JPF Home Page Forums One vote per taxpayer!

I was on another thread talking about having only the people who have to pay for programs having a say in what gets passed and I thought of this. I know I am going to get scalded for even suggesting it but... Wouldn't it be nice if only people who really pay taxes got to vote for who runs our country and or communities? One vote each for a taxpayer and his wife who pay taxes in and don't get all, or more, back at the end of the year. I would also include one vote each for people who are disabled to the point they can't work and retired taxpayers. It would change the face of our politics in one fell swoop. Of course this will never happen becuse it makes way too much sense. OK, I'm holding my ears.

Read Nevil Shute's "Beyond the Black Stump" for a good break down of how to do that. It supports multiple votes. One vote for everyone, one vote for being a property owner, one for a college degree etc.

That creates a class system. Some rich people never pay taxes, so they should not vote either! Hello! Low income earners that have enough exemptions so they get their tax back, no vote!. A bit of a nightmare trying to keep it straight.

How do you define taxpayer, John?

Everyone pays taxes - even illegal aliens pay sales taxes.

I have a simpler plan:

The PERCENT of your vote that counts is the PERCENT of your income that you pay in federal income tax and payroll tax.

Not only does it give most weight to the working guy who doesn't make enough to pay someone to get him out of paying taxes, it's a self-correcting system. If you vote to raise the income tax rate on someone else, you are giving them more of a vote. If you vote to lower the tax rate on your own income group, you are getting less of a vote.

I'm joking, but only kinda.....

Scott

Sigh. You really don't see why this would be a bad idea? Voter qualification being manipulated by changing the tax code, for starters?

At the time the Constitution was ratified, most of the states had property requirements to vote. Not only did you have to be white, male and 21, you had to own a certain amount of property. It was a holdover from the feudal, monarchical system of Europe that we left behind with a representative democracy.

Everyone is free in the U.S., John, just as free as you. And in a free society, voting is how that freedom is expressed. It doesn't matter a lick how you feel about poor people or how they tend to vote.

In America, John, everyone is created equal, regardless of how rich their family is or whether they worked at the Saturn plant that just got shut down and don't have any income to pay taxes on.

The whole history of voting in America has been toward enfranchising people to vote, which has lessened the possibility that voting could be systematically used to manipulate or to maintain political power. (You know, John, like the communists did in the Soviet Union? Maybe you could start another Web rumor and say this is Obama's idea.)

If it weren't for the principle of everyone having the right to vote, we'd still have Jim Crowe and poll taxes. We did have poll taxes to keep blacks and poor whites from voting in the south until 1964. That's 1964, John. The year the Beatles came to the U.S. Living memory for both of us.

Those restrictions weren't in place because poor white people and black people weren't smart enough or moral enough to vote. It was to keep them from having the possibility of having a say in how their government was run and the decisions it made.

You're talking about doing the same thing, only through a slightly different means.

The courts have held that voting can be limited if the election only affects certain people. So not everyone votes for your sewer district board, for example.

But federal, state and local governments make decisions that affect everyone, regardless of their tax status. War and peace. Environmental standards. Treaties that affect the economy and could decide whether people get to pay taxes -- the recent Chinese tire tariff is a good example -- what gets taught in schools, etc.

As far as "a taxpayer and his wife," women were finally allowed to vote 100 years or so ago.

Fortunately for you John, the voting rights act in 1964 also outlawed literacy tests for voting, and I've never heard anyone suggest an I.Q. test or history test or a current events quiz.

No offense. You seemed to want someone to flame you, so I just thought I'd oblige.

Hi all,

Out of all of this I like Scott's ideas the best though I guess I'll have to read "Beyond The Black Stump" before I can say for sure. I do kinda like the idea of an IQ test though. It makes a lot of sense since IQ is measuring intelligence instead of education.

By the way, I did not say anything about race, religion, or gender above? All it is talking about is contribution to paying the bills. Usually, the one paying the bills gets the biggest say in how the money is spent.

As far as literacy, I averaged reading a book a day for 30 years. Since I am working 72 hours a week now I am down to a little over a hundred books a year so I would have done just fine with the literacy test.

P.S. Have you ever had to make a decision about something you wanted, and didn't get it because you just couldn't afford it? That is the type of decisions this country needs to be making now, but as long as their voting base is telling them they have to have it or lose their votes, the politicians are going to give it to them. Again, sooner or later, the bills have to be paid. Who is going to pay them? The taxpayers...

Wow. All those books, and apparently none about American history.
Amazing.

I personally agree with the creed of the United States that everyone is created equal, endowed by the Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course in the United States, everyone is entitled to their opinions, even when they're as un-American as yours.

