A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise

[Lemur]

Crazed Rabbit made an interesting proposal in another thread. I don't want to derail that discussion, but CR's proposal is worth more jawing; hence the new thread. Here's the original proposal:


[O]nly half of the people pay any federal income tax. So half get all the services of the government without having to pay for any of it. Those people will always support more government spending.

Therefore, I think the simplest way to cut down on spending will be to take away the vote from people who do not pay more in taxes than they receive in handouts. A corollary would be to prohibit any business that gets more in subsidies than it pays in taxes from donating to any political causes or candidates. We'll still have people who whine for more spending, but they won't be pandered to because they can't vote.

Under my plan though, everyone who pays more in taxes than they get from the government gets to vote. Which means the cutoff would be around 50k a year or thereabouts.
A few thoughts:

This would require a Constitutional amendment, no question, and it's hard to imagine the political circumstances that would allow a mass restriction of the franchise to make it through the amendment process. So clearly this is just a thought-exercise, which is fine. Let's examine it closely.

I fear CR is ignoring the hypocrisy syndrome (http://www.predictablyirrational.com/?p=756), which complicates his premise that tax-payers are inherently more responsible than non-tax-payers.

How would we define who "pays more in taxes than they receive in handouts"? Take your average policeman. His entire salary is from the government. Same goes for a schoolteacher. These people have no incentive to vote against taxes, so they fly outside of CR's premise. Do they get to vote?

What about people who work in heavily subsidized industries? Does the farmer who gets massive subsidies to grow cheap corn get to vote? How about the people who work for him? What about truckers, who make free use of our subsidized highway system? A mile of highway can cost anywhere from $5 million to $30 million, depending on location, elevation, etc. This constitutes a colossal subsidy to the transportation business. How do we factor this into the CR proposal?

What about businesses that contract to the government? Do their employees get full franchise? Why?

[LittleGrizzly]

What about indirectly subsidised activities, as one example anyone who works for an oil company, USA spends much money and blood helping secure oil supplies and spends much diplomatic capital keeping these oil supplies open (why else work with tyants and pyscho's) another one would be alcohol and tobacco industries.. how many billions are poured down the drain fighting a 'war on drugs' so these companies can keep making profits. One more example would be the big pharma companies, again partially down to the war on drugs (buy perscription drugs rather than grow some marijuana, although it doesn't cure everything obviously) then you have foriegn aid given with a stipulation that they must buy American drugs with the money.

I think its a little too complicated, also how is this figured out ?

Over a persons lifetime ?
The election year ?
Since the last election ?

and where do things like police factor into this, for example millionaire owns hundreds of stores across america, surely part of his calculation on whether he can vote or not is the cost of all the protection the police offer his properties ? and the cost of different fire services that have his shops as part of thier area, Lemur mentioned roads, would this millionaire be charged for his large use of the roads (hundreds of shops don't forget, goods need to move up and down the country, employees need to get into work) what of the standing army used to protect (snigger) the USA surely a down and out with nothing would care little of having an army to protect his country, but the millionaire has assets to protect, a lovely lifestyle to maintain, the army is much more personally important to him, surely he should be accounted for more of the cost of the army as he has more reason to want it...

I can only see problems, reams of paperwork, loopholes and a huge amount of work for lawyers....

[Lemur]

I was listening to an economist on NPR who summed up a depressing truth: The American voter, in aggregate, will always vote for more services and lower taxes. That's just how it is. CR's proposal is an attempt to deal with this by restricting the franchise to people who feel the bite of taxes personally, but I wonder what it would really accomplish. For most of us who pay taxes, they're handled by a specialist we pay to make them go away. Very few people with multiple streams of income are competent to do their own taxes. So even though we have to pay them, it's all a bit abstract from the payer's point of view.

I give a big folder to my accountant. He looks it over, emails me some questions, and eventually tells me what I owe. I write a state check and a federal check, and I give them to him. Then I pay him for his time and it's all over until next year. How does this process make me more worthy to vote than the dude working in electronics at Walmart?

[LittleGrizzly]

I think almost all voters not just the American do, at least most western voters. Unless there is some kind of immeadiate threat most voters will. How do you change this ?

Education ? (although a simple maths class would do the trick)

Or is it that people can constantly see waste to cut which could save taxes whilst mantaining thier favourite thing...

e.g right winger wants welfare cut but strong modern military.
left winger wants military cut but a safetly net in society.

What you end up with is a guy stuck between the two groups who comprises and cuts nothing. We constantly sacrifice the long term for short term gain, and politicians can't be blamed voters refuse to take a hit for the the long term good. I don't think this would so much work to change this, you would just have a much smaller selfish group of voters (there would still be welfare and big militatry supporters among them)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

CR's point is not based on the idea that being a taxpayer will make someone a wiser or more knowledgeable voter.

The goal is to rely on enlightened self interest. If someone is paying for something, they tend to pay attention and try to get more value out of it. I think you can make an argument that this is over-simplifying, but then again, maybe not.

[drone]

Wouldn't this proposal essentially eliminate the elderly as a voting bloc? CR may be onto something, as this is the only way we can eliminate Social Security and fix the budget (per the other thread). :yes:

[Beskar]

Wouldn't this proposal essentially eliminate the elderly as a voting bloc? CR may be onto something, as this is the only way we can eliminate Social Security and fix the budget (per the other thread). :yes:

I am disturbed that people find this is a good thing.

[LittleGrizzly]

Surely though, at least a decent portion of the old have throughout thier lifetime contributed than they've consumed...

Or will it be entirely based on an election year ? or an election cycle ?

Don't get me wrong I think the grey vote is over powered and pandered too far too greatly, but removing thier vote after they have worked thier whole lives because they're not currently working seems grossly unfair....

[PanzerJaeger]

I agree in principle. We've created a whole class of leaches who are essentially government dependents. I believe the politically correct term for these people is "the Democratic Base". They will support more entitlements and more spending until America becomes Greece, and then they’ll be the first ones in the streets screaming about it.

[Strike For The South]

I agree in principle. We've created a whole class of leaches who are essentially government dependents. I believe the politically correct term for these people is "the Democratic Base". They will support more entitlements and more spending until America becomes Greece, and then they’ll be the first ones in the streets screaming about it.

I agree and I lol'd

But I can't reconcile taking voting rights away so I'd rather institute a flat tax and make sure everyone has a stake in it

[drone]

Surely though, at least a decent portion of the old have throughout thier lifetime contributed than they've consumed...

Or will it be entirely based on an election year ? or an election cycle ?

Don't get me wrong I think the grey vote is over powered and pandered too far too greatly, but removing thier vote after they have worked thier whole lives because they're not currently working seems grossly unfair....
I'm assuming for the purposes of this thread that the voting rights would be determined on a per-cycle basis. I don't really think the whole plan is a good idea, the value of services received from the government is not a measurable value. And the total taxes paid at all levels of government aren't easily measured either.


I am disturbed that people find this is a good thing.
You haven't been paying attention to the state of the US federal debt, and the fact that the SS fund is now dry. I've paid into that fund for 20 years, and I've always expected to get 0 dollars in return. If we don't kill it now, we are China's :daisy:.

[Ironside]

CR's point is not based on the idea that being a taxpayer will make someone a wiser or more knowledgeable voter.

The goal is to rely on enlightened self interest. If someone is paying for something, they tend to pay attention and try to get more value out of it. I think you can make an argument that this is over-simplifying, but then again, maybe not.

As Lemur pointed out, it's the combination of lowering taxes combined with more entitlements. According to the enlighted self interest, it should be the middle class voter, since the guy paying no taxes shouldn't have a problem rising them... That tax money also suffer from a certain abstraction, adding that many people can barely handle their own money properly and that we have considerble evidence that enlighted self interest is a myth in most cases.


I am disturbed that people find this is a good thing.

It's a population boom suggestion, combined with a crypto communist plot to bring down the current economic system. Or they didn't think this through, but I like my suggestion better.


I think I covered the complications with the suggestions in the other thread, but I will add that the lower class has often been using a very successful (for the surviviors...) method when the power dissonance is too large. Create chaos, like riots (in the rich areas) or uprisings. Gets cheaper to increase rights or lower taxes than dealing with the disruptions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Restriction of sufferage, in America of all places?

Why not take the vote away from married women, and those not of "natural" American origin. This whole proposal is deeply disturbing, and the fact that so many Orgas are giving it any consideration is, frankly, shameful.

[Lemur]

This whole proposal is deeply disturbing, and the fact that so many Orgas are giving it any consideration is, frankly, shameful.
As I said in the OP, this would require a constitutional amendment, and if you think an amendment stripping a large percentage of the population of the franchinse would ever pass ... um, no. Just no.

This is a thought exercise. We're taking CR's radical, politically impossible proposal, and we're treating it seriously, poking it from several angles and asking lots of questions. Why should this be "shameful"?

Personally, I'm still hung up on how to differentiate who's a net government payer versus payee. Tricky stuff.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As I said in the OP, this would require a constitutional amendment, and if you think an amendment stripping a large percentage of the population of the franchinse would ever pass ... um, no. Just no.

This is a thought exercise. We're taking CR's radical, politically impossible proposal, and we're treating it seriously, poking it from several angles and asking lots of questions. Why should this be "shameful"?

Personally, I'm still hung up on how to differentiate who's a net government payer versus payee. Tricky stuff.

why is this "shameful", because universal suffrage should be an unquestionable right in a democracy, especially one like America which fought two Civil Wars and had about a Century of unrest over the issue.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We don't have universal suffrage, no country does.

And there is a reason given for it, what is your reason for "taking away the vote from married women"?

[drone]

especially one like America which fought two Civil Wars and had about a Century of unrest over the issue.:inquisitive:

[CountArach]

I fail to accept the premise that decreasing Government spending is desirable. Until a convincing argument can be made for that then I think any further debate on how is completely and utterly superfluous.

Oh and I'm glad to hear that I'm a "leech" and not worthy of the vote. Thanks for that guys.

[InsaneApache]

In a play on words. No representation without taxation.

It's gone downhill since women got the vote. :laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

I fail to accept the premise that decreasing Government spending is desirable. Until a convincing argument can be made for that then I think any further debate on how is completely and utterly superfluous.

Greece.



