A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise

[Lemur]

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

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

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

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

A few thoughts:

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

I fear CR is ignoring the hypocrisy syndrome, which complicates his premise that tax-payers are inherently more responsible than non-tax-payers.

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

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

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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lemur]

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

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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

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

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

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[drone]

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

[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.

[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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

I await your thoughts on that matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pevergreen]

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



See, GST is simple!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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

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

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

That's cool. Again, answer my original post by answering what "earned" means. How does one "earn" the money and in what ways does one "not earn" money?

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

How about instead of punishing those who are simply working in their own self interest when it comes to the gov. buying their interest (which I thought was prided among conservatives? oh wait, this is gov. so for some reason that is unacceptable while CEOs of banks who did on a scale of a 1000 times more magnitude are simply "taking risks" in the market) you make it so the gov. cant buy the publics interest by putting stricter limits on what goes into a bill or even better imo, take that idea of revoking the 17th amendment (direct election of senators) which i agree with and then have it so that all financial bills must be presented in the Senate only instead of the House only.

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

Two men in the UK's highest tax band.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

CR

[Husar]

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...