A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

[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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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, 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?

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....

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?

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)

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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....

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

:inquisitive:

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.

In a play on words. No representation without taxation.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Greece.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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.) 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-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.