Oh and I'm glad to hear that I'm a "leech" and not worthy of the vote. Thanks for that guys.

Do you plan on living off of the government for the rest of your life without paying taxes? From what I know about you, I assume that, in fact, you are planning on being a productive member of society. Thus, you are not a leech.

Utilizing government aid for education or short-term assistance isn't the problem. That's what it's there for. It's the people who live off of welfare programs all year and then get a nice check from the government while the rest of us are writing one.

The brilliant Dr. Sowell makes the case well, all the way back in the 80s. How far things have fallen...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:inquisitive:

A Civil War over not voting for politicians in London, then another over slavery and state's Rights, then the Klan etc., etc., until the Civil Rights movement (mostly) brought them down in the 1960's.

[KukriKhan]

A Civil War over not voting for politicians in London, then another over slavery and state's Rights, then the Klan etc., etc., until the Civil Rights movement (mostly) brought them down in the 1960's.

I got that, after a moment's pause (from the POV of UK, our so-called Revolutionary War WAS a UK/Colonial Civil War).

As we've seen throughout history, "rights" (or entitlements), once given, are almost impossible to rescind later. So, as noted by the OP, limiting the franchise is next to impossible, particularly given the entanglement of subsidies, shared resources (highways, military, etc).

Perhaps a better approach to the "what about the Receivers of Tax money?" dilema is: consider received tax money as a Retainer Fee, like a lawyer to whom one pays a small fee for routine consultations (more, and hourly, charges for specific work). So every recipient of tax dollars is a potential - and sometimes actual - government employee. Getting welfare & food stamps? I might need you to pick up trash in Memorial Park on Tuesdays. Getting subsidies for milk production on your farm? Howsabout helping the road crew filling potholes on I-75 at mile marker 27 next Thursday, near your property?

[Beskar]

Greece.

:laugh4:

"That will never work/happen in America!!! we are not Europe!!!" - In regards to concepts for the greater good, such as Universal Health Care.

"A country failed!!! we will turn into that country!!" - In regards to a completely different economical situation.

[Husar]

Excellent point Beskar, you are however overlooking the fact that the USA per definition never fail and when they do it's the fault of the evil commie socialists who want to turn the USA into another Europe(and that's something you really got to be afraid of!)...

I don't think limiting the voters on the basis of taxation and government help is a very good idea. I know a guy who was unemployed but didn't lose his faith in capitalism. And then you could find hundreds of other reasons to exclude people from voting because they wouldn't vote for the party you prefer.

[PanzerJaeger]

:laugh4:

"That will never work/happen in America!!! we are not Europe!!!" - In regards to concepts for the greater good, such as Universal Health Care.

"A country failed!!! we will turn into that country!!" - In regards to a completely different economical situation.

You're trying too hard. He wanted a convincing argument for decreasing government spending and I cannot think of a better one than Greece's current predicament. I said nothing about the United States.

[miotas]

I write a state check and a federal check, and I give them to him. Then I pay him for his time and it's all over until next year.


It's the people who live off of welfare programs all year and then get a nice check from the government while the rest of us are writing one.

Do you pay tax as a lump sum in the US?

[Beskar]

Do you pay tax as a lump sum in the US?

It is interesting, isn't it? We get taxed before we even recieve the money into our bank accounts.

[Lemur]

Do you pay tax as a lump sum in the US?
Not really, no. The most common forms of taxes owed:

Property tax for any real estate you own/co-own. This goes to local schools and government, not the state. Paid directly to the county or township.
Sales tax for anything you sell in-state. This goes to the state government and is owed quarterly. (I never had to deal with this until my wife invented and started selling health bars for athletes (http://www.k-bars.com/).) This does not include services, which fall under W-9 contractor income, so your accountant doesn't owe sales tax on her services, nor does a carpenter, etc.
State income tax. Paid directly to the state, owed annually.
Federal income tax. Paid directly to the feds, and owed annually.
LLC and/or corporate taxes are owed quarterly to both the feds and state. If you operate any sort of business you probably have to deal with this, unless you are an LLC "disregarded entity" or a sole proprietorship.

And for all of this, unless you have studied accounting and tax law, it is generally better to pay a little money to have a CPA handle the nitty-gritty, if only because this obligates the CPA to represent you if the IRS ever comes sniffing 'round your door.

-edit-


We get taxed before we even recieve the money into our bank accounts.
If your only income is salary, in other words, if your only source of money is a job you do for a company, then your situation will be pretty similar. Payroll tax, SS tax, FICA, all of that will be withheld from your paycheck. Assuming you configure your withholdings correctly, you can expect money back at the end of the year. But for entrepreneurs, the self-employed and so forth, it's a lot more complicated.

[Rhyfelwyr]

what is your reason for "taking away the vote from married women"?

It would be like giving a second vote to their husbands, and therefore be unfair on single men.

[drone]

I got that, after a moment's pause (from the POV of UK, our so-called Revolutionary War WAS a UK/Colonial Civil War).

I've always thought of the Revolution as a rebellion, not a civil war.

[InsaneApache]

Do you pay tax as a lump sum in the US?

Before P.A.Y.E. was introduced into the UK, we too got a tax demand at the end of the financial year. Must have been bloody awful.

[InsaneApache]

I've always thought of the Revolution as a rebellion, not a civil war.

I spose it was a civil war. After all, not all of the colonists wanted to leave the UK. There was also quite a number of UK born citizens that joined the 'patriots'. There is a feeling that the rebellion was really the third and final act of the English civil war from a hundred years or so before. For practically the same reason.

[Megas Methuselah]

Why not take the vote away from ... those not of "natural" American origin.

I would TOTALLY support that!

[Beskar]

I believe Natives have a tax-free status or something similar? I am not completely sure, as I have nothing to do with America.

But if so, it would be removing their right to vote with CR's policies.

[Lemur]

I would TOTALLY support that!
Bah, human beings only arrived in North America 12,000–10,000 years ago, which means we're all Johnny-come-latelies.

[Megas Methuselah]

I believe Natives have a tax-free status or something similar? I am not completely sure, as I have nothing to do with America.

But if so, it would be removing their right to vote with CR's policies.

I have no idea how it works below that little border to the south, but here in Canada, we don't pay taxes on reserve land only; but I've grown up in an urban area, so I don't really understand the full extent of that. Anyways, with the creation of the little urban reserve plots in the city, native-controlled gas stations emerged and they are very popular. Not only do they sell cheap gas (which is popular in itself), but if you have a treaty card with ya, taxes are... gone.


Bah, human beings only arrived in North America 12,000–10,000 years ago, which means we're all Johnny-come-latelies.

The earliest I've heard was 40,000, and the latest 10,000. I might have read that in an aged book (many of my history books are old things, bought from old peoples' flea markets and garage sales), but if you have some supporting evidence, I'd be willing to re-check my source(s).

[Beskar]

The French natives were the first, acrossing over the frozen north of the atlantic during the ice age, following game.

[Lemur]

The earliest I've heard was 40,000, and the latest 10,000. I might have read that in an aged book (many of my history books are old things, bought from old peoples' flea markets and garage sales), but if you have some supporting evidence, I'd be willing to re-check my source(s).
Gonna make this a quickie so I don't permanently derail my own thread (although it looks as though CR isn't going to respond in defense of his thesis, so I guess this topic's done for anyway):

Source (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_first_people_arrive_in_America): A new study published November 26, 2007 (see PLoS Genetics), which was led by University of Michigan and University College London researchers, seems to suggest that the Bering land bridge migration occurred during one specific time period which was 12,000 years ago, that every human who migrated across the land bridge all came from Eastern Siberia during that time period, and that every native American is directly descended from that same group of Eastern Siberian migrants. The claim suggests that a "unique genetic variant widespread in natives across both continents - suggesting that the first humans in the Americas came in a single migration or multiple waves from a single source, not in waves of migrations from different sources".

[Beskar]

although it looks as though CR isn't going to respond in defense of his thesis, so I guess this topic's done for anyway

Wherever capitalism appears, in pursuit of its mission of exploitation, there will Socialism, fertilized by misery, watered by tears, and vitalized by agitation be also found, unfurling its class-struggle banner and proclaiming its mission of emancipation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...If your only income is salary, in other words, if your only source of money is a job you do for a company, then your situation will be pretty similar. Payroll tax, SS tax, FICA, all of that will be withheld from your paycheck. Assuming you configure your withholdings correctly, you can expect money back at the end of the year. But for entrepreneurs, the self-employed and so forth, it's a lot more complicated.

Oh, you mean that part of the taxation process where the government graciously returns my money to me after having had free use of it for most of a year? My "refund..." What bollocks.

Aside from my peeve there, our proto-simian friend has given a pretty accurate short synopsis of American taxation.

I'd add that many states have a sales tax in place of or in addition to an income tax, and

A number of municipalities also charge a wage tax, levied not on citizens of that locale per se, but on anyone employed within municipal limits.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

why is this "shameful", because universal suffrage should be an unquestionable right in a democracy, especially one like America which fought two Civil Wars and had about a Century of unrest over the issue.

We are not now and never have been a democracy. Our founders crafted a republic that embodied many democratic principles. Many (most) of them LOATHED the idea of universal suffrage viewing it as nothing more than a semi-formalized mob rule. They wanted voters to be persons with a stake in their community, persons who would be impacted by the results of their selections for government offices and who would pay attention.

I actually believe that Rabbit's suggestion in the OP would have met with far more support from the founders than most of us today would expect. It was not at all uncommon for there to be property restrictions on voters in the early states (insuring that "stake in the community" quality) and the Constitution itself did NOT obviate such restrictions on the part of the several states. If I recall correctly, there was even some discussion about basing representation on number of voters rather than on population, but that this was shot down by the Southern states whose states had far fewer voters than people (especially when the enslaved population was included).

[KukriKhan]

I've always thought of the Revolution as a rebellion, not a civil war.

Yeah, me too. Then again you and I are US'ers. But if you pretend you're a Brit and look at a 1775 map and see the UK's holdings in N.Am. (including a buncha islands in the Gulf) our 13 rebelling colonies were less than half his majesty's assigned geography. Hence, a 'civil war' amongst off-island (GB) properties - not unlike Confederate States declaring independence from the Union; the difference being the head guy in 1776 lived in London, whereas the head guy in 1861 lived in D.C.

