Quote Originally Posted by Lemur View Post
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