When the country was founded, voting was restricted by gender, race, property status, and, in a number of states, religion (no Catholics allowed).

The history of voting in America has been toward doing away with restrictions on voting, other than citizenship, not being a convicted felon and being of age. Why? Because that's what a representative democracy is.
If there are any other restrictions, you have an oligarchy, not a representative democracy.
(You know, some people are "more equal than others." I'm sure a well read man like yourself is familiar with his Orwell.)

And the notion that the amount of taxes people pay, or how high their I.Q. is or how many degrees they have or whatever would make them a group that would vote in a particular way -- or as you seem to imply would be less inclined to vote their self interest when they see it conflicting with the public good.
Well, that's just so naive, it's almost...cute.


You're right, that the deficit represents choices. The Bush administration and the Congress, for example, decided they wanted tax breaks skewed ridiculously toward the wealthy. That portion of his tax breaks almost exactly matched the money we wound up owing the Chinese during his administration up to April of last year.

And that decision was made during war time.

Of course, that was before the housing bubble broke and the banks ruptured. Then Bush and Obama and the Congress made a choice that instead of a smaller deficit and the accompanying depression, we'd bail out some horribly run and in some cases, corrupt businesses.

And Obama and the Congress made the choice that we'd try to jump start an economy shedding jobs by hundreds of thousands with a spending stimulus because for a time at least the deficit is a lesser evil.

I don't know that all those choices were the right ones. But none of them were made because poor people or people who get all their taxes back were voting.

One of the things I find a little less than “Cute” about most of the liberals in this country is that they think they are the only ones with any intelligence and the only ones who have all the right answers.
I believe that all people are created equal, then given the equal right to succeed or fail depending on the effort they want to put into their life. The only people I will take out of this equation are those that are either born with a handicap or who acquire one in life. You, like a lot of people, think everyone is born entitled; entitled to the same things everyone else has, whether they want to work for it or not. I have always been taught that if you want anything in life you should work for it. I know this is an amazing concept, but it is how I have always lived my life. My very first job was working for a local farmer at eight years old. With the money from that I got to buy my first set of clothes that no one had worn before me. I have been working, winters and summers, since then. I have been living on my own, paying all my own bills, since I was 14 years old. That may give you some idea why I get a little upset when people think I owe them something.
As far as American history, and another nice comment here, me being un-American, I think you need to look at the beginnings of this great nation a lot closer yourself. I remember what happened when some of the people in one of our first settlements decided they didn’t need to help. They were told “No work no eat!”. I also remember when some of our settlers were having problems making it through their first winter and some of my ancestors helped them through. This wasn’t something some politician made them do, it was done out of the goodness of their heart, where all charity should come from. This is something I hope you can understand because almost all of the social programs are just that, charity. This is something almost all liberals have forgotten.
You are among those who feel that I owe others money earned by my sweat just because they were born here. I disagree. If you want to give all you have earned, out of the goodness of your heart, more power to you. Just don’t expect me to willingly do the same.
You also seem to think I believe that Bush was the best president we ever had, or that I agree with his policies. You will really be amazed to learn that I voted Democrat in both presidential elections before this one. I was even angry about the hanging chads. I voted Republican in this one because I firmly believed either Democratic candidate was going to take us down the road this one is.
I really do believe you are naive if you think the people who won Obama this election were from the working class. I don’t think even you would be shocked to learn a lot of his votes came from people who benefit most from the spend and tax social programs.

I don't think anyone has said that, have they?

Kevin


________________________________________________________________
Conservatics dumber than librals: http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Just implied it very strongly...
And I hope you noticed I said most.

Conervatives are dumber that Liberals. Probably right. We have a 12 Trillion Dollar National Debt to prove it. No doubt the fox is in charge of the Henhouse. I wonder what will happen when there is no longer any pie to divvy up. I suppose the peasants will behead the queen.

Conservatics dumber than librals: http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm


http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-May2004.htm#38115.6465670139

But I think/hope Kevin put that in being tongue in cheek.

I stand by the original story -- it was on the internet!

Anyway, I think facts are way overrated.

Kevin

______________________________________________________
68.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Now that we've had our diversion, what about the rest of the post?

The 24th Amendment to the US Constitution "prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

So John, I believe your friend's idea would be challenged as unconstitutional, at least where the Federal government is concerned.

Hi Scott,

That ammendment, in general, and in particular, refers to a tax levied just for voting. It doesn't refer to voting based on whether you pay income taxes into the system that helps the country run.