-edit-
Trying to stay on-topic: Seamus raises a good point about teh Founders likely being more amenable to a more restrictive franchise, as the theory was one of "skin in the game" then. But, in my opinion, the deed is done, universal franchise for all human legal residents ("citizens"), and cannot be un-done without excessive conflict - probably bloody.

[Lemur]

It's a revolution if you win, a civil war (or a revolt) if you lose, and a rebellion if you're in the middle of it and you don't know how it will end. (Kinda like that old formulation about how "treason can never prosper, for none dare call it treason if it prospers.")

[KukriKhan]

It's a revolution if you win, a civil war (or a revolt) if you lose, and a rebellion if you're in the middle of it and you don't know how it will end. (Kinda like that old formulation about how "treason can never prosper, for none dare call it treason if it prospers.")

Hee-hee. Reminds me of Catholic School, where I learned about "The Protestant Revolt". A few years later I heard about "The Reformation" and wondered what that was. :)

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am disturbed that people find this is a good thing.


Restriction of sufferage, in America of all places?

Why not take the vote away from married women, and those not of "natural" American origin. This whole proposal is deeply disturbing, and the fact that so many Orgas are giving it any consideration is, frankly, shameful.

I agree with these two completely. It is utterly shameful to have this right wing dream be considered as valid even for moment. All it is, is a proposal to take away the vote from people who live a life that the right wing people here disagree with. I have an idea, lets take away the right to vote to all of those who own another person through the enslavement of capitalism, so they dont perpetuate the economic slavery that we are experiencing in the US. OH WAIT, THAT MAKES ME A CRAZY LEFT WING NUT HAHAHAH DISREGARD THAT. Taking away the vote from people who use the government is perfectly ok because after all they are just lazy while those who run businesses are hard working and as long as they work hard at exploiting people then they deserve a vote. If any business owner was lax in his exploitation however, I would need to sadly inform him he wont be able to vote for the Republican Party this year.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Crazed Rabbit made an interesting proposal in another thread. I don't want to derail that discussion, but CR's proposal is worth more jawing; hence the new thread. Here's the original proposal:
...
I fear CR is ignoring the hypocrisy syndrome (http://www.predictablyirrational.com/?p=756), which complicates his premise that tax-payers are inherently more responsible than non-tax-payers.]

Hypocritical, sure. But more invested in how the money is spent, still.


How would we define who "pays more in taxes than they receive in handouts"? Take your average policeman. His entire salary is from the government. Same goes for a schoolteacher. These people have no incentive to vote against taxes, so they fly outside of CR's premise. Do they get to vote?

I'd say getting paid for doing a government job is not a handout. Workfare I'd consider a handout.


What about people who work in heavily subsidized industries? Does the farmer who gets massive subsidies to grow cheap corn get to vote? How about the people who work for him? What about truckers, who make free use of our subsidized highway system? A mile of highway can cost anywhere from $5 million to $30 million, depending on location, elevation, etc. This constitutes a colossal subsidy to the transportation business. How do we factor this into the CR proposal?

A tricky one. First of all, I don't think truckers make free use of our highways - what are all those weigh stations for after all? And the tax for fuel. And reliable transportation benefits everyone.

For an individual farmer, if the subsidies outweigh the taxes, no vote.

If a company makes more in subsidies (which we'll define as any and all revenue from the government) than they pay in taxes, then they can't contribute any money to political causes, etc, or hire any lobbyists to bug congresscritters for more money. People who work for them could still vote.


What about businesses that contract to the government? Do their employees get full franchise? Why?

Employees yes. Why? Well they aren't getting direct subsidies, and, critically, they are actually making something and providing a good and/or service.


All it is, is a proposal to take away the vote from people who live a life that the right wing people here disagree with.

I have no problem with some hippie type living in the woods and growing all their own food and making hemp clothes. Or with granola crunchers in the city only making crafts to sell at the farmer's market and not buying any electronics or whatever.

They could still all vote.

What I do have a problem with is someone living like a bum but expecting the government to pay for their lifestyle and then insisting they have an equal right to vote on how the money from taxes is spent as the people who earned the money.


Anyways, with the creation of the little urban reserve plots in the city, native-controlled gas stations emerged and they are very popular. Not only do they sell cheap gas (which is popular in itself), but if you have a treaty card with ya, taxes are... gone.

Here, you don't have to pay state taxes on anything if you're on the reservation. Since gas is taxed about 40 cents a gallon, the Indian gas stations will increase the price of their gas by 35 cents a gallon so it's still a bit cheaper and they get all the money that would be going to the state. I'm rather peeved. But they also sell all sorts of fun fireworks the dweebs in Olympia have banned.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

What I do have a problem with is someone living like a bum but expecting the government to pay for their lifestyle and then insisting they have an equal right to vote on how the money from taxes is spent as the people who earned the money.

This is always the key conservative word thrown around. They didn't earn their money, they didnt earn this and that. Define earn. Did manual labor? Because then illegal immigrants do most of the earning in this country but for some reason you dont want them to vote. Are we including white collar jobs and management? Well, what about the bank and insurance CEOs who got billions of dollars of bonuses, did they earn that money, are you going to take away their vote? Or what about the speculators and manipulators on wall street who simply micro manage buying and selling with a computer doing a thousand transactions a second, making a lot of money that way from the comfort of their house, did they earn that money simply by buying up oil stock and then spreading the rumor that oil is going to disappear in ten years? Are you going to take away their vote? Oh no, because that money didnt come from the government, which automatically means it had to be earned since any money gained from the free market is earned money, oh most definitely.

See CR, this is where I get annoyed. If you want to suggest an idea on making everyone who actually earned their money being the only ones who can vote, then do that and include the CEOs and speculators who pushed the market and the law to the limit. If you want to suggest an idea that simply punishes the poor and promotes the idea that everyone who gets more from the gov then they give is lazy then do that. Don't suggest the latter under the guise of the former.

Btw, we all receive more from the gov then we give. That is entire purpose of the gov. to do things for the benefit of us all that we as individuals could not achieve otherwise. We pay hundreds or thousands of dollars every year and in return we get:
1. Highways across the entire country that we can drive on at any given time for however long we want. (Blame Eisenhower for that piece of Socialism)
2. The most advanced and strongest military in the world protecting us 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. (Blame the Founding Fathers)
3. National parks that are untouched by human development for all to enjoy at any time featuring the most beautiful landscapes of North America including the Grand Canyon. (Blame Teddy Roosevelt for that Socialism)

But apparently you can only measure this kind of stuff in just the monetary transactions that the individual receives, so none of this infrastructure that supports our high standard of living, or protected wilderness that served as the inspiration of the very fabric of American individuality and the "self made man" attitude counts at all.

It's a good thing that you can always come back to the internet, the prime example of free market enterprise creating something that revolutionized human progress and our standard of living more then the government ever could....oh wait. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET)

[Husar]

For an individual farmer, if the subsidies outweigh the taxes, no vote.

But then you'd have to eat all the money you wanted to save in the first place...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...

First part has some philosophical points worthy of response, but I will table that until later.


Btw, we all receive more from the gov then we give. That is entire purpose of the gov. to do things for the benefit of us all that we as individuals could not achieve otherwise. We pay hundreds or thousands of dollars every year and in return we get:
1. Highways across the entire country that we can drive on at any given time for however long we want. (Blame Eisenhower for that piece of Socialism)
2. The most advanced and strongest military in the world protecting us 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. (Blame the Founding Fathers)
3. National parks that are untouched by human development for all to enjoy at any time featuring the most beautiful landscapes of North America including the Grand Canyon. (Blame Teddy Roosevelt for that Socialism)

1. The National Highway System was Ike's taking yet another good idea from Germany after the war. Up until the explosion of airlift capacity in the 1970s, Highways were the best way to get troops rapidly from one spot to another. It was considered good for the economy and the American vacationer IN ADDITION (which it has been). This highway system is the closest thing we have to pay as you go taxation, since taxes on fuels and on transport by weight cover a good percentage of its cost.

2. Our military is as you describe, but you cannot credit the Founders for that. They wanted state controlled militias with a very small cadre of professionals. A sizeable percentage of them wanted NO standing army or navy, viewing it as a potential tool of oppression. My problems with the military and military policy today are that we are spending too much for our defense and too little to project our power around the globe. We need to get a handle on what we want to do and fund things accordingly.

3. Land held as part of the "common wealth" has not been a bad idea.

ACIN, you need to remember that most of us conservatives do not want people to starve, do not want people to come down with dreadful illnesses, and do not reject the idea that a federal government plays an important role in things (and should). We SHOULD be receiving more from the government than we give. Government is supposed to help us accomplish those things that there are no reasonable way for an individual to accomplish. The smallest and "lowest" unit of government that can accomplish these things is the level we should want it done at.

[woad&fangs]

This form of franchise restriction would place an interesting dilemma on both young people and the elite. For the young people, they can either go to college (Can't vote for 4-5 years because of grants/loans), start working at a job which likely falls in the range of "leeches" due to no fault of their own and thus not be able to vote possibly ever, or join the military. While this would be a major asset for military recruiters, is this really the direction we want to go?

As for the "elite" who would be the taxpayers and voters under your system, they would face an interesting dilemma. Do they raise taxes on the "leeches" or do they keep taxes low on the "leeches" in order to maintain their restricted franchise?

[Strike For The South]

Which is why everyone should pay SOMETHING into the system.

People who don't pay anything in and vote to get something out is backwards logic

[Kagemusha]

So let me get this straight. If you would get in a accident and would have no capacity to work.You should not vote anymore as you are not profitable member of society anymore. If you would get a cancer and loose your ability to work you should not vote.If you would be too old to make money anymore after lifetime of work.You should not have right to vote anymore as you create no profit? Whats next? Maybe just put every citizen that is not being profitable out of their misery as they are not creating income. Maybe compassion should be put out of its misery as it is definetely not profitable?

It is far too easy to pick some group and blame problems on them, rather then to try and find a solution to a problem.

[Lemur]

If you would get in a accident and would have no capacity to work.You should not vote anymore as you are not profitable member of society anymore. If you would get a cancer and loose your ability to work you should not vote.
According to some folks, even the VA should be done away with. Seriously.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbc064Uwax4

[Idaho]

All you people who think this is a good idea - could you, like, find another planet to live on or something?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think the proposal is about a way to prevent what is seen as ruinous overspending, not as a way to punish people.

