[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How would the US be different if (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 1/25/2010 8:25:35 AM EDT
|
Only the taxpayers had a say at the poles, meaning that every tom dick and shenequa that does not contribute a F-in dime to anything has no say at all!
COMMENCE THE SHIT STORM!!!! |
|
Quoted:
Only the taxpayers had a say at the poles, meaning that every tom dick and shenequa that does not contribute a F-in dime to anything has no say at all! COMMENCE THE SHIT STORM!!!! why doyou thnk the tax code is set up the way it is? This way you can pit people against one another, and whattya know. Gubment is the answer. |
|
Everyone that votes already pays taxes. Like I just posted in another thread, you can't buy gas, buy cigarettes, buy condoms, have a cell phone, or flush the fucking toilet without paying a tax somewhere.
To prove the toilet, if you are on town water, then you have to pay your water bill, which is theoretically a tax, and if you are on well water, that water was pulled from the ground through the use of an electric pump, and you pay about $.06/kWhr in federal taxes... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
landowner tax payer literate BS requirement. There is a fixed amount available, unnecessarily constrains those who live in an urban area or relocate frequently. Fail! Owning land is like owning a stock certificate in the USA.... you have to have it to vote on the board of directors. |
|
Quoted: Only the taxpayers had a say at the poles, meaning that every tom dick and shenequa that does not contribute a F-in dime to anything has no say at all! COMMENCE THE SHIT STORM!!!! Every single American is a taxpayer. Federal and state... Unless you do not own a car and do not buy gasoline, do not talk on the phone, do not shop, do not drink or smoke, etc... It's just a matter of how much tax each one pays. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: landowner tax payer literate BS requirement. There is a fixed amount available, unnecessarily constrains those who live in an urban area or relocate frequently. Fail! Owning land is like owning a stock certificate in the USA.... you have to have it to vote on the board of directors. Bullshit. The 'landowner' requirement is a relic of the agricultural society we used to have, and of an era where land was 'almost free' because the government had more of it than they knew what to do with it, and wanted it settled/cleared/etc... Now, this is not the case, and 'land ownership' is an absurd requirement that has NO bearing on how much you contribute to society. Most of the military, for example, owns NO land. And I say this, as someone who DOES own land/a house (well, right now the bank owns most of it, but I will eventually pay them back) |
| Holy Fuck, one typo brainfart and the whole fkn thread is skewed LOL... POLLS damnit... and not necessarily generalizing all taxes and breaking them down to "if the person pays taxes on their water" but more of a "if you dont take more than you put in" type of deal. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only the taxpayers had a say at the poles, meaning that every tom dick and shenequa that does not contribute a F-in dime to anything has no say at all! COMMENCE THE SHIT STORM!!!! Every single American is a taxpayer. Federal and state... Unless you do not own a car and do not buy gasoline, do not talk on the phone, do not shop, do not drink or smoke, etc... It's just a matter of how much tax each one pays. So I guess all the welfare pups that buy purple drank and snickers bars are somehow taxpayers even though we GIVE them the MONEY to buy it? 
|
|
Quoted:
Only the taxpayers had a say at the poles, meaning that every tom dick and shenequa that does not contribute a F-in dime to anything has no say at all! COMMENCE THE SHIT STORM!!!! ACORN would temporarily employ 10 million welfare rats at 1 hour per year. Sit them down for an hour and pay them to color a page from a coloring book and call it an art studio. Here's your check for $7 minus local state and federal taxes. Thank you, mr, mrs, or miss taxpayer, see you next year. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only the taxpayers had a say at the poles, meaning that every tom dick and shenequa that does not contribute a F-in dime to anything has no say at all! COMMENCE THE SHIT STORM!!!! ACORN would temporarily employ 10 million welfare rats at 1 hour per year. Sit them down for an hour and pay them to color a page from a coloring book and call it an art studio. Here's your check for $7 minus local state and federal taxes. Thank you, mr, mrs, or miss taxpayer, see you next year. I think the OP is referring more to a persons year end Federal Tax Liability. These ACORN folks would still qualify for a refund. |
|
Sorry, not every law abiding, producing, contributing member of society owns land so that is just ridiculous. Many people that work very hard don't own land, and many people that suck from the government teet own land as well.
I would say that a certain education level should be established and if you take welfare, you don't get to vote, if you get back more from the government on your tax return than you actually paid in taxes you don't get to vote, etc. Plain as that, I think our country would start working a lot better, and encourage people to be self sufficient once again. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
landowner tax payer literate BS requirement. There is a fixed amount available, unnecessarily constrains those who live in an urban area or relocate frequently. Fail! Owning land is like owning a stock certificate in the USA.... you have to have it to vote on the board of directors. This has been debated before. What about somebody that is a multi-millionaire (and pays a shitload in taxes) but reants in apartment because they live in Manhatten, move a lot or say, just got divorced? So you pay say, $5000 in taxes, but I pay $500,000 in taxes, but because you own a $30k house somewhere, w/ payments less than the rent on my apartment, I don't get to vote? What if I just got divirced and haven't bought a new house yet? I don't get to vote this year? What about military members? Most live on base. They can fight and die, but not vote? What about a wife whose house is in the husband's name? What if you are still paying on your mortgage? Technically the bank owns the house and the land, not you. As you can see, BS. I do think you should have to pay at least something in taxes before you can vote. I don't get a say in how the local country club is run because I don't pay dues. Why should our govt be any different? I also think you should have to take a basic test on govt, econ and US history. Nothing hard, real easy, basic questions, just to make sure you have at least a clue to what is going on and you don't vote for a president because he is so cool or he is a certain skin color. |
|
Quoted:
Only the taxpayers had a say at the poles, meaning that every tom dick and shenequa that does not contribute a F-in dime to anything has no say at all! COMMENCE THE SHIT STORM!!!! Read what the founders had to say about it. My semi-famous saying........."you can't let people in the stands ref. the game" |
|
The 17th Ammendment.
