Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
WaitForIt

Voting Rights

37 posts in this topic

Someone at work mentioned something today in passing when we were talking about the role of government in our lives and what it means to vote.

What do you think of only allowing people who are currently paying or have (in the past) paid taxes to vote?

I see a number of advantages. For one, if you have no 'skin in the game' and get all your money refunded every year, what possible right should you have to decide how revenue is spent?

Politicians would have to be much more prudent on spending as their chance of re-election would move inversely to how much taxation they promoted.

Retirees would still be voting as they contributed heavily during their earning years.

Why shouldn't those who fund government get to decide how it operates?

Of course this will never, ever happen.. but let's hash it out anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I go to the store and buy a 25 cent bubble gum, and pay 1 cent tax, I get to vote.

What would be different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea, i think he means income taxes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starship Troopers. Only veterans of military service get to vote. If you want to enlist they have to take you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this one is way out there cant wait to see where it goes if it does at all. Actually dont think any good can come from this discussion but only device and [PoorWordUsage] people off.

Gees I know there are groups out there that despise the poor but to take a step backwards to deny a class the right to vote? Whats next one has to be a christian. Why let anybody vote let it be a dictatorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone pays taxes in one way or another, even non-residents pay taxes. Every time we buy something that is assessed sales tax, we pay taxes. Every gallon of gasoline, diesel, or other road fuel comes with taxes applied. Electricity is taxed. Anyone that owns/rents property pays taxes. Alcohol and tobacco are taxed. If you license and drive a vehicles you pay taxes.

I have an idea where you're going with this and you have it all wrong. Contrary to popular belief, the wealthy pay taxes, lots of taxes. Some may not pay taxes directly through income taxes but they pay them by the products they buy, the development they finance, and the investments they make.

There are those that don't pay income taxes because they don't earn enough money in a given year to do so. Why should they be penalized for living in poverty?

I have been there and I can tell you from personal experience that I was elated when I finally got to pay income taxes again. Sounds weird but true. Having to pay income tax assured me that I was actually making money again.

So what would you propose next? Shall our votes be weighted based on the taxes we pay? The average citizen wouldn't get much of a vote. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2007 "the top 1 percent paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent." In other words, for each vote by a member of that 1%, it would take 95 votes from the rest of us to negate that vote. That would really suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a comment like that you make socialism look good! Every one pays tax in one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder - who will be on the Feudalist party ticket wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do NOT think this is a good idea. Everyone has taxes taken out, some just get them all back (Then some, but thats a different discussion about tax law)

I DO think one should at LEAST have an ID and be able to answer a few basic questions before they are allowed to vote.

1) Who are the candidates?

2) What are the basis of their differences?

If you can't answer those basic questions, you do not have enough knowledge to cast a ballot, you are following the popular opinion of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
I know there are groups out there that despise the poor but to take a step backwards to deny a class the right to vote?

I don't entirely equate this idea to 'despising the poor'. Nearly 40% of Americans have no state or federal income tax liability, so they may be more inclined to vote for candidates promising them ever-increasing entitlements. I hold this as definitely not a good thing. Who wouldn't vote to receive more 'free' goods and services when you aren't paying for them?

I see the issues raised with what it means to have tax liability and how a cutoff would be determined, but that is actually immaterial to the basic IDEA of the thread.

This is intended as a thought-activity. As I said, it has zero chance of happening anyway. Don't criticize me, debate the merits of the idea.

I do like the idea of at least requiring someone to have an ID, though many apologists will say that also burdens the poor unfairly.

Quote:
So what would you propose next? Shall our votes be weighted based on the taxes we pay? The average citizen wouldn't get much of a vote. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2007 "the top 1 percent paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent." In other words, for each vote by a member of that 1%, it would take 95 votes from the rest of us to negate that vote. That would really suck.

No, I would not favor that. Perhaps a better way to reconcile disproportionate taxation would be to eliminate the progressive tax system, but thats a whole other discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I believe that it is a responsability for every US citizen to vote. I think that it is terrible that more people voted for the American Idol than the President. That said, I do think you should have to present a valid, picture ID in order to vote. It drives me crazy to hear all of the people whining about this or that...how the govenment owes them this or that...but was so busy that they could not be bothered to vote....I tell them that if they did not vote...their opinion means nothing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the worst ideas I've ever seen on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing about voting that I think many people forget is that while it is a right it is also a duty. Unfortunately too many of us don't take that duty seriously and if we vote at all we vote not on the basis of the prinicpals for which the candidates stand but on the basis of how we think another person will vote. We put those in office that pass the laws allowing some to avoid paying some taxes but we put them there without intending to do so and then we cry foul after the fact. We've made the bed we sleep in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting perspective, but I do have a problem with it. You are taking away our very basic right we have as Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the worst ideas I've ever seen on this board.

I disagree Canon Guy.

There are dozens on here that are worse than that.

grin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone at work mentioned something today in passing when we were talking about the role of government in our lives and what it means to vote.

What do you think of only allowing people who are currently paying or have (in the past) paid taxes to vote?

I see a number of advantages. For one, if you have no 'skin in the game' and get all your money refunded every year, what possible right should you have to decide how revenue is spent?

Politicians would have to be much more prudent on spending as their chance of re-election would move inversely to how much taxation they promoted.

Retirees would still be voting as they contributed heavily during their earning years.

Why shouldn't those who fund government get to decide how it operates?

Of course this will never, ever happen.. but let's hash it out anyway.

One of the best user names I've ever seen on HSO/FM. Excellent.

The argument is flawed because, as pointed out already, there are a lot of ways the government exercises its power of taxation that have nothing to do with the income tax.