[Louis VI the Fat]

According to some folks, even the VA should be done away with. Seriously.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbc064Uwax4Shame he doesn't tell the interviewer how he really feels. Now we'll always be left wondering...



Other than that, I'm happy his beloved Hobbesian capitalism works out so well for him he now has three jobs to pay his doctor. If he keeps it up, his children might even do one better and find four jobs just to pay their bills. Fourteen hours a day, seven days a week, from the age of sixteen, until his grandchildren wonder why their grandfather left the Nicaraguan sweatshops in the first place.

[Lemur]

P.S.: If that man was a Marine, I'm the Queen of Norway.

[drone]

P.S.: If that man was a Marine, I'm the Queen of Norway.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/SillyLemur.jpg = https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/KristiAnn/norge/HMQueenSonja.jpg :inquisitive:

[Husar]

Other than that, I'm happy his beloved Hobbesian capitalism works out so well for him he now has three jobs to pay his doctor. If he keeps it up, his children might even do one better and find four jobs just to pay their bills. Fourteen hours a day, seven days a week, from the age of sixteen, until his grandchildren wonder why their grandfather left the Nicaraguan sweatshops in the first place.

He says he was looking for freedom. Maybe in Nicaragua they only allowed him to work two jobs?

Or maybe they locked him away because he always wanted to stab people with flag poles?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I got that, after a moment's pause (from the POV of UK, our so-called Revolutionary War WAS a UK/Colonial Civil War).


I've always thought of the Revolution as a rebellion, not a civil war.


I spose it was a civil war. After all, not all of the colonists wanted to leave the UK. There was also quite a number of UK born citizens that joined the 'patriots'. There is a feeling that the rebellion was really the third and final act of the English civil war from a hundred years or so before. For practically the same reason.

IA is largely correct. I hesitate to provide a history lesson to our American friends regarding their own nation, but approximately 1/3 of the Colonial Population of the 13 Colonies were loyalists, while many soldiers (like Washington) turned coats and joined the rebels. Also, the US Congress was first formed to present grievences to HM Government, not to start a rebellion. The key point is that all the people involved were essentially British, if you saw the recent Drama John Adams, you may have noticed the accents. They are essentially a varriation on the theme of West Country Yokal, leaning heavily towards Somerset.

In common with all Civil Wars the American Revolutionary War was bloody, with brother slaying brother, and though the Colonial Elite established an initially very British restriction of sufferage, the mythos of the war provoked your country to extend that sufferage continually at a rate that put it (generally speaking) ahead of the UK.

To supsequently reject the principle of universal sufferage that you have established in your Constitution belittles the entire American project, and makes that original war look like nothing but a petty and pointless quibble over taxes levied to pay for British soldiers stationed in the Colonies.


It would be like giving a second vote to their husbands, and therefore be unfair on single men.

That has always been the argument, I'm sure no one here supports it.


I would TOTALLY support that!

Are "Native Americans" US or Canadian Citizens? If not, it would seem more likely that your people would be the ones excluded.


We are not now and never have been a democracy. Our founders crafted a republic that embodied many democratic principles. Many (most) of them LOATHED the idea of universal suffrage viewing it as nothing more than a semi-formalized mob rule. They wanted voters to be persons with a stake in their community, persons who would be impacted by the results of their selections for government offices and who would pay attention.

I actually believe that Rabbit's suggestion in the OP would have met with far more support from the founders than most of us today would expect. It was not at all uncommon for there to be property restrictions on voters in the early states (insuring that "stake in the community" quality) and the Constitution itself did NOT obviate such restrictions on the part of the several states. If I recall correctly, there was even some discussion about basing representation on number of voters rather than on population, but that this was shot down by the Southern states whose states had far fewer voters than people (especially when the enslaved population was included).

I'm not a huge fan of your Founding Fathers, I don't think their support of a proposal is an accolade worth having in this day and age.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So let me get this straight. If you would get in a accident and would have no capacity to work.You should not vote anymore as you are not profitable member of society anymore. If you would get a cancer and loose your ability to work you should not vote.If you would be too old to make money anymore after lifetime of work.You should not have right to vote anymore as you create no profit? Whats next? Maybe just put every citizen that is not being profitable out of their misery as they are not creating income. Maybe compassion should be put out of its misery as it is definetely not profitable?

It is far too easy to pick some group and blame problems on them, rather then to try and find a solution to a problem.

This doesn't have anything to do with 'profitability'. Like I said before, it's fine if a person makes zero dollars; they can still vote. It's only when handouts outwiegh taxes that they can't vote.


The key point is that all the people involved were essentially British

More key is the fact that they didn't see themselves as British; the colonies had developed their own identity.


To supsequently reject the principle of universal sufferage that you have established in your Constitution belittles the entire American project, and makes that original war look like nothing but a petty and pointless quibble over taxes levied to pay for British soldiers stationed in the Colonies.

Kindly point out exactly where the constitution mentions universal suffrage.


I'm not a huge fan of your Founding Fathers, I don't think their support of a proposal is an accolade worth having in this day and age.

And that's why Britain is what it is today.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

IA is largely correct. I hesitate to provide a history lesson to our American friends regarding their own nation, but approximately 1/3 of the Colonial Population of the 13 Colonies were loyalists, while many soldiers (like Washington) turned coats and joined the rebels. Also, the US Congress was first formed to present grievences to HM Government, not to start a rebellion. The key point is that all the people involved were essentially British, if you saw the recent Drama John Adams, you may have noticed the accents. They are essentially a varriation on the theme of West Country Yokal, leaning heavily towards Somerset./[QUOTE]

I'd read that things were about 30% Tory, 30% Rebel, and 40% "why don't you all leave me alone so I can raise my family."

Washington was a VA officer, not a British Army or British Army native contingent officer. He was no more a "turncoat" than any other rebel in the USA.

The First Continental Congress was, as you rightly note, a collection of English subject lodging grievances. The Second Continental declared independcy.

Our accents were already divirging, but we were much more closely aligned with English English at the time. We have one little island in the Chesapeake where, until radio, the predominant local accent was closer to Elizebethan-style English than anything else.

[QUOTE=PVC]In common with all Civil Wars the American Revolutionary War was bloody, with brother slaying brother, and though the Colonial Elite established an initially very British restriction of sufferage, the mythos of the war provoked your country to extend that sufferage continually at a rate that put it (generally speaking) ahead of the UK....To supsequently reject the principle of universal sufferage that you have established in your Constitution belittles the entire American project, and makes that original war look like nothing but a petty and pointless quibble over taxes levied to pay for British soldiers stationed in the Colonies.

Universal suffrage was NEVER a principle enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, I think you make and excellent point that it became part of our collective mythos and that outlook led us to extend the franchise more and more. The Constitution itself, however, is relatively silent about who shall be given the suffrage, leaving that up to the several states.

[Beskar]

And that's why Britain is what it is today.

CR

It is funny that in many ways we are more politically enlightened, but still have the damned monarchy. Would expect us to be the backward ones.

[Centurion1]

^ you like your traditions. nothing wrong with that. at least the british have some pride about their history.

[Beskar]

^ you like your traditions. nothing wrong with that. at least the british have some pride about their history.

Hah, be careful with those "you". I would be happy to see the Monarchy go tomorrow. :beam:

[Centurion1]

ok well....... normal brits like their traditions, but 6'6 communist university students DO NOT.

better :tongue:

[a completely inoffensive name]

First part has some philosophical points worthy of response, but I will table that until later.
I await your thoughts on that matter.



1. The National Highway System was Ike's taking yet another good idea from Germany after the war. Up until the explosion of airlift capacity in the 1970s, Highways were the best way to get troops rapidly from one spot to another. It was considered good for the economy and the American vacationer IN ADDITION (which it has been). This highway system is the closest thing we have to pay as you go taxation, since taxes on fuels and on transport by weight cover a good percentage of its cost.

2. Our military is as you describe, but you cannot credit the Founders for that. They wanted state controlled militias with a very small cadre of professionals. A sizeable percentage of them wanted NO standing army or navy, viewing it as a potential tool of oppression. My problems with the military and military policy today are that we are spending too much for our defense and too little to project our power around the globe. We need to get a handle on what we want to do and fund things accordingly.

3. Land held as part of the "common wealth" has not been a bad idea.

ACIN, you need to remember that most of us conservatives do not want people to starve, do not want people to come down with dreadful illnesses, and do not reject the idea that a federal government plays an important role in things (and should). We SHOULD be receiving more from the government than we give. Government is supposed to help us accomplish those things that there are no reasonable way for an individual to accomplish. The smallest and "lowest" unit of government that can accomplish these things is the level we should want it done at.

1. It doesn't matter where Eisenhower got the idea from. The point is that Eisenhower a fiscal conservative expanded government hugely by signing and pushing that legislation through. Even if it is paid for in gas taxes, Eisenhower put a new responsibility on the Federal government and thus it had to expand to accommodate the new responsibility which has given expansive benefits to all citizens worth way more then the taxes we pay today to upkeep them.

2. The Founders turned their back for the most part on the idea of state run militias. Anyone with a brain recognized the failure of the Articles of Confederation, and even those reluctant and fervent in their beliefs of such limited military power succumbed when the time came. Examples: Washington with the Whiskey Rebellion and Jefferson (possible candidate for the dictionaries picture for idealist) when handling North Africa and France in the lead up to the War of 1812.

Other then that, I agree with the problems on defense spending. Decrease the size of the military and get rid of the expensive bases everywhere and instead fund every possible avenue of Research and Development. Our enemies are no longer governments with large armies and even to those who claim that war with China is on our doorstep (which is impossible if you even look at the economic situation the two have with each other) they have to recognize that what makes American military the best is not its size but its technological superiority.

3. I'm glad to see you are reasonable.

I understand fully that there are conservatives that are completely reasonable and have valid points such as you, (believe it or not I used to subscribe to exactly what you are saying and was thinking once of joining the Ron Paul wagon) but no longer can you say that "most" conservatives are like that. The conservatives of today are those you see in the Tea Parties, people who are unhappy with their lives who have been told that it is because of government, who shout slogans they have heard repeated over and over again by Fox News, who associate with those who have terrible and racist posters of Obama as Hitler and Stalin and as a Tribal Leader of an indigenous African culture. That is conservatism of today, William F. Buckley is dead and his days are long gone.

