A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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....

[Beskar]

Reminds me of the Heinz's dilemna.

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?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

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

[Strike For The South]

I leave cases of beer for my garbage men.

We throw away allot of things, probably some that we shouldnt

[Beskar]

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

I copy and pasted the scenario, but you can apply it to the real world. People cannot afford the healthcare, because the pharmacies charge people more money than they can pay (obviously upper middle class and above can pay). So Heinz cannot afford the drug, and the companies have it patented (don't forget about that), simply don't care, as they want to get as much bang for their buck as they can.

Especially when you see the drug prices in America, compared to lets say Canada. Because Canada forces the companies to stop ripping people off, the companies end up selling it for far cheaper in Canada, because they can still get the profit.

As much as your intentions for a free market you have idealised to occur, the world doesn't work that way. People are greedy and selfish and they don't care if Heinz dies in a ditch along with his wife. The corperate CEO shrugs his shoulder and brags about his profit margins.

While you may feel I am an idealist, in many ways, I am and accept that. Unfortunately, your Free Market dream in many ways is more of a pipe-line. The reason we have regulation on corperations is to stop their immoral (sometimes arguably amoral) practises. Yes, this means the economy isn't a good as it should be, I sure we could have a far higher GDP by paying $5 a week wage to employees and mass selling our products elsewhere, like they do in India, but it is because we value human life and standard of living, that we don't. One of the perks of living in a Liberal Democracy, we are not treated as as those employees elsewhere in the developing world.