But shoot, with a username like yours, I'll be happy to wait for more. Got any tips on fishing, hunting or other outdoors pursuits? gringrin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument is flawed because, as pointed out already, there are a lot of ways the government exercises its power of taxation that have nothing to do with the income tax.

But shoot, with a username like yours, I'll be happy to wait for more. Got any tips on fishing, hunting or other outdoors pursuits? gringrin

I totally agree. I also suggest that the whole 'skin in the game' argument is morally weak. Lots of folks would prefer to abstract from global economics. Possibly to a degree were they might barter and do local exchanges to avoid the 'sin' of the economic 'game'. Mandating a 'skin in the game' social value is a path for competition and I surmise eventually war in a resource limited world.

Capitalism is expensive politics, especially when you want to pretend it's democratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Canon Guy
One of the worst ideas I've ever seen on this board.

I disagree Canon Guy.

There are dozens on here that are worse than that.

grin

Ok then, that has to be the 37th worst idea I've ever seen on this board. laugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can vote if you are a legal U.S. citizen, if not no vote. IMO, ONLY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can vote if you are a legal U.S. citizen, if not no vote. IMO, ONLY.

I'd add that you had to be alive and only get one vote per person, not per false name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yea, there is that. You would think that's a given, but ya know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be all for compulsory voting, maybe give a few groups like the Amish an exemption. We could require folks to vote before they pick-up their check(s)!! eek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be to gain from compulsory voting by someone that doesn't give a rip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same thing that you get from people that vote one way or another based on a party affiliation or on a ridiculous issue invented to divide people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least when someone votes based on the party support, they are voting based on what they believe the party stands for as a whole. It is still to some degree a vote with some idea of what they are voting for.

Forcing someone to vote by law would force some to vote whether they had any idea of a candidates views, attitudes, or whatever. In a nutshell they'd be closing their eyes and pinning on the tail.

I'd rather have someone vote party lines than vote totally and completely blind. Although there are times when one can't help but think the end result might be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • So lets recap.   Decriminalization will not reduce prison populations by a noticeable amount.    Will not reduce crime.   Will not reduce monies spent combating drug suppliers and dealers.   Will not lower the consumption rates.    - Will allow regular everyday citizens who use/possess and get caught, not ruin their lives with a crippling criminal record.   May encourage the the habitual users to seek treatment/help.      Which I have no issues with.   My issues are saying with decriminalization it will save tax payers any money.   That's my beef.    
    •   I didn't see the Socialist party listed

    • Nick they are all trash, your party included, until you figure that out you are no better than some blind Trump supporter.
    •   That was a long time ago.   The media has become far more partisan than it was at that time.   

    • You are starting to sound like a helpless snowflake in desperate need of big government to take away the burden of personal responsibility away from you. I try and take a big picture approach and not mico manage our laws based on political views outside of science or common sense.

      No one is advocating for drunk driving or murder to be legal but I guess that doesn't stop you from using wild assumptions without anything to back them up.

      All most of us are asking for is simple freedoms and choices and a government that stays out of the way. Having a bunch of drugs that kill and half of the legal and half of them illegal makes no sense. You either stand for personal freedom and responsibility across the board or you don't, picking and choose this stuff based on political leanings is about as backwards as it gets and you just end up looking like a complete hypocrite. Keeping drugs outlawed because people die is the same kind of reasoning people use to take away guns. All the while you are more likely to die from eating too much McDonalds, you simply can't outlaw stupid people or the things they do and expect that to work. We as a people need to stop trying to control things are completely out of our control, all it does is waste tons of money and time and it does a wonderful job of ruining people's lives.
    • I really don't like a president calling out news media outlets by name and whining about the media. Obama did it with FOX and talk radio and now Trump is doing it with CNN and the NYT's. It's one thing for each men's supporters to do it. But I don't recall GWB or Reagan or Carter calling out the media by name in public.   I don't buy the claim from some(nobody here) that doing such is a sign of a dictator(the same, btw, who cheered BHO doing it). It just makes a president look weak and whiny and looking for other's to blame for their own failures. Not that I'm a fan of the NYT's, but I do believe in freedom of the press even the press I personally don't care much for.   If you're an elected official, the press is supposed to be a thorn in your side
    •   This is what Del was probably talking about and yes he is right, we do have to pick a side or at least a candidate when we go to the polling booth but there is no need to defend every single move the candidate makes and vilify every single move the opposition makes.      I'm not sure what makes us think and behave the way we do, I didn't take enough psychology or anthropology courses in college to answer that question but I do know that to me it is even more repulsive than the small minded thinking that goes in to hating one sports team although they are basically the same as your chosen sports team. I can see liking and rooting for one sports team or political faction over another but the pure hatred for the opposite team is mind boggling to me.     These are the fine points of this article as I see it. Now would anyone like to have a discussion on these points?
    •   This paragraph is important because I believe that most people now when faced with a political discussion do indeed "turn off their intellect". It's the only way to get through the hypocrisy that arises when one chooses a side so completely.  
    • thank you   signed up
    • 2.27.17 Sunset Lodge Fishing Report   Hello from the NW Angle!   Ice conditions are still favorable with 20-24 inches of solid ice in non-current areas. Snow cover is minimal on snowmobile trails but are still being groomed and in good condition.   On the Minnesota side, we are seeing walleyes being caught  on shallower rock points between 20-24 feet as well as deeper mud between 28-30 feet. A good number of saugers and perch are also being produced. Black and gold have been performing very well using a variety of baits. Canada is still producing but the crappie bite has been hot and cold within the last week. Walleyes are are most active on rock humps with successful colors being, blue and white, pink and gold.   Until next week! Sunset Lodge Ice Team
  • Our Sponsors