The conservative ideology is broken and its proponents in the mainstream all seem to be Dick Cheney and the other big neo-cons or the "new wave" of Tea Parties waving offensive signs and showing ignorance and hostility when questioned about details. Obama and the Democrats are the only ones attempting to tackle the problems that need to be fixed while Republicans sit and shout no in unison offering no solutions of their own. This is no longer 1776, our government responds and listens to us when we demand it, and the majority of people live in urban areas and are highly specialized in one field, no longer able to function as an independent individual on the distant lands of Ohio or them new territories west of the mighty Mississippi. It's time we grow up and recognize that social structure is entirely gray and never black and white when we are talking about "getting more gov. handouts then paying back in taxes" and instead of suggesting removing the right to vote to those we disagree with "for the good of the countries fiscal responsibility" lets brainstorm some ideas on how to reform welfare to make sure its only giving to those who actually need it better then before, or even gasp recognize that life doesnt work exactly how you want it and that yes, there will always be some loophole where people abuse the system. As long as it is checked at kept at a minimum, then we should move on to more important things.

[pevergreen]

You guys need a much simpler tax system, like the Australian one. :yes:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WndWM71-jSQ

See, GST is simple!

[Husar]

This doesn't have anything to do with 'profitability'. Like I said before, it's fine if a person makes zero dollars; they can still vote. It's only when handouts outwiegh taxes that they can't vote.

How much bureacracy would it take to figure out how much a person generates in tax money though? There's not just income tax, there's also value added tax, sometimes liquor tax, tax on fuel, tax on this, tax on that, everybody would have to send in their bills and recipes for the government to check on all the taxes they paid over a certain period and that would require a lot of bureacracy which I thought you think costs a lot of money and is a bad thing in general?
And then the people Kage mentions could hardly pay more taxes than they get in handouts as they would have to live from handouts alone, more or less. Aperson that makes zero dollars can hardly pay more taxes than zero, right? Now a person getting a handout of 2000$ a month can hardly pay more taxes than 2000$ right? So anyone who cannot work, even if it is not their own fault, would be excluded from voting as I see it. Or maybe you can show me how a person with zero job income can survive and pay more taxes than they receive in handouts?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

More key is the fact that they didn't see themselves as British; the colonies had developed their own identity.

I dissagree, the fact they complained about taxation without representation and formed a Congree to present grievences to London proves you wrong. Americans became different through rebellion, rather than rebelling because they were different.


Kindly point out exactly where the constitution mentions universal suffrage.

Your Constitution has been ammended to establish that race, gender, property qualifications, wealth, ancestry etc., cannot be used to restrict sufferage.


And that's why Britain is what it is today.

CR

A nation with a democratically elected government, secular liberty, freedom of speech, peace, and the rule of law?

Not to mention a working health service.


I'd read that things were about 30% Tory, 30% Rebel, and 40% "why don't you all leave me alone so I can raise my family."

That's pretty much the defnition of a Civil War then, isn't it?


Washington was a VA officer, not a British Army or British Army native contingent officer. He was no more a "turncoat" than any other rebel in the USA.

His commission might have been in a Colonial militia rather than in a British Regiment of Foot, but he was still clearly a British soldier, who fought the French Canadians and served British generals. He did turn coats when he fought against the British.

Why he chose to do so is a different issue.


Universal suffrage was NEVER a principle enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, I think you make and excellent point that it became part of our collective mythos and that outlook led us to extend the franchise more and more. The Constitution itself, however, is relatively silent about who shall be given the suffrage, leaving that up to the several states.

Your Constitution has since been ammended, what you have suggested in this thread is a reversal of that extension of sufferage.

[KukriKhan]

I guess what's at the heart of CR's "pay to vote" proposal (since I assume he has good intentions, not bad) is not so much restricting the vote; that would be an unintended side-effect. What I think he seeks, is a valuation of the vote by the citizenry, some way to better establish more of a tendancy to cherish and use wisely this right. And this proposal seeks to establish that voting wisdom by mandating more "skin in the game" on the part of the citizenry. Basically: "If it's YOUR money (taxes) being spent that is under discussion, you'd naturally be inclined to be more frugal." vs "It's federal money; let's toss a bit there and there and over there too.".

[Tellos Athenaios]

A good way to go about that is establish a totalitarian regime, oppress some masses and then have a revolution and establish a democracy. That usually does impart a sense of importance of the ballot box on the citizens. ... :juggle:

Anyway, complicated quid-pro-quo based schemes do not fundamentally work here (there are too many practical complications in assessing the quo, for instance would you need to include charity work as essentially giving back to the community thus supporting/repaying your government/community?); and you will only serve as the high road to political suicide (if not to being lynched by an angry mob or assassinated) for the politician to propose it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is always the key conservative word thrown around. They didn't earn their money, they didnt earn this and that. Define earn. Did manual labor? Because then illegal immigrants do most of the earning in this country but for some reason you dont want them to vote. Are we including white collar jobs and management? Well, what about the bank and insurance CEOs who got billions of dollars of bonuses, did they earn that money, are you going to take away their vote? Or what about the speculators and manipulators on wall street who simply micro manage buying and selling with a computer doing a thousand transactions a second, making a lot of money that way from the comfort of their house, did they earn that money simply by buying up oil stock and then spreading the rumor that oil is going to disappear in ten years? Are you going to take away their vote? Oh no, because that money didnt come from the government, which automatically means it had to be earned since any money gained from the free market is earned money, oh most definitely.

See CR, this is where I get annoyed. If you want to suggest an idea on making everyone who actually earned their money being the only ones who can vote, then do that and include the CEOs and speculators who pushed the market and the law to the limit. If you want to suggest an idea that simply punishes the poor and promotes the idea that everyone who gets more from the gov then they give is lazy then do that. Don't suggest the latter under the guise of the former.

Well, as CR notes somewhere in one of his responses, he was not saying someone had to earn money to vote, simply that they had to receive equal to or less from the government than they earned.

The point is NOT to castigate those receiving government funding as "lazy," but to disallow the vote to those with a demonstratable personal interest in government payouts as it would make it too easy for some political party/coalition to buy votes and retain power. I suspect that CR is hoping that self interest would cause those on the dole to try to get off that dole so as to be able to exercise the suffrage. The U.S. Constitution, in its current form, does not allow voting for federal office to be limited in this fashion.

You also seem to be "under-whelmed" by the means many individuals choose to seek wealth in a service/financial economy. I have a belief in the value of capitalism and the market (albeit regulated to minimize fraud) as the best available adjudicator of who "wins" and "loses." I do not believe that it would be hard to functionally define income for this suffrage approach. You can certainly disagree with it on a "rights" level, but we've had a large arm of government (the IRS) defining income for some time.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, as CR notes somewhere in one of his responses, he was not saying someone had to earn money to vote, simply that they had to receive equal to or less from the government than they earned.
That's cool. Again, answer my original post by answering what "earned" means. How does one "earn" the money and in what ways does one "not earn" money?



The point is NOT to castigate those receiving government funding as "lazy," but to disallow the vote to those with a demonstratable personal interest in government payouts as it would make it too easy for some political party/coalition to buy votes and retain power. I suspect that CR is hoping that self interest would cause those on the dole to try to get off that dole so as to be able to exercise the suffrage. The U.S. Constitution, in its current form, does not allow voting for federal office to be limited in this fashion.
How about instead of punishing those who are simply working in their own self interest when it comes to the gov. buying their interest (which I thought was prided among conservatives? oh wait, this is gov. so for some reason that is unacceptable while CEOs of banks who did on a scale of a 1000 times more magnitude are simply "taking risks" in the market) you make it so the gov. cant buy the publics interest by putting stricter limits on what goes into a bill or even better imo, take that idea of revoking the 17th amendment (direct election of senators) which i agree with and then have it so that all financial bills must be presented in the Senate only instead of the House only.



You also seem to be "under-whelmed" by the means many individuals choose to seek wealth in a service/financial economy. I have a belief in the value of capitalism and the market (albeit regulated to minimize fraud) as the best available adjudicator of who "wins" and "loses." I do not believe that it would be hard to functionally define income for this suffrage approach. You can certainly disagree with it on a "rights" level, but we've had a large arm of government (the IRS) defining income for some time.

Not really in regards to that first sentence. I'm just "under-whelmed" with how the top executives at many major banks and insurance companies operated to get some large sums of money (betting against themselves while buying up and selling crappy bundles of loans while saying they were certified good buys). I don't have a "belief" in the market, that is just as blinding as a belief in just about anything. I know the positives and benefits capitalism and free markets bring to the public and the world at large but I also recognize its many major cons and detriments to the public. And I don't really care about we define income, my entire beginning of the post was about defining "earned".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The point is NOT to castigate those receiving government funding as "lazy," but to disallow the vote to those with a demonstratable personal interest in government payouts as it would make it too easy for some political party/coalition to buy votes and retain power. I suspect that CR is hoping that self interest would cause those on the dole to try to get off that dole so as to be able to exercise the suffrage. The U.S. Constitution, in its current form, does not allow voting for federal office to be limited in this fashion.

This whole idea assumes that only those recieving a net benefit from the government can be "bought". This is demonstrably untrue, not only does almost everyone recieve a net benefit in infastructure, etc. but the votes of the most wealthy can still be "bought" as well. David Cameron has said he will cut inheritence tax, so that's part of the reason Banquo is voting for him (as is my Uncle).

Two men in the UK's highest tax band.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The difference there is that Banquo and others paying high taxes still contribute more to government coffers than they get in subsidies.

When a political party tries to buy off the poor, then the governments spends much more on those people than it takes in. So, indeed, everyone can be bought, but buying off the poor leads to debt and deficits.

Also, Banquo mentioned a desire to see the inheritance tax reduced because paying it requires selling off assets and firing employees - ie making the less fortunate even less fortunate.

CR

[Husar]

So, indeed, everyone can be bought, but buying off the poor leads to debt and deficits.