John, I believe the text of the amendment is very clear: the right to vote in Federal elections "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

You can't link voting rights to the inability or failure to pay a tax, whether it's due to laziness, hardship or whatever. That's pretty much what your friend is proposing, and he'd have a hard time convincing a judge that his plan was constitutional.

Hi Scott,

I understand what the sentence reads. The law was designed to stop a tax that had been proposed to put a tax on voters at the polls. It means a specific tax on voting. In order do do anything like what I am talking about a lot of laws would be changed anyway. Ammendments have been changed before and will be changed again. This will never ever fly anyway. It is just a throwaway thought about how nice it would be if....

If someone is laid off, do they lose all voting rights?

This is my favorite line:
Kevin

_______________________________________________________________________
Democrats now smarter than Republicans: http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/democrats_may_n.html

Kevin that link on your signature doesn't figure in common sense, you could be a genius and not have common sense. . .

... but you could also be dumb and not have common sense.


_______________________________________________________________________
Democrats now smarter than Republicans: http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/democrats_may_n.html

I think Common sense and the art of manipulation factor more into politics than book smarts, And I mean for ALL politicians, republicans, independents, and Democrats.

P.S. I wasn't taking a cheap shot at you with my last post. Just fyi, I didn't know if it came across that way or not.

I'm against tying any prerequisites to voting other than being a citizen and not a felon. However, wouldn't having to be a taxpayer in order to vote exclude religious clergy? Hmmm. That might not be too bad LOL.

I'm also against taxing people based on social or economic profiles. I like the flat tax. Everyone pays tax when they buy something. Everyone gets a rebate check based on the taxes of the basic cost of living, then the poor don't have a tax burden.

Of course, this would be fair, and would remove all the political leverage to taxation, so it wouldn't have a cat's chance in a dogfight among the Democans and Republicrats in Congress.

Personally, I like a flat tax on income only, with no exemptions for anything. I think a tax on spending would only cause a drop in spending, and a lot of black markets to arise. I would also love to see a much fairer import tax that would favor goods made here and bring our jobs back.

You are right Kevin, that line should read spouse.

I still believe the people who are paying should have a stronger voice in what happens to the money. Of course, that makes sense and will never fly, but I can still dream...

Hey John:

These things are kinda fun to discuss. But, in the end, I couldn't really support the idea of changing the way we vote. Lack of income doesn't necessarily imply lack of wisdom. And, even if it did, I'd hesitate because of the law of unintended consequences.

I sympathize with your main complaint though. The fact is, it is too easy to spend other people's money. I've seen it many times in many different people - even those I would have thought would have been immune to it. Problem is, I think it's human nature.

I think a flat tax is the way to go, as long, as Mike indicated, there is a floor at the cost of living. Our current tax code seems to be based on attempts to do social engineering. I remember very well being annoyed when I was a renter that homeowners got such a nice tax break on their interest.

Of course I gladly accepted it when I became a homeowner.

Scott

Hi Scott,

I don't really think that people who don't pay income tax aren't intelligent. That isn't my main complaint. My main complaint is that it doesn't bother a lot of them to live off other people. As long as Washington keeps letting that happen, they will keep voting the people in who support it. I think if a lot of the programs that were intended to be temporary, like welfare and food stamps, to help people out until they were on their feet; really started doing what they were intended to do, we might see a whole lot of changes in the voting patterns.
I do agree with a flat tax. I just want it to be on income, not spending. I would not tax the people earning below a certain wage, but I would take away all exemptions, including those that reward people for having lots of children and punish the people who don't. I, and a lot of others have been paying a lot all of our lives to support other peoples children. Now we are even supporting millions of illegal children.

Flat tax isn't fair either. You pay for services, roads, cops, army etc. Everyone is allowed the same use of the roads, army etc.
Everyone should pay the same thing. Per capita tax is the only fair tax. Every man, woman, and child should pay the same number of dollars. Add up the cost of government and divide by the population.

There's no tax system that is fair to all people at all times. Why not tax people on how much they weigh. It would encourage people to lose weight if nothing else. LOL Only joking.

Hey Doug,

What do you do to the people that won't pay?

Hi Everett,

All we can do is try to come up with the fairest system possble, which our present one definitely isn't. The other thing we need to do is get people back to work; both those that really want to and those that don't.

Well I don't think that taxes are right anyway but if you have to have them then per capita is the only fair way.

While I don't agree that people should have as many kids as they want and get tax breaks for that, I also could not see taxing children. Give me the flat tax with no exemptions, and that will take care of the problem eventually, along with a total overhaul of our welfare system.

Why not tax children. They get the same benefits as adults, in fact they cost the taxpayer more than adults.

