Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it's a gakky idea. I suggested it only to mock the idea that rich people should have more votes.

So.... can we go on to blaming the victim then?

There isn't a victim in this story.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There isn't a victim in this story.

There is however a very rich person with no moral compass.

Considering how low our turnout is in the US for major elections, any changes to the electoral system should be geared towards getting more people to vote, not less.

Any system that would increase the difficulty of voting or reduce turnout is, IMO, starting from a highly suspect point.

Though I do entirely understand the goal of wanting voters to have a basic understanding of our political system and civics. I just don't know how you go about that without disenfranchising a lot of people.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There isn't a victim in this story.

We can't just say, "The American public"?

 LordofHats wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
The US is a Republic not a Democracy.

I knew the moment I read this thread someone would start that XD

It's like in gun threads when someone calls a magazine a clip. Yes, it's wrong, but more importantly no one cares.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
While I don't agree with it, I think there's merit to not allowing people that don't pay taxes a vote.

I mean, it would take votes away from most of our congressmembers :-D

Surely your kidding. Democracy is about letting everyone participate in government.

Paying taxes is participating in government.

If you don't pay into the system, why should you be allowed to vote to further steal from burden the producers?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Paying taxes is participating in government.

If you don't pay into the system, why should you be allowed to vote to further steal from burden the producers?

Even the homeless pay taxes on their cheap booze.

 daedalus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Paying taxes is participating in government.

If you don't pay into the system, why should you be allowed to vote to further steal from burden the producers?

Even the homeless pay taxes on their cheap booze.

Usually when people refer to "paying taxes" they refer to paying income tax, but your point is well-taken. Technically everyone (outside of DE, AK, MT, NH, and OR) pays sales tax, except perhaps that guy who lives on his own private compound and lives off the land. Something tells me that guy doesn't vote.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Usually when people refer to "paying taxes" they refer to paying income tax, but your point is well-taken.

Actually I imagine that a lot of them honestly confuse not paying (some) federal taxes with not paying taxes at all. Politicians use it to make emotive arguments to prey on (some) voters insecurity and resentment by playing it up that someone, somewhere isn't having to pay the same thing as you, and they use incendiary language or loaded language to do it, as it has been proven that making people irrationally angry is a greater motivator then reasonable discussion.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

If you don't pay into the system, why should you be allowed to vote to further steal from burden the producers?

Ah, I see we've moved from "America is a republic, not a democracy." to "Taxation is equivalent to theft."

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Usually when people refer to "paying taxes" they refer to paying income tax, but your point is well-taken.

Federal income taxes, which some people seem to believe are the only taxes that exist.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Paying taxes is participating in government.

If you don't pay into the system, why should you be allowed to vote to further steal from burden the producers?

Even the homeless pay taxes on their cheap booze.

Usually when people refer to "paying taxes" they refer to paying income tax, but your point is well-taken. Technically everyone (outside of DE, AK, MT, NH, and OR) pays sales tax