Direct election of Senators. Before that, you state legislature elected the Senate. Which meant that you had to know you're local government and care about what they did. And your Senator didn't need to take your calls. He was above that kind of politics. As it stands now we are only slightly removed from a unicameral legislature. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: landowner tax payer literate BS requirement. There is a fixed amount available, unnecessarily constrains those who live in an urban area or relocate frequently. Fail! Owning land is like owning a stock certificate in the USA.... you have to have it to vote on the board of directors. Bullshit. The 'landowner' requirement is a relic of the agricultural society we used to have, and of an era where land was 'almost free' because the government had more of it than they knew what to do with it, and wanted it settled/cleared/etc... Now, this is not the case, and 'land ownership' is an absurd requirement that has NO bearing on how much you contribute to society. Most of the military, for example, owns NO land. And I say this, as someone who DOES own land/a house (well, right now the bank owns most of it, but I will eventually pay them back) This. And, this would mean most inner city dwellers wouldn't be able to vote, as I believe the majority are renters. And you raise a good question: When do you really OWN your land? Should the law some want passed mean you can only vote once your land is paid for in full?
|
|
Quoted: Everyone that votes already pays taxes. Like I just posted in another thread, you can't buy gas, buy cigarettes, buy condoms, have a cell phone, or flush the fucking toilet without paying a tax somewhere. To prove the toilet, if you are on town water, then you have to pay your water bill, which is theoretically a tax, and if you are on well water, that water was pulled from the ground through the use of an electric pump, and you pay about $.06/kWhr in federal taxes... Well, water, sewer, gas, electric are all services, although they are often taxed in some way, so you have a point. What's more important today is where the money comes from to pay for some or all of those services. Anyone receiving state or federal welfare (and that includes farmers and any other "subsidies" plus those on Section 8, unemployment benefits, state medical plans, etc.) should be ineligible to vote, period. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Everyone that votes already pays taxes. Like I just posted in another thread, you can't buy gas, buy cigarettes, buy condoms, have a cell phone, or flush the fucking toilet without paying a tax somewhere. To prove the toilet, if you are on town water, then you have to pay your water bill, which is theoretically a tax, and if you are on well water, that water was pulled from the ground through the use of an electric pump, and you pay about $.06/kWhr in federal taxes... Well, water, sewer, gas, electric are all services, although they are often taxed in some way, so you have a point. What's more important today is where the money comes from to pay for some or all of those services. Anyone receiving state or federal welfare (and that includes farmers and any other "subsidies" plus those on Section 8, unemployment benefits, state medical plans, etc.) should be ineligible to vote, period. People on unemployment shouldn't be able to vote?? |
|
I think if people would just do a little bit of research before they vote, it would make things better, taxpayer or not.
Think about it, we live in a time where damn near everybody has access to information that rivals the greatest libraries the world has seen & yet people go ahead & believe campaign ads & the evening news propaganda and end up voting a damned communist into office.
Sometimes when I'm out in public I look around & think to myself "I'm surrounded by morons." 
|
|
Quoted:
I personally don't think a homeless or jobless person should have any say in how a .gov is operated. They put nothing into society, they should why should they have a say in it's direction? Because they are citizens and still subject to it. If you get fired tomorrow, does your status as a citizen not matter? Is your opinion suddenly less valid? |
|
Limiting franchise based on requirements is always a dangerous thing, IMO, because once you've set the precedent, the bar can be moved by anone who controls the process.
- How about only people who have children should be allowed to vote? After all, they've got a stake in the future of the country. - How about only people with college degrees (from accredited universities)? After all, they've demonstrated an effort to better themselves and educate themselves and may be able to make better informed decisions. - How about only people who have served in the military for at least 3 years (or something like that)? The whole Heinlein/Starship Troopers logic would apply. - How about only those people who are in the HIGHEST tax bracket? After all, they are the only ones who are REALLY paying a substantial amount of taxes. - How about only those people who have demonstrated intellectual "superiority" - by things like getting patents, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, passing the bar, publishing a book sold over 100,000 copies, having a medical license, etc.? There are lots of different ways that people can justify taking away the right to vote from various groups of people (and I guess we already do it, by not letting felons vote) but I think it's a very dangerous animal to release, because you can never be sure where it will end, and what politician or interest group will be able to capture the reigns. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I personally don't think a homeless or jobless person should have any say in how a .gov is operated. They put nothing into society, they should why should they have a say in it's direction? Because they are citizens and still subject to it. If you get fired tomorrow, does your status as a citizen not matter? Is your opinion suddenly less valid? Exactly... And imagine this for instance... Lets say some neo-nazi group was somehow able to get popular... and was able to encourage businesses to stop hiring Jews... Suddenly the Jews are out of work.... and therefor can't vote... What's to stop the government from overturning the US Constitution and deciding to kill them all? Afterall... the Jews have no say... It's one of those things that "Works great on paper" but in practice "ehhh not so much"... |