Well Gee Doug,
The wunderful elected officials have already run up a bill of $37,500.00 for each man, woman and child! Don't ya just love it. A new born already, Yes Already!, has a (current) $37,500.00 dollar bill to be paid. Wonder how much it will be by the time THEY reach retirement. It will cost a million dollars to be buried.

you people just don't get it, Obama is trying or should I say doing his very best to bankrupt us and make the dollar virtually worthless, and then we all democrats, republicans, independants, libertarians or whatvever you want to call yourself will be in the same [naughty word removed]-hole and at the mercy of the rest of the world just another 3rd class world we'll be,I know there will be lots of replies to my words that don't believe it but that's ok, cause if we don't stop our government now it's gonna happen, and I won't debutt any reply or argument back.If you don't believe it research it yourself as I have been doing for past 2 years.

But if the dollar goes under we will have to do what all the other countries do; go bankrupt and nationalize everything within our borders. Hmmmmmm?

I'm no economist. But if everybody is afraid to spend money we'll have a depression. Why? Because if everybody is unwilling to spend then companies can't sell their products and lay people off. And create more people who won't spend. It's a vicious circle.

When this downturn started, everybody was afraid to spend money. Not just individual consumers but companies and lending institutions. Credit became frozen.

I've read that the Great Depression happened because the government did nothing in this siutation. So our government has decided that if no one else will get the ball rolling, it will. Many people hate this. Some economists think government hasn't spent enough.

One thing is that we don't know what would have happened if the government did no stimulus spedning. I believe we would have had another depression - but that's just my belief.

Fundamentally though, I think people have one of the following viewpoints:

(1) Take our medicine now. Have a depression and work our way out of it without a lot of additional debt on our backs.

(2) Spend now to minimize the effects of the downturn but realize that we will have a lot of debt to pay off.

I can understand both viewpoints. I lean towards (2) though because I believe it will do the least long term damage. It will only work though if politicians have the will to cut back spending once the economy starts to improve.

I guess I know where you stand, Gary.

I also believe that capitalism is the best system we have so far. But that just means it has fewer problems. In particular, I think it's a positive feedback loop and is inherently unstable. Don't know if there is anything better but I do believe that we'll continue to have bubbles and downturns as long as we have unregulated capitalism.

Scott

John,

I don't think anyone "owes" anyone anything. I'm not talking about any particular policy.
I just don't think you can deny people the vote to an adult citizen for any reason other than citizenship and a criminal record -- let alone what amounts to a political reason -- and have a representative democracy.
Why? Because it also places your right to vote above politics.

I wonder what you think about the fact that two-thirds of the corporations in the country don't pay any federal income tax.
Many small corporations shift the taxes from profit on the business by making it salary for the owner.
Individual income taxes are lower, so they, you know, get all their taxes back.
So by you, these small business owners shouldn't be able to vote?
After all, they're likely to vote their own interests and go for politicians who support allowing them that option.

A lot of the biggest businesses in the country also don't pay any federal taxes.
One of their most common strategies is to "shift" their profits to subsidiaries in other countries. Then they borrow the money from those subsidiaries -- essentially from themselves -- and write the interest from the "loans" off their taxes.
Over the past decade or so, profit shifting has meant about $1 trillion less for the treasury. (Coincidentally, that's approximately the cost of 10 years worth of health-care reform under the current legislation.)

Corporations can't vote, of course, but the Supreme Court held decades and decades ago that for purposes of taxes and freedom of expression, corporations are basically individuals.

So the people who decide to take advantage of the system for the corporations they run -- erasing its tax burden (getting all its taxes back) -- and thereby increasing their own bonuses and other rewards shouldn't be able to vote either, right? They're just going to vote their own interests.

I mean sheltering $1 trillion in taxes so they can get it all back by sending it to other countries might not be as nefarious as taking WIC money to buy your kid some formula, let alone food stamps -- the root of all evil.
But let's be consisitent here.

Well,
People will continue to spend on the necessities of life. But they don't or can't stretch enough or they won't have what they need for everyday expenses. Being conservative I HATE owing bills. But some things you just have to charge because you can't pay them in cash. I like to know where the money is coming from before I commit myself to something. Hence My, and my wife's credit rating is excellent.

We have spent some extra this year so maybe we have done some to help the economy. Bought some CD's, a Battery Sprayer, and Painted a house. Now what was the question?

