A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise

[InsaneApache]

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

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

[InsaneApache]

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

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

[Megas Methuselah]

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

I would TOTALLY support that!

[Beskar]

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

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

[Lemur]

I would TOTALLY support that!

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

[Megas Methuselah]

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

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

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

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

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

[Beskar]

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

[Lemur]

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

Gonna make this a quickie so I don't permanently derail my own thread (although it looks as though CR isn't going to respond in defense of his thesis, so I guess this topic's done for anyway):

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

[Beskar]

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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

[KukriKhan]

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

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

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

[Lemur]

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

[KukriKhan]

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

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

Restriction of sufferage, in America of all places?

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

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They could still all vote.

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

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

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

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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

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

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

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

It's a good thing that you can always come back to the internet, the prime example of free market enterprise creating something that revolutionized human progress and our standard of living more then the government ever could....oh wait.

[Husar]

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

[woad&fangs]

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

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

[Strike For The South]

Which is why everyone should pay SOMETHING into the system.

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

[Kagemusha]

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

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

[Lemur]

If you would get in a accident and would have no capacity to work.You should not vote anymore as you are not profitable member of society anymore. If you would get a cancer and loose your ability to work you should not vote.

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

[Idaho]

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

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.

[Lemur]

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

[drone]

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

=

[Husar]

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

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would TOTALLY support that!

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

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

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

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