So does buying off the rich, unless you also spend less, spending less on the poor for example would be an option, in the end the poor get almost nothing and they can't do anything about it because they cannot vote. So they become criminals for example. Then you have to fight criminality and that costs a lot of money....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The difference there is that Banquo and others paying high taxes still contribute more to government coffers than they get in subsidies.

When a political party tries to buy off the poor, then the governments spends much more on those people than it takes in. So, indeed, everyone can be bought, but buying off the poor leads to debt and deficits.

Also, Banquo mentioned a desire to see the inheritance tax reduced because paying it requires selling off assets and firing employees - ie making the less fortunate even less fortunate.

CR

So it's ok to be bought off if you're Rich?

Long live the American Dream!

Many poor people contribute, just not fiscally. What about the low-wage, state-employed dustman that takes out your rubbish. You'd be pretty screwed without him, but you think he shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Beskar]

Reminds me of the Heinz's dilemna.


A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it's ok to be bought off if you're Rich?

Long live the American Dream!

Many poor people contribute, just not fiscally. What about the low-wage, state-employed dustman that takes out your rubbish. You'd be pretty screwed without him, but you think he shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Garbagemen in the US are generally paid a decent wage, and by private (state contracted) companies as well.

As for people being 'bought off' by the government ; it's not okay, but it is a fact of life, and at least with rich people they're still net contributors to the government. And reducing the estate tax helps more than just the rich.


Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Definitely.

One thing about your scenario, what's to stop companies from simply producing the drug as well? And why does the druggist refuse to be paid later? Why does he not consider that charging the maximum people will pay is not always the most profitable way? IN a free market, other companies would have seen the economic profit the druggist was making and entered the market themselves.

It's a very arbitrary scenario. Also, the druggist didn't charge ten times what it cost him to produce the drug; the drug was only ten times as expensive as the materials. Labor, various overhead costs (lab equipment, power, infrastructure, etc.), would have made the drug more expensive than $200 to produce.

CR

[Strike For The South]

I leave cases of beer for my garbage men.

We throw away allot of things, probably some that we shouldnt

[Beskar]

Definitely.

One thing about your scenario, what's to stop companies from simply producing the drug as well? And why does the druggist refuse to be paid later? Why does he not consider that charging the maximum people will pay is not always the most profitable way? IN a free market, other companies would have seen the economic profit the druggist was making and entered the market themselves.

It's a very arbitrary scenario. Also, the druggist didn't charge ten times what it cost him to produce the drug; the drug was only ten times as expensive as the materials. Labor, various overhead costs (lab equipment, power, infrastructure, etc.), would have made the drug more expensive than $200 to produce.

CR

I copy and pasted the scenario, but you can apply it to the real world. People cannot afford the healthcare, because the pharmacies charge people more money than they can pay (obviously upper middle class and above can pay). So Heinz cannot afford the drug, and the companies have it patented (don't forget about that), simply don't care, as they want to get as much bang for their buck as they can.

Especially when you see the drug prices in America, compared to lets say Canada. Because Canada forces the companies to stop ripping people off, the companies end up selling it for far cheaper in Canada, because they can still get the profit.

As much as your intentions for a free market you have idealised to occur, the world doesn't work that way. People are greedy and selfish and they don't care if Heinz dies in a ditch along with his wife. The corperate CEO shrugs his shoulder and brags about his profit margins.

While you may feel I am an idealist, in many ways, I am and accept that. Unfortunately, your Free Market dream in many ways is more of a pipe-line. The reason we have regulation on corperations is to stop their immoral (sometimes arguably amoral) practises. Yes, this means the economy isn't a good as it should be, I sure we could have a far higher GDP by paying $5 a week wage to employees and mass selling our products elsewhere, like they do in India, but it is because we value human life and standard of living, that we don't. One of the perks of living in a Liberal Democracy, we are not treated as :daisy: as those employees elsewhere in the developing world.

[Ronin]

are you people actually advocating that the right to vote should have to be bought?!?!

have you gone off your medication recently??

[Rhyfelwyr]

The healthiest form of democracy is one that looks after the rights of all its citizens.

With equal voting rights granted to every individual, this naturally allows the largest group to pursue their own benefit to the detriment of the state as a whole.

So if 70% of the population are workers/peasantry, 25% are burgeoisie, and 5% nobility, then with everyone having equal voting rights, 30% of the population will be wholly exluded from the running of the country, and that is hardly acceptable.

Therefore, it would be much better for the good of society as a whole if all classes were represented equally. If there were, say, 90 seats in parliament, 30 should be given to each class, regardless of their population share. This is what a liberal democracy is all about - representing everyone, not just a tyranny of the majority.

Without such checks and balances, the growing benefit-scrounging underclass will simply demand more and more from the government for nothing in return. And then they protest when it all goes wrong - and another Greece happens.

[Beskar]

So if 70% of the population are workers/peasantry, 25% are burgeoisie, and 5% nobility, then with everyone having equal voting rights, 30% of the population will be wholly exluded from the running of the country, and that is hardly acceptable.

Therefore, it would be much better for the good of society as a whole if all classes were represented equally. If there were, say, 90 seats in parliament, 30 should be given to each class, regardless of their population share. This is what a liberal democracy is all about - representing everyone, not just a tyranny of the majority.

Without such checks and balances, the growing benefit-scrounging underclass will simply demand more and more from the government for nothing in return. And then they protest when it all goes wrong - and another Greece happens.

Wait wait, what?!?! 5% of the population should have control of 33.3% the power?!

The nobles/super rich/burgeoisie have enough power as it is, through pure unadulted bribery *cough* lobbying, campaign donations and free board seats *cough*.

That is a terrible idea.


PS: I think you are confusing what burgeoisie are as well. They are the owners of the means of production. May it be a factory, land or shares. The "Middle Class" are simply wealthier proletariat who sometimes mistakenly think themselves as burgeoisie because they like to feel better than the ones below them. This doesn't really include 'small businesses' as well, because the non-chain cornershop owner has nothing on the CEO of Walmart.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

are you people actually advocating that the right to vote should have to be bought?!?!

have you gone off your medication recently??

No one has advocated such. Nor should they.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No one has advocated such. Nor should they.

That first sentence is disingenuous. You are proposing this scenario:

Gov: As long as I am getting more money from you then you are getting from me, you can vote.
Me: Ok, I got a 1000 from you, here is 2000.
Gov: Ok, you may vote.

This is the scenario of having to buy your vote:

Gov: I want some money from you if you want to vote.
Me: Ok here is a 1000.
Gov: Ok, now you can vote.

It's the same thing with different wording. In the end, you want to vote? Give the gov. your money. Hilarious that this is coming from conservatives. I will await your response where you attack the details (why didnt you just give 1001?!?!) instead of confronting the bigger point.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Especially when you see the drug prices in America, compared to lets say Canada. Because Canada forces the companies to stop ripping people off, the companies end up selling it for far cheaper in Canada, because they can still get the profit.


They may make more than it costs to manufacture an already designed drug, but pharmaceutical companies can't make back the literal billions of dollars it takes to design and test new drugs without charging more. If it weren't for Americans paying high prices, there would be not nearly as many new, lifesaving drugs.

I'd rather we find some way to force the freeloading countries to jack up their prices so we Americans aren't paying for the development of new drugs for everyone else.

You moan about patents - guess how many drugs would be made without them? Very, very few. There would be no way to recoup the large investments, so lifesaving drugs wouldn't be made in the first place. And no one would even have the chance to use the drugs. You can't pretend that companies will still spend billions to make drugs when they can't make the money back if your plan was implemented.

Also, it is sad how you dehumanise your political targets.



This is the scenario of having to buy your vote:

Gov: I want some money from you if you want to vote.
Me: Ok here is a 1000.
Gov: Ok, now you can vote.

You are incorrect. No one is proposing that except you.

I said, many times, that is incorrect. The government, in my scenario, does not require money for someone to vote. If you are not getting any handouts from the government, than you don't have to pay anything in taxes.

CR

[jabarto]

They may make more than it costs to manufacture an already designed drug, but pharmaceutical companies can't make back the literal billions of dollars it takes to design and test new drugs without charging more. If it weren't for Americans paying high prices, there would be not nearly as many new, lifesaving drugs.

I'd rather we find some way to force the freeloading countries to jack up their prices so we Americans aren't paying for the development of new drugs for everyone else.

You really shoudln't say things that are demonstrably false. You know, like this.

[a completely inoffensive name]

T
You are incorrect. No one is proposing that except you.

I said, many times, that is incorrect. The government, in my scenario, does not require money for someone to vote. If you are not getting any handouts from the government, than you don't have to pay anything in taxes.

CR

A. I'm not proposing that. I'm saying you are.
B. I have already stated that we all receive more from the gov. then we pay in taxes. Your logic is flawed no matter how you look at it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You really shoudln't say things that are demonstrably false. You know, like this.

Ah, and saying makes it so, then? :inquisitive:


A. I'm not proposing that. I'm saying you are.
B. I have already stated that we all receive more from the gov. then we pay in taxes. Your logic is flawed no matter how you look at it.

Perhaps you should let me say what I'm proposing in the numerous posts I've made in this thread.

I also stated before that I'm just counting handouts and direct subsidies, not the nebulous benefit of roads, police, etc. That's not flawed logic, just the outlines of my proposal.

CR

[Beskar]

They may make more than it costs to manufacture an already designed drug, but pharmaceutical companies can't make back the literal billions of dollars it takes to design and test new drugs without charging more. If it weren't for Americans paying high prices, there would be not nearly as many new, lifesaving drugs.

I'd rather we find some way to force the freeloading countries to jack up their prices so we Americans aren't paying for the development of new drugs for everyone else.

You moan about patents - guess how many drugs would be made without them? Very, very few. There would be no way to recoup the large investments, so lifesaving drugs wouldn't be made in the first place. And no one would even have the chance to use the drugs. You can't pretend that companies will still spend billions to make drugs when they can't make the money back if your plan was implemented.


Countries are not free-loading, the Americans are just fools realising they are getting ripped off intentionally. What makes it more amusing, you are accusing other countries for Free Loading, because they are not buying into the scam.

Patents - I never complained, I just said what you said about a free market wouldn't work, as other drug companies wouldn't be able to produce the drug because of them which undermines your argument suggesting that they would, hence the heinz example wouldn't work.