I firmly agree we are in trouble. So far I haven't seen the stimulus doing much about it. Even with the cash for clunkers program our auto sales are down from last year. It also hasn't done anything to create any real new jobs. What I think we need are some real sweeping changes in the way the country is run. We need to change our import laws so our industries and jobs are protected. We can't afford to lose any more jobs. We need to give massive tax breaks to American companies that bring manufacturing back to our country, and we need to tax the crap out of the ones that don't. We need to stop letting the banking industry get away with all the millions of dollars in bonuses. We also need to do what was done to get us out of the last one, create jobs doing work that needs to be done, like all the highway bridges that need to be rebuilt, or a few more nuclear plants to cut down our dependence on oil. Giving people money to buy things doesn't really help when a lot of that money is spent for products either made overseas, or made by foreign companies here. All it does is increase the national debt.

Believe it or not, Ray, you and I have similar personal spending habits.

I'm not at all sure about this - it's just an impression I have - but I have the sense that there are fewer of us involved in producing essentials anymore and that most of us are in a line of business where we produce a product or service that might be nice or convenient, but not essential. Which makes a recovery harder, imo.

Scott

Sounds like heavy government involvement bordering on socialism.

Do you mean, like, WW III?

Kevin

_______________________________________________________________________
Democrats now smarter than Republicans: http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/democrats_may_n.html

Joyboy,

Just by saying that I should go willingly along with all the social programs you are saying that I owe it to the people benefiting from them. Just because you don’t come right out and say something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Let’s just take one of things you mentioned, citizenship, as a prerequisite to voting. Someone had the bright idea to naturalize a bunch of illegals not too long ago. When it comes time for them to vote do you think they are going to vote for the candidate who will let all their brethren come over the border or the one who is going to come down hard on immigration? Right now anyone who is a natural citizen has a vote. If someone is on welfare, or collecting food stamps, or receiving benefits from a number of other programs goes in to vote, do you think they are going to vote for someone who is going to keep or increase those programs, or will they vote for someone looking for a way to get rid of as many of them as possible? Now if you just add those two blocks of voters together you have enough to determine the outcome of any national election.
I have never said the tax laws in this country are just. If your read above you can see what I think they should be. But if you add up the taxes the rich do pay you will see it is a lot more than all the other classes combined. As far as taxing companies and corporations, we have taxed and legislated most of them right out of the country. As far as the one trillion, how much have we lost in manufacturing over the last 40 years? How much more will we lose before we change our course?
You could also add up every member of every corporation and every small business owner and multiply them by a thousand and never have enough to influence the outcome of a national election. There is the difference in a nutshell. You will find they have very different ways to influence politicians, cash. I am totally against that too.
I know you would like to paint me as taking the milk out of the mouth of babies, but if you had listened you would have seen that I am all for temporary help for families in need. I am just not for making it a permanent way of life for generations of the same families. I am also against giving it to people who are slowly but surely taking over our country when they don’t have a legal right to be here. If you don’t think that is true, add up the numbers and project them across about 20 years: when all the ones we have now plus many more streaming across our borders come of voting age.

I think we all agree that this country needs to do something to get jobs back in our country. I am not talking about having our country take over those corporations, just giving them a reason to bring the jobs back here. That doesn't sound like socialism to me.

WWII did help us get out of the depression but it wasn't the only thing that did. How about all the public building and renovation projects that were done like the TVA and lot of others like it. By the way if you read or listen to the news, we may very well be on our way to that war.

In the long run all taxes are paid by the least productive (the poor). If you tax a business the cost of the tax is just added to the price of the good or service. If you tax a productive individual at say the doctor, lawyer level they just raise their rates to cover the new tax and pass it down to those who can't raise their rates. The only way to lower taxes on the poor is to lower taxes across the board. NO company has ever paid any tax every bit of it is passed down as overhead. About 80% of the price of anything you buy is indirect tax. With out the added taxes your $20k car would cost $4k. Every bit of tax the iron mine pays is passed on, then that is passed on by the steel company + their taxes, that is passed on to the car maker who passes it on + their taxes and so on and so forth.

I don't think this is a defensible statement, John - because we don't know what things would look like without the stimulus. For all we know, unemployment would be at 25% instead of 10%.

Scott

All I can do is look at the results we have so far, and they are not good. I can look at where the money has gone so far and wonder why. Unlike some, I agree with the bail out of the auto industry. I think a lot more should have been done to help them, and many others, a lot sooner and we would not have had the collapse to begin with; but now that it has happened I would rather see the money go there than into the bankers pockets. People see me as picking on this administration, but I have been saying these things for many years, through many administrations. This is just the latest. We need to do all we can to get people back to work and so far this stimulus has not done that. Again I will say that giving people money to buy things will not work. A lot of that money will be spent on things either made overseas, or by companies owned by foreigners. How does that create jobs here, except for sales and accounting, transportation and warehousing. It doesn't help much to get our manufacturing base back.