A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN:

Interesting. My conception of this process does NOT include such a gross quid pro quo. I am suggesting that, on an tax-filing unit (person, couple, family) by tax-filing unit basis, no alterations be made to taxation per se. If the total monies outlaid by the tax filing unit exceed the monies received from the government, then that tax filing unit would be eligible to vote. Given total taxation ranges in the 30-50% zone for most Middle Class USA citizens, I think it unlikely that government officials/office holders could manipulate things in such a fashion that it would create the kind of situation you outline. However, to give you your due, such malfeasance is not impossible so the inverted "vote-buying" scheme you suggest could occur. I think it improbable however, given the basics of taxation.

What I was trying to emphasize is that: a) paying to vote, and b) suffrage rights based only on a certain level of wealth are NOT what CR or I have been discussing.

Alright I see your point, and I recognize that you are not advocating paying to vote or suffrage rights based on wealth. However what I am trying to get at is that if you inject any amount of realism here you can easily point out that the vast majority of those who are not paying more then they are receiving are going to be naturally lower wealth people then the upper wealth people, so it naturally (you could say de facto) creates suffrage rights based on wealth since there is not an equal amount of "free loaders" as many conservatives would label them throughout each wealth class.

Also I generally challenge the idea that paying more to the government then you are receiving makes you any more qualified at setting the US on the right course when it comes to fiscal responsibility. I'm sure the bank executives and every wall street investor, broker etc... with his or her hand in the pot jumped on the idea of $700 billion of free government bailout money without any restrictions or oversight.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Alright I see your point, and I recognize that you are not advocating paying to vote or suffrage rights based on wealth. However what I am trying to get at is that if you inject any amount of realism here you can easily point out that the vast majority of those who are not paying more then they are receiving are going to be naturally lower wealth people then the upper wealth people, so it naturally (you could say de facto) creates suffrage rights based on wealth since there is not an equal amount of "free loaders" as many conservatives would label them throughout each wealth class.

Also I generally challenge the idea that paying more to the government then you are receiving makes you any more qualified at setting the US on the right course when it comes to fiscal responsibility. I'm sure the bank executives and every wall street investor, broker etc... with his or her hand in the pot jumped on the idea of $700 billion of free government bailout money without any restrictions or oversight.

Well, you're preaching to the choir about bailouts for the financial institutions. The best that can be said of these bailouts is that they attenuated and stretched out time-wise the damage. It's a tough argument whether a short horrific collapse or a slow dismantling is the more painful route to recovery -- lots of folks hurt either way. To the extent that fraud was committed by some Wall Streeters, there are people needing a bit of time in jail as well as asset confiscation.

Yes, in a de facto fashion, using government largesse v tax assessment will likely screen out a higher percentage of lower-income persons. They are screened out, however, not because they are lower income but because they have a vested interest in pushing for higher benefits for themselves at the expense of other taxpayers. How would you address that concern?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, you're preaching to the choir about bailouts for the financial institutions. The best that can be said of these bailouts is that they attenuated and stretched out time-wise the damage. It's a tough argument whether a short horrific collapse or a slow dismantling is the more painful route to recovery -- lots of folks hurt either way. To the extent that fraud was committed by some Wall Streeters, there are people needing a bit of time in jail as well as asset confiscation.

Yes, in a de facto fashion, using government largesse v tax assessment will likely screen out a higher percentage of lower-income persons. They are screened out, however, not because they are lower income but because they have a vested interest in pushing for higher benefits for themselves at the expense of other taxpayers. How would you address that concern?

I agree with that first paragraph completely.

As for the second, I would address that concern by saying that it is a concern that unfairly targets the poor as it applies directly to the rich as well and even the middle class to a degree. Everyone has a vested interest in pushing for high benefits for themselves at the expense of other taxpayers. There is no difference between the poor man wanting a 100 dollars from welfare and the rich man wanting 100 dollars cut from his taxes. We all work the system this way, in some way. The rich person will still pay more to the government then they get from it, but they work the system to cut another 5-10% from their income tax, which is quite a large benefit for themselves and absolutely counter to fiscal responsibility as much as the poor man abuse scenario. Even more so since the 5-10% of the rich mans salary is a bigger hit then 5 poor men receiving that fixed welfare salary.