore they have paid a federal tax (fuel tax).

You will never be able to say that the people who don't pay taxes, don't pay taxes.

If we want to restrict voting to responsible, productive, non-leach, citizens, we will have to go back to land owners, the only way.


There are millions of responsible, productive, non-leach, citizens, that are not land owners. Why should they lose their vote?

Gasp! There are probably many irresponsible, non-productive, leech, non-citizens that own land too. Why should they get to vote?
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:43:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By hourglassing:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By hourglassing:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Originally Posted By Snips:
I support restricting people from voting.

First order of business: find out exactly what restrictions we need to implement to keep injun-ear away from the ballot box.


I know these are invalid debate points, but, this is GD after all:

I pay taxes. You don't?

Where do you think allowing the slackers to call the shots is going to lead? No, seriously? Where?



I pay taxes as well. The post is to illustrate that for all the Arfcom masturbation over excluding only people they don't like from voting can easily be turned against them.

Edit: Now answer me this. Why should I have to pay income tax to get representation? If I buy gas, I'm paying a Federal tax. If I buy alcohol, I'm paying part of a Federal tax. If I buy cigarettes, I'm paying Federal taxes. There's a lot of Federal taxes out there, US Code, yet you seem to have a hard-on for just the income tax. Why is that, I wonder?

Edit 2: Left out FICA/Medicare taxes.


Because, Einstein, if you're not generating an income through wages or investment interest, then the other taxes you pay are most likely the result of the government handing you the money to buy shit in the first place.

Perhaps the detail criterion (show at least .01 tax paid) is a poor choice, but the concept is sound. Show your tax form to vote. Even if you got every penny back, you're still a producer and not a leach.


If I work a job that pays low enough that I pay $0.00 in Federal income taxes and get back $1000, but pay $2000 in Federal non-income taxes, I'm a leech?


That's an issue for another argument, reform of the tax code. I think I was pretty clear in that if you worked and could show a tax form, even if you got a full refund, you were in the producer/voter group.


Work a minimum wage job with withholding set properly. You won't pay any taxes.

This also leaves out the very good examples Renegade provided earlier of a people living off of their savings for a period of time and not paying taxes that year. Better hope you don't need to do that during an election year.


Revise Form 1040 to read: [paraphrased of course and not phrased to be nice] "Would you like to reduce your handouts by an amount that leaves one net cent paid?"

Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:44:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Will:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
How about this:
A somewhat successful business owner of a sole proprietorship pays a large amount of federal income tax for many years. After a turn in the economy, and some bad luck, this business owner losses money on the business. He survives by living off savings. Due to the way above the line deductions are set up on the federal tax return, this business owner pays no federal income tax this year. Should this person lose their vote?

Or:
An elderly person has paid a large amount of federal income tax their entire life. Having lived through the great depression, this person stopped trusting the banks. This person saved for retirement by keeping all excess funds in physical cash. This elderly person now lives off this pile of money and pays no federal income tax. Should this person lose their vote?

Even better:
A veteran returns from fighting in Iraq. After doing two tours, this soldier saved up enough money to not have to work for a few years. This Veteran decided to go to school full time and not work while living off savings acquired during deployments. Because this veteran is not working, and the way the standard deduction is set up, this veteran paid no federal income tax. Should I lose my vote?


I think a way to quantify that is that you have to have a certain number of years of tax payments made vs. years eligible to pay. In other words you set the bar at 5 years of tax payments and say that they have to have 3 years payments out of the last 5 years.


Even with that qualification, all three of the cases above could lose their vote.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:47:44 AM EDT
This shit again....
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:48:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By Will:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
How about this:
A somewhat successful business owner of a sole proprietorship pays a large amount of federal income tax for many years. After a turn in the economy, and some bad luck, this business owner losses money on the business. He survives by living off savings. Due to the way above the line deductions are set up on the federal tax return, this business owner pays no federal income tax this year. Should this person lose their vote?

Or:
An elderly person has paid a large amount of federal income tax their entire life. Having lived through the great depression, this person stopped trusting the banks. This person saved for retirement by keeping all excess funds in physical cash. This elderly person now lives off this pile of money and pays no federal income tax. Should this person lose their vote?

Even better:
A veteran returns from fighting in Iraq. After doing two tours, this soldier saved up enough money to not have to work for a few years. This Veteran decided to go to school full time and not work while living off savings acquired during deployments. Because this veteran is not working, and the way the standard deduction is set up, this veteran paid no federal income tax. Should I lose my vote?


I think a way to quantify that is that you have to have a certain number of years of tax payments made vs. years eligible to pay. In other words you set the bar at 5 years of tax payments and say that they have to have 3 years payments out of the last 5 years.


Even with that qualification, all three of the cases above could lose their vote.


It was just a possibility and could be tweeked. Long and short of it, something needs to be done about people who vote themselves public largess- rich or poor. I don't subscribe to the theory that just because someone takes in oxygen they should have a say in how society is run- especially with MY money.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:49:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By hourglassing:
Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Where do you think allowing the slackers to call the shots is going to lead? No, seriously? Where?


If I didn't pay taxes, and people like you kept me from the ballot box, I would only presume that you expect that the government has no authority over me. Criminal laws, tax laws, property laws, whatever.


Interesting. I would assume it would provide incentive for you to get a fucking job so you could participate in the process.

But thanks for the insight into your thought processes.


No, it would provide great incentive to vote from the rooftops. I'm sure you understand there are plenty of people who don't want/need/aren't able to work and who are not a drain on society.