Interesting that you struck out, like a trapped proverbial rat when I mentioned about big gaping flaws in your Free Market just by simply reminding you of things like patents.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wait wait, what?!?! 5% of the population should have control of 33.3% the power?!

The nobles/super rich/burgeoisie have enough power as it is, through pure unadulted bribery *cough* lobbying, campaign donations and free board seats *cough*.

That is a terrible idea.

In my system, every individual has 33% of parliament to represent his interests. Without it, 30% of the population will never be able to make their voices heard.


PS: I think you are confusing what burgeoisie are as well. They are the owners of the means of production. May it be a factory, land or shares. The "Middle Class" are simply wealthier proletariat who sometimes mistakenly think themselves as burgeoisie because they like to feel better than the ones below them. This doesn't really include 'small businesses' as well, because the non-chain cornershop owner has nothing on the CEO of Walmart.

In terms of benefits and taxes etc, the interests of the lower middle-class have probably diverged enough from the proletariat. Although I guess we could make them a fourth estate and give each 25% of the seats.

Surely this system is the best way to ensure that the needs of the workers, employers, and aristocrats are met?

[Beskar]

In my system, every individual has 33% of parliament to represent his interests. Without it, 30% of the population will never be able to make their voices heard.

Surely this system is the best way to ensure that the needs of the workers, employers, and aristocrats are met?

No, it is a horrible idea. I don't want some one randomly born from a family of interbreeding to have the at least the equivalent of 3,135 votes compared to my one, even though I can make a far superior choice than they could.

The blue-bloods should disappear as a footnote on the pages of History.

Needs of the aristocrats.. it is a complete joke, they shouldn't even exist in the 21st century. :juggle2:

At least with the burgeoisie, I will allow them to phase out like a ghost, with the aristocrats, bring in the guillotine.

[Husar]

They may make more than it costs to manufacture an already designed drug, but pharmaceutical companies can't make back the literal billions of dollars it takes to design and test new drugs without charging more. If it weren't for Americans paying high prices, there would be not nearly as many new, lifesaving drugs.

I'd rather we find some way to force the freeloading countries to jack up their prices so we Americans aren't paying for the development of new drugs for everyone else.

You moan about patents - guess how many drugs would be made without them? Very, very few. There would be no way to recoup the large investments, so lifesaving drugs wouldn't be made in the first place. And no one would even have the chance to use the drugs. You can't pretend that companies will still spend billions to make drugs when they can't make the money back if your plan was implemented.

First off, the USA are not the only country inventing new drugs.

And secondly, while patents may be a good incentive to make people invent new things, they don't really promote a free market, and you should know that with such a quasi-monopole the price will be higher than it would be on the free market(the free market price would still cover the costs). Add to that, that with medication the buyer side is really inflexible and thus at a disadvantage(can't just switch to to a substitute) and your argument that the poor pharmaceutical companies really have to charge that much doesn't really hold up.
To counter Beskar's example you even said other companies would start producing the drug and the price would go down via free market, but that is not possible with patents, except if they can find a different drug with similar effects.
So at first you go and praise the free market and then you say patents are necessary because on a free market the companies couldn't survive.
So how could the companies solve this problem on a free market or does the free market fail whenever reasearch and developent are involved?
Maybe there should be a maximum length for patents, like one or two years, so the companies can get their R&D costs back and then the free market takes over?

We're also drifting away from the original topic, maybe a mod would want to move this into it's own thread?

[Beskar]

To counter Beskar's example you even said other companies would start producing the drug and the price would go down via free market, but that is not possible with patents, except if they can find a different drug with similar effects.
So at first you go and praise the free market and then you say patents are necessary because on a free market the companies couldn't survive.
So how could the companies solve this problem on a free market or does the free market fail whenever reasearch and developent are involved?
Maybe there should be a maximum length for patents, like one or two years, so the companies can get their R&D costs back and then the free market takes over?

I am glad i wasn't the only one who spotted that, I would have hated to be accused of making something up. For CR's benefit...

You said:

One thing about your scenario, what's to stop companies from simply producing the drug as well?
I replied:
the companies have it patented (don't forget about that)
Then you replied:
You moan about patents - guess how many drugs would be made without them? Very, very few. There would be no way to recoup the large investments, so lifesaving drugs wouldn't be made in the first place. And no one would even have the chance to use the drugs. You can't pretend that companies will still spend billions to make drugs when they can't make the money back if your plan was implemented.

aka, I never even said anything postive nor negative against patents, my "moan" was reminding you that they exist. Then you attacked me reminding you they existed, saying I am hurting the poor companies, when it was you who said "what's to stop companies from simply producing the drug as well?"

Is this the end of the free market ideology for Crazed Rabbit? The distressed he showed as he basically attacked his own question? Will this expose the other hypocrisies in his logic and he will turn to the light? Tune in next time.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, it is a horrible idea. I don't want some one randomly born from a family of interbreeding to have the at least the equivalent of 3,135 votes compared to my one, even though I can make a far superior choice than they could.

Why think in terms of votes? Votes have no value in and of themselves, instead they are simply the means by which we gain our representation. Therefore, instead of dealing with the mechanics of voting, my system tackles representation more directly, giving every person an equal voice in parliament. You still have not adressed the issue whereby the interests of 30% of the population will be wholly made redundant in your system.

We live in modern liberal democracies, not the old-style tyranny of the majority style democracies. For one segment of the population to have a monopoly of seats/power in parliament is unacceptable.

The only issue with my system is that there is the potential for two of the three groups to gang up on the other. To resolve this issue, I propose giving a monarch power equivalent to thirty votes in the parliament (the same number of seats as each group gets). As a non-partisan actor, the monarch could side with the group singled out, and bring things to a stalemate until a decision more acceptable for all is reached.


The blue-bloods should disappear as a footnote on the pages of History.

Needs of the aristocrats.. it is a complete joke, they shouldn't even exist in the 21st century. :juggle2:

At least with the burgeoisie, I will allow them to phase out like a ghost, with the aristocrats, bring in the guillotine.

You sound like some sort of revolutionary... if you place the interests of international class structures over the good of the state in which you participate, then you have no place debating how to further the good of that state for all its citizens. Communist!

[Crazed Rabbit]

aka, I never even said anything postive nor negative against patents, my "moan" was reminding you that they exist. Then you attacked me reminding you they existed, saying I am hurting the poor companies, when it was you who said "what's to stop companies from simply producing the drug as well?"

Is this the end of the free market ideology for Crazed Rabbit? The distressed he showed as he basically attacked his own question? Will this expose the other hypocrisies in his logic and he will turn to the light? Tune in next time.

Don't be ridiculous. You proposed a extremely simplistic scenario. Changing the scenario will of course change my answer. Making it realistic - like adding patents - means getting rid of the nonsense about some druggist making some miracle drug by changing some material. Making a drug requires a large company, years of research, design, and testing, and then years to get government approval.

Patents are part of the free market, like copyrights on books. And the free market effects monopoly pricing as well - driving the cost of a product down to a price that leads to the most profitability overall, not for the most profit per individual drug sold. The druggist in your example doesn't understand the free market. A savvy company might practice stratified pricing - charging more for those willing to pay for it and less for those who aren't able to pay as much. One real life example is Australia's high video game prices.

You say there's a gap in my logic? Can you answer me this; what would happen if you took away patents and put price controls on all drugs? Almost no new drugs. That's no mere hole in your logic, it's an abyss. It represents a fundamental ignorance about how taking incentives away will stop people from creating products and inanely assumes that such creation will always continue and companies can just be forced to sell products for cheaper with no consequence on supply.


To counter Beskar's example you even said other companies would start producing the drug and the price would go down via free market, but that is not possible with patents, except if they can find a different drug with similar effects.
So at first you go and praise the free market and then you say patents are necessary because on a free market the companies couldn't survive.
So how could the companies solve this problem on a free market or does the free market fail whenever reasearch and developent are involved?
Maybe there should be a maximum length for patents, like one or two years, so the companies can get their R&D costs back and then the free market takes over?

Patents for drugs last 20 years. But since companies apply for patents while developing the drugs, and since testing and government approval takes so long, the applicable length is less than 15 years.


I don't want some one randomly born from a family of interbreeding to have the at least the equivalent of 3,135 votes compared to my one, even though I can make a far superior choice than they could.

Lol, it's like racism, but with class instead of race.


Why think in terms of votes? Votes have no value in and of themselves, instead they are simply the means by which we gain our representation. Therefore, instead of dealing with the mechanics of voting, my system tackles representation more directly, giving every person an equal voice in parliament. You still have not adressed the issue whereby the interests of 30% of the population will be wholly made redundant in your system.

I don't like the idea of dividing up classes and giving each one an equal share in government. First, it goes against one man, one vote. Secondly, it assumes that class is the best divisor of society. Third, I'm focusing on limiting the franchise for those who pay more to the IRS than they receive in checks, food stamps, etc., from the government.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

ACIN:

Interesting. My conception of this process does NOT include such a gross quid pro quo. I am suggesting that, on an tax-filing unit (person, couple, family) by tax-filing unit basis, no alterations be made to taxation per se. If the total monies outlaid by the tax filing unit exceed the monies received from the government, then that tax filing unit would be eligible to vote. Given total taxation ranges in the 30-50% zone for most Middle Class USA citizens, I think it unlikely that government officials/office holders could manipulate things in such a fashion that it would create the kind of situation you outline. However, to give you your due, such malfeasance is not impossible so the inverted "vote-buying" scheme you suggest could occur. I think it improbable however, given the basics of taxation.

What I was trying to emphasize is that: a) paying to vote, and b) suffrage rights based only on a certain level of wealth are NOT what CR or I have been discussing.


Beskar:

I think you're accidentally using a "straw man" argument against CR. You are, at least by implication, suggesting that CR is in favor of a completely unfettered an un-regulated free market. Suggesting that "patents undercut the whole thing" is forcing him to defend a position that was not his in the first place. I have little doubt that both CR and I would prefer a less regulated marketplace than would you, but neither of us thinks the "invisible hand" is so perfect a form of guidance that no law, regulation, or what not can be beneficial.

Limited monopolies, such as those granted to Pharmaceutical firms, do have their place. Without the opportunity to profit from innovation, innovation will slow to a crawl.

