Should a NON-taxpayer Be Allowed to Vote?

[daVinciLite 10]

With no “skin” in the game, should someone who pays no federal income tax be allowed to vote? After all, if current trends persist, how many taxpayers will be left to pay down the record national debt?

 

A non-taxpayer can vote for redistribution with little perceived loss on their end (notice I say perceived).

 

What do you think?

 

dVL

[Tradewinds 12]

should someone who pays no federal income tax be allowed to vote?

 

All legal citizens must be allowed to vote. Ultimately all issues come down to the issue of good and evil. The problem is that most people have no idea what good is. Most peoples attitudes tend to gravitate towards their own self interests.

 

The vote is all about the balance of power. Some people will always try to gain more power for themselves. Without the vote, there is no way to balance power.

[electroniclocal 10]

Then let's also say anyone without a college degree or perhaps blue eyes or perhaps living only in NYC. Yes, lets take away the vote from the stupid masses who happen not to agree with what we may think.

[ake 10]

With no “skin” in the game, should someone who pays no federal income tax be allowed to vote?

dVL

 

Interesting question. This is a public policy debate.

 

Same question, but from a personal ethics viewpoint could be:

 

"Should someone who pays no federal income tax vote?"

[daVinciLite 10]

Then let's also say anyone without a college degree or perhaps blue eyes or perhaps living only in NYC. Yes, lets take away the vote from the stupid masses who happen not to agree with what we may think.

 

What does a collage degree, having blue eyes or living in NYC have to do with anything? There are plenty of people with those qualifications that pay NO federal income tax.

 

Amazing how people can bring race and education into every political idea.

People of a certain race are NOT smarter and people of a certain education are NOT the “smartest in the room.” In many cases educated people can be a lot dumber then usual.

 

If I hire someone for a job, don’t I get to tell them what to do? We hire politicians for a job. Maybe only the people who pay the bills should have to right to choose who gets elected.

 

At one time you had to own property to vote in the US. Of course this will never happen nor do I want it to, but it is still a curious question.

 

Another question: Can a socialist ever get elected if the people paying the bills were the ones making the voting decisions?

 

Another question: Why do so many US and English citizens get away with paying absolutely no federal income tax?

 

Regards,

dVL

[MightyMouse 12]

What does a collage degree, having blue eyes or living in NYC have to do with anything? There are plenty of people with those qualifications that pay NO federal income tax.

 

Amazing how people can bring race and education into every political idea.

People of a certain race are NOT smarter and people of a certain education are NOT the “smartest in the room.” In many cases educated people can be a lot dumber then usual.

 

If I hire someone for a job, don’t I get to tell them what to do? We hire politicians for a job. Maybe only the people who pay the bills should have to right to choose who gets elected.

 

At one time you had to own property to vote in the US. Of course this will never happen nor do I want it to, but it is still a curious question.

 

Another question: Can a socialist ever get elected if the people paying the bills were the ones making the voting decisions?

 

Another question: Why do so many US and English citizens get away with paying absolutely no federal income tax?

 

Regards,

dVL

 

Is social or economic class different than race or religion when it comes to voting rights?

Should wealthy individuals not be allowed to vote on issues that are only of interest to the non-wealthy?

 

If you need to scratch your head and wonder were the money goes, look up to the wealthier classes and not to the poor. More money is spent in this country that benefits the wealthy than money that is spent benefiting the poor. Sounds like you might have listened to a little too much conservative radio.

 

It's easy to be a fool if you live a relatively healthy and wealthy life and naive to assume that everyone who receives more than they pay is scamming the govt.

 

Personally, I am completely against paying federal taxes, but have no issue with helping a person in need of financial or medical assistance.

[electroniclocal 10]

What does a collage degree, having blue eyes or living in NYC have to do with anything?

 

 

dVL

 

That's the whole point. What does having money have do do with human rights, human dignity and the ability to play your role in your community.

 

The fact that this "question" is even asked or considered as something that could be debated says a lot.

 

Having money is an attribute just like having blue eyes or a colledge degree. As human beings in a community, deenfranchising anyone, not because of him committing a crime against the community, but because he just happens not to contribute money, quite abhorent to me. Some people make their contributions in other ways: playing music, painting, social assistance and so on. Just because I have a talent for making money does not give me the right to tell everyone how things should be in a society. In a democracy, the majority rules. Any one who doesn't like it can vote with his feet. People seem to be quoting Winston Churchill a lot recently. He said: "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

[daVinciLite 10]

He said: "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

 

I understand your point and I agree in principle, but if there are more people taking from a society then giving, that democracy will cease to exist in the near future. It will turn into some sort of totalitarian state where others are forced to “give” what they have. Cuba has elections and they have a 99% turn out rate, but of course there is only one candidate.