No free man should be subjected to a law he has had no opportunity to influence.


The people you identify––these plenty––will have to wait until the slackers get done rioting before they can snipe the qualified voters.

How would you propose to identify the qualified voters––the ones who need shoot'n'? Stake out the polling places?

Link Posted: 3/28/2012 11:54:56 AM EDT


Wasted effort! Even if you could get this to pass, all it would take is mandating everyone pay at least $1.00.

Then all is for nothing.

If someone even proposes that there must be a minimum fee of $x.xx then I would be totally against it. Since currently I am no milionare and at some point the gov could keep raising said min tax to eliminate otherwise honest informed albiet poor voters.


Now there is some merit in on property owners being able to vote, and throughout time that has been considered if not in effect at various times.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 12:01:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By hourglassing:
Originally Posted By Snips:
If I work a job that pays low enough that I pay $0.00 in Federal income taxes and get back $1000, but pay $2000 in Federal non-income taxes, I'm a leech?


That's an issue for another argument, reform of the tax code. I think I was pretty clear in that if you worked and could show a tax form, even if you got a full refund, you were in the producer/voter group.


Work a minimum wage job with withholding set properly. You won't pay any taxes.

This also leaves out the very good examples Renegade provided earlier of a people living off of their savings for a period of time and not paying taxes that year. Better hope you don't need to do that during an election year.


Revise Form 1040 to read: [paraphrased of course and not phrased to be nice] "Would you like to reduce your handouts by an amount that leaves one net cent paid?"



Still doesn't address the possibility that they're paying more in all Federal taxes than they're getting back from Federal income rebates.
It also doesn't address the excellent retired and laid off scenarios that Renegade brought up.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 12:01:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By injun-ear:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By SplintNicket:
Originally Posted By rangermonroe:
every single consumer pays federal taxes.


Yes.

Every single consumer pays taxes. But, if that consumer lives solely on the largess of the tax payers, they do not pay taxes with their own money.

That, I believe, is the crux of the OP's argument.


Then his criteria is poor. He wants to exclude everyone who doesn't pay Federal income taxes. It doesn't matter if the amount they get back in rebates is less than the amount the pay in overall taxes. He just cares about screwing poor folks out of their right to vote because he thinks they're all shiftless and lazy.


What "right to vote"?


Not all rights are enshrined in the constitution.

Originally Posted By Snips:
Edit: Read this article. It's by an actually intelligent person who use to be poor.


I didn't read it, but doesn't it support the idea? Should the idea become law, he/she would have transitioned from being unqualified to being qualified? Where's the problem?



You really should read it, if only to get some perspective on poor people from someone who's been there.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 12:01:55 PM EDT
Let's see.... some particularly brilliant Constitutional Scholar wrote yesterday:


People want to restrict voting to people who are tax payers, not tax consumers. weeeelllllll...

That is the Poll Tax .

So all you have to do is subvert the Constitution (24th amendment) and you're GTG.





Link Posted: 3/28/2012 12:06:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gsxrmike:


Wasted effort! Even if you could get this to pass, all it would take is mandating everyone pay at least $1.00.

Then all is for nothing.

If someone even proposes that there must be a minimum fee of $x.xx then I would be totally against it. Since currently I am no milionare and at some point the gov could keep raising said min tax to eliminate otherwise honest informed albiet poor voters.


Now there is some merit in on property owners being able to vote, and throughout time that has been considered if not in effect at various times.


The property idea doesn't do much good idea. I've been living in apartments for the past 10 years. I'm a productive citizen who pays taxes, etc and will definitely be impacted by the government's actions, but I suddenly don't get any say in how my taxes dollars are spent? Heck, my family has been in this country for 300 years, but because I don't own a piece of dirt, I must not have any skin in the game.

It's a silly rural vs urban populist idea. You're denying the neurosurgeon who lives in an apartment in New York the right to vote while granting it to Cletus the Kentucky yokel, based on an arbitrary criteria.

I will say that the property idea would make me some money. My first action would be to find the cheapest, most worthless piece of property in the country, buy as much of it as I could afford, then start selling out 1/1000th acre plots to everyone who wanted to vote.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 12:08:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LowBeta:
Let's see.... some particularly brilliant Constitutional Scholar wrote yesterday:


People want to restrict voting to people who are tax payers, not tax consumers. weeeelllllll...

That is the Poll Tax .

So all you have to do is subvert the Constitution (24th amendment) and you're GTG.


http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/1638315_o.gif




You're right, better that we do nothing until we have to shoot them all. It only ends two ways.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 12:14:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Will:
Originally Posted By LowBeta:
Let's see.... some particularly brilliant Constitutional Scholar wrote yesterday:


People want to restrict voting to people who are tax payers, not tax consumers. weeeelllllll...

That is the Poll Tax .

So all you have to do is subvert the Constitution (24th amendment) and you're GTG.


http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/1638315_o.gif




You're right, better that we do nothing until we have to shoot them all. It only ends two ways.



Someone tried to dickslap me with his well used pocket constitution in yesterday's thread.

I had to take the shot.



Link Posted: 3/28/2012 12:18:14 PM EDT
Yeah, mass disenfranchisement will solve the problem.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 12:18:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2012 12:19:01 PM EDT by DragoMuseveni]
Here is a better idea.

Burn our current tax code and replace it with a FLAT consumption tax of 10%.


Edit:I forgot to add "Cut off all forms of welfare"
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top