A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kindly point out exactly where the constitution mentions universal suffrage.

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

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

CR

[Beskar]

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

CR

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

[Centurion1]

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

[Beskar]

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

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

[Centurion1]

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

better

[Husar]

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

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