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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

I would TOTALLY support that!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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).

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

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: 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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.

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.")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.")

---

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:
...
I fear CR is ignoring the hypocrisy syndrome, 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

...

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

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?

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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

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

---

Shame 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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

---

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...SillyLemur.jpg = https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...QueenSonja.jpg :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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?

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).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2480868]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:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

^ 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:

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

better :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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

---

I await your thoughts on that matter.

Quote:

---

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Reminds me of the Heinz's dilemna.

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

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