 

Why are you so sure all wealthy people pay taxes? Do the wealthy in Greece pay their share? I am not an expert, but from what I hear the answer is NO. The multinational GE paid very little US income tax last year.

 

You are missing the whole point of the question. It is not about the wealthy or poor telling anyone how to live. It is about fairness and the right for the “rich,” not so rich and even the poor to earn a living in freedom. Again, not all taxes are paid by the wealthy.

 

From what I see people who live on social assistance for a substantial length of time loose their dignity. With there dignity gone, they have a hard time contributing anything.

 

Regards,

dVL

[Tams 20]

I understand your point and I agree in principle, but if there are more people taking from a society then giving,...

 

Regards,

dVL

 

can anyone say that he is giving more than he takes?

 

can anyone even say, he is giving as much as he takes?

 

from the first day he was born....?

[daVinciLite 10]

can anyone say that he is giving more than he takes?

 

can anyone even say, he is giving as much as he takes?

 

from the first day he was born....?

 

Very interesting question Tams. I am looking forward to reading someone’s answer. I have some ideas but I'll keep my mouth closed for now.

 

Regards,

dVL

[Tradewinds 12]

can anyone say that he is giving more than he takes?

 

can anyone even say, he is giving as much as he takes?

 

from the first day he was born....?

 

A slave might be able to say that and have it be true. Are their "economic slaves" who are not "legal" slaves? Are there people who get 99% of the pie when they didn't make or bake the pie? Are there people who get 1% of the pie who made and baked the pie?

[daVinciLite 10]

Another hypocrite ... Warren Buffet. He may owe as much as one billion in back taxes:

 

Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes - HUMAN EVENTS

 

dVL

[MightyMouse 12]

Another hypocrite ... Warren Buffet. He may owe as much as one billion in back taxes:

 

Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes - HUMAN EVENTS

 

dVL

 

He would be a hypocrite if he were being investigated for tax evasion and at the same time saying that the rich should pay their fair share. On the other hand, he is disputing the amount he owes based on his interpretation of the tax code. That is something that everyone can do and has the right to do. It is your obligation to yourself to make sure that you pay as little as possible.

 

You are implying that he is a hypocrite because he is saying that the rich should pay their fair share and he is trying to pay as little as possible. Do you expect him to be willing to pay more than he should because of his statements? He wants the tax codes to change so that the wealthy pay more. He is not suggesting that the the wealthy should pay more than they have to.

[daVinciLite 10]

Do you expect him to be willing to pay more than he should because of his statements?

 

You bet I do. He can take all his income as salary and pay the higher rate but he doesn't because he is a hypocrite. Anything can be rationalized (rational lies) but he is still a hypocrite.

 

Regards,

dVL

[MightyMouse 12]

You bet I do. He can take all his income as salary and pay the higher rate but he doesn't because he is a hypocrite. Anything can be rationalized (rational lies) but he is still a hypocrite.

 

Regards,

dVL

 

He is paying his fair share. You are paying your fair share. His fair share is a smaller percentage of income than your fair share. No one is going to pay more than what the law makes them pay. The law has been on the side of the wealthy. That is sort of his point.

[tomgilb 10]

He is paying his fair share. You are paying your fair share. His fair share is a smaller percentage of income than your fair share. No one is going to pay more than what the law makes them pay. The law has been on the side of the wealthy. That is sort of his point.

 

Because of the graduated tax tables, the rich pay more than their fair share. A fair share is a flat percentage. And the fairest way to collect taxes it a flat consumption tax. A tax on income also gives the gov the intrusive ability to modify behavior through tax credits and deductions.

Distribution of Major Federal Taxes 2000

51% of Americans Pay No Federal Income Taxes - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

 

But to respond to the original question, "Should a NON-taxpayer Be Allowed to Vote?", if we had a federal consumption tax instead of a federal income tax, the question would be moot; everyone would be a tax payer. However, if we don't repeal the 16th Amendment, and more than half of the population pays no income tax and can still vote, the balance of voters has tipped to those who would redistribute the wealth of others. A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

 

Disallowing the right to vote to those who pay no taxes might stem the tide toward socialism, something we must do because, as Margaret Thatcher once said, you eventually run out of other people's money.