Regulations to deter and to punish fraud are VITAL to a free market. Caveat Emptor is a reasonable standard, Cacat Emptor is not.

At no point in this discussion has either CR or myself suggested that government be dissolved, that taxation be abolished, or that the market be unfettered completely. A little courtesy please.

[jabarto]

Ah, and saying makes it so, then? :inquisitive:

No, but the fact that other countries make groundbreaking medical discoveries all the time in spite of what you claim tells columes...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, it is a horrible idea. I don't want some one randomly born from a family of interbreeding to have the at least the equivalent of 3,135 votes compared to my one, even though I can make a far superior choice than they could.

The blue-bloods should disappear as a footnote on the pages of History.

Needs of the aristocrats.. it is a complete joke, they shouldn't even exist in the 21st century. :juggle2:

At least with the burgeoisie, I will allow them to phase out like a ghost, with the aristocrats, bring in the guillotine.

You do realise "aristocrat" is just a word for, "managed to retain property over the generations", right?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You do realise "aristocrat" is just a word for, "managed to retain property over the generations", right?

I'm sure he does. Unless I've missed something, I suspect Beskar is very much of the "escheat to the state upon death" approach to property.

[jabarto]

Patents are part of the free market, like copyrights on books. And the free market effects monopoly pricing as well - driving the cost of a product down to a price that leads to the most profitability overall, not for the most profit per individual drug sold. The druggist in your example doesn't understand the free market. A savvy company might practice stratified pricing - charging more for those willing to pay for it and less for those who aren't able to pay as much. One real life example is Australia's high video game prices.

You say there's a gap in my logic? Can you answer me this; what would happen if you took away patents and put price controls on all drugs? Almost no new drugs. That's no mere hole in your logic, it's an abyss. It represents a fundamental ignorance about how taking incentives away will stop people from creating products and inanely assumes that such creation will always continue and companies can just be forced to sell products for cheaper with no consequence on supply.

Forgot to touch on this earlier. All of the above is dead wrong.

First of all, a patent is a state-granted monpoly. That's the exact opposite of the free market. Second, drugs are dirt cheap to produce. There was a study that showed that antidepressants (among many, many other drugs) cost fractions of a penny per tablet. The reason they're expensive is that they get marked up 500,000% (I'm not making that number up) because the drug companies can charge whatever they want. Know why? Because of patents!

Finally, you're correct that patents offer an incentive for innovation. What you don't seem to get is that they're not the only mechanism that does this. The government can do this (surprise, surprise), as can private institutions that already exist.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN:

Interesting. My conception of this process does NOT include such a gross quid pro quo. I am suggesting that, on an tax-filing unit (person, couple, family) by tax-filing unit basis, no alterations be made to taxation per se. If the total monies outlaid by the tax filing unit exceed the monies received from the government, then that tax filing unit would be eligible to vote. Given total taxation ranges in the 30-50% zone for most Middle Class USA citizens, I think it unlikely that government officials/office holders could manipulate things in such a fashion that it would create the kind of situation you outline. However, to give you your due, such malfeasance is not impossible so the inverted "vote-buying" scheme you suggest could occur. I think it improbable however, given the basics of taxation.

What I was trying to emphasize is that: a) paying to vote, and b) suffrage rights based only on a certain level of wealth are NOT what CR or I have been discussing.


Alright I see your point, and I recognize that you are not advocating paying to vote or suffrage rights based on wealth. However what I am trying to get at is that if you inject any amount of realism here you can easily point out that the vast majority of those who are not paying more then they are receiving are going to be naturally lower wealth people then the upper wealth people, so it naturally (you could say de facto) creates suffrage rights based on wealth since there is not an equal amount of "free loaders" as many conservatives would label them throughout each wealth class.

Also I generally challenge the idea that paying more to the government then you are receiving makes you any more qualified at setting the US on the right course when it comes to fiscal responsibility. I'm sure the bank executives and every wall street investor, broker etc... with his or her hand in the pot jumped on the idea of $700 billion of free government bailout money without any restrictions or oversight.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You do realise "aristocrat" is just a word for, "managed to retain property over the generations", right?

To be fair to Beskar, this is incorrect. Aristocracy is a form of government based on power controlled by a hereditary elite. Property usually, but not essentially, forms part of the qualification. One can legitimately argue that aristocracy barely exists now, only nobility remains.


The blue-bloods should disappear as a footnote on the pages of History.

Needs of the aristocrats.. it is a complete joke, they shouldn't even exist in the 21st century. :juggle2:

At least with the burgeoisie, I will allow them to phase out like a ghost, with the aristocrats, bring in the guillotine.

Ah, mon petit Robespierre, that turned out well the last time. And it is telling, just like before, that it comes down to you alone permitting who lives and who dies.

[Beskar]

Lol, it's like racism, but with class instead of race.

Class is a social construct. Being an aristocrat is not based on any merit, test for superiority, or any effort. Someone by stating their are an aristocrat is de-facto stating they are superior to me. I am saying, I could very well be more qualified through qualifications and experience than they are, except they are meant to be apparently better than me, because of their birth.

Nothing like racism. An aristocrat they are are better than all the plebs is akin to racism. It would like having a 'black' university professor, who is superior through every means of test, in qualifications, experience, usefulness to society, etc, then have some 'white' who is none of that going "lulz, I was born white, therefore I am better than you!!!".


Ah, mon petit Robespierre, that turned out well the last time. And it is telling, just like before, that it comes down to you alone permitting who lives and who dies.

My apologises for the expression. To be fair, I would just strip them of their aristocracy (their unjustified elite status), not actually bring a return of the guillotine, except to use it on the ribbons tying them to the powers of the state.

[Beskar]

You sound like some sort of revolutionary... if you place the interests of international class structures over the good of the state in which you participate, then you have no place debating how to further the good of that state for all its citizens. Communist!

State is a construct to the serve then people and ultimately, humanity. Getting rid of oppression and discrimknation from unjustified elites is a big part of that. So the "good of the state" is nothing more than the "good of the people", and the people will benefit from the removal of the strangle-hold suffering power held by the elite.

"For one segment of the population to have a monopoly of seats/power in parliament is unacceptable." - Are you talking about men/women ? Then you are correct. If you are talking about those of years of noble birth and status? Then you are incorrect. As once you strip them of their aristocracy, they join another segment of the population. Also, having a bill of rights stops any exploition of any real minorities, based on sex, race and other various measures.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be fair to Beskar, this is incorrect. Aristocracy is a form of government based on power controlled by a hereditary elite. Property usually, but not essentially, forms part of the qualification. One can legitimately argue that aristocracy barely exists now, only nobility remains.



Ah, mon petit Robespierre, that turned out well the last time. And it is telling, just like before, that it comes down to you alone permitting who lives and who dies.


Please, my Lord! the peasants must have their illusions!

far more seriously, there are "aristocrats" who have managed to squander great family fortunes, and there are those that have only increased their land, wealth and status over the generations. To be fair, there have been some who have also been up and down, repeatedly.

The important thing though, is that the possesion of large amounts of wealth and property, as you know, tends to come with dependants, which translates into power at a local, national, or international level. The aristocracy is composed of those people who maintain those advantages through the generations, which is why you can only be born an aristocrat, not become one.

Arguably, an aristocrat able to maintain all his inherrited advantages, and improve on them, is better than a man who comes up to poer from nothing, because the latter can only go up, while the former has to work hard not to slide down.

Still, I feel like I'm preaching to a bishop writing this. I'm sure you're much more versed in the philosophy I am very clumsily trying to expalin here.

My own opinion is that you shouldn't scorn a man born fortunate, and you certainly shouldn't scorn a man who dies in a poistion equal to or better than the one he began in.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Alright I see your point, and I recognize that you are not advocating paying to vote or suffrage rights based on wealth. However what I am trying to get at is that if you inject any amount of realism here you can easily point out that the vast majority of those who are not paying more then they are receiving are going to be naturally lower wealth people then the upper wealth people, so it naturally (you could say de facto) creates suffrage rights based on wealth since there is not an equal amount of "free loaders" as many conservatives would label them throughout each wealth class.

Also I generally challenge the idea that paying more to the government then you are receiving makes you any more qualified at setting the US on the right course when it comes to fiscal responsibility. I'm sure the bank executives and every wall street investor, broker etc... with his or her hand in the pot jumped on the idea of $700 billion of free government bailout money without any restrictions or oversight.

Well, you're preaching to the choir about bailouts for the financial institutions. The best that can be said of these bailouts is that they attenuated and stretched out time-wise the damage. It's a tough argument whether a short horrific collapse or a slow dismantling is the more painful route to recovery -- lots of folks hurt either way. To the extent that fraud was committed by some Wall Streeters, there are people needing a bit of time in jail as well as asset confiscation.

Yes, in a de facto fashion, using government largesse v tax assessment will likely screen out a higher percentage of lower-income persons. They are screened out, however, not because they are lower income but because they have a vested interest in pushing for higher benefits for themselves at the expense of other taxpayers. How would you address that concern?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, you're preaching to the choir about bailouts for the financial institutions. The best that can be said of these bailouts is that they attenuated and stretched out time-wise the damage. It's a tough argument whether a short horrific collapse or a slow dismantling is the more painful route to recovery -- lots of folks hurt either way. To the extent that fraud was committed by some Wall Streeters, there are people needing a bit of time in jail as well as asset confiscation.

Yes, in a de facto fashion, using government largesse v tax assessment will likely screen out a higher percentage of lower-income persons. They are screened out, however, not because they are lower income but because they have a vested interest in pushing for higher benefits for themselves at the expense of other taxpayers. How would you address that concern?

I agree with that first paragraph completely.

As for the second, I would address that concern by saying that it is a concern that unfairly targets the poor as it applies directly to the rich as well and even the middle class to a degree. Everyone has a vested interest in pushing for high benefits for themselves at the expense of other taxpayers. There is no difference between the poor man wanting a 100 dollars from welfare and the rich man wanting 100 dollars cut from his taxes. We all work the system this way, in some way. The rich person will still pay more to the government then they get from it, but they work the system to cut another 5-10% from their income tax, which is quite a large benefit for themselves and absolutely counter to fiscal responsibility as much as the poor man abuse scenario. Even more so since the 5-10% of the rich mans salary is a bigger hit then 5 poor men receiving that fixed welfare salary.