[MightyMouse 12]

Because of the graduated tax tables, the rich pay more than their fair share. A fair share is a flat percentage. And the fairest way to collect taxes it a flat consumption tax. A tax on income also gives the gov the intrusive ability to modify behavior through tax credits and deductions.

Distribution of Major Federal Taxes 2000

51% of Americans Pay No Federal Income Taxes - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

 

But to respond to the original question, "Should a NON-taxpayer Be Allowed to Vote?", if we had a federal consumption tax instead of a federal income tax, the question would be moot; everyone would be a tax payer. However, if we don't repeal the 16th Amendment, and more than half of the population pays no income tax and can still vote, the balance of voters has tipped to those who would redistribute the wealth of others. A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

 

Disallowing the right to vote to those who pay no taxes might stem the tide toward socialism, something we must do because, as Margaret Thatcher once said, you eventually run out of other people's money.

 

If you were attempting to achieve objectivity, you missed the mark by posting conservative propaganda, Both liberals, conservatives, and, additionally, tea partiers, all want to spend money. The only difference is who they want as a main beneficiary of the spent funds.

 

If you examine the accumulation of debt under the various administrations you will note that both liberal and conservatives were responsible for overspending. Percentage increases in national debt is tipped more in favor of republicans. If the wealthy, on balance, support the republican party, then they have benefited more greatly from policy than the middle and low income population.

 

In addition, the effective tax rate of the super wealthy over the last 2 decades has decreased dramatically.

 

Effective Tax Rates for Taxpayers with the Top 400 Adjusted Gross Income, 1992-2007

[tomgilb 10]

If you were attempting to achieve objectivity, you missed the mark by posting conservative propaganda, Both liberals, conservatives, and, additionally, tea partiers, all want to spend money. The only difference is who they want as a main beneficiary of the spent funds.

 

If you examine the accumulation of debt under the various administrations you will note that both liberal and conservatives were responsible for overspending. Percentage increases in national debt is tipped more in favor of republicans. If the wealthy, on balance, support the republican party, then they have benefited more greatly from policy than the middle and low income population.

 

In addition, the effective tax rate of the super wealthy over the last 2 decades has decreased dramatically.

 

Effective Tax Rates for Taxpayers with the Top 400 Adjusted Gross Income, 1992-2007

 

It's true that republicans are no better than democrats when it comes to gov spending, so don't confuse republican with conservative. My point is that a flat % tax is a conservative concept. Redistribution of wealth is a liberal concept, and a graduated tax table is one way to accomplish that.

 

Throw out the current tax code and replace it with a flat tax and then everyone pays their fair share.

[MightyMouse 12]

It's true that republicans are no better than democrats when it comes to gov spending, so don't confuse republican with conservative. My point is that a flat % tax is a conservative concept. Redistribution of wealth is a liberal concept, and a graduated tax table is one way to accomplish that.

 

Throw out the current tax code and replace it with a flat tax and then everyone pays their fair share.

 

A dramatic change like that would have many unintended consequences. It is also doubtful that we can encourage lawyers to create new laws that will have a negative impact on lawyers. I agree that conceptually it sounds good and I would certainly benefit, but I suspect that a flat tax will remain on the drawing board for a long time.

[SIUYA 11]

regards taking away the ability of a non tax paying voter....

IMHO - take such a suggestion to the extreme to see why if you wish to have a caring/fair/compasionate society, you really should never take away certain rights from anyone in that society. One of these rights in a democratic and free society is the right to vote.

Why not say to people, for every percentage of your income that is paid in tax you get a vote, that way a 50% tax payer gets 50 votes, and a 10% tax payer gets 10 votes.....you might find more secretaries having more votes than their hedge fund managers

What about companies - they (supposedly) pay taxes - do they get a vote too? and all their subsidiaries.

(arguably Corporations help set policies via lobbying anyway - better than a vote, just make sure that you can buy who ever gets voted in )

 

and given that voting in the US is not enforced, and the rates of voter turnouts at elections is pretty poor - who is it that chooses not to vote when they are given the chance - it probably is already they poor folk who pay no taxes anyway!

Ahhhh...the never ending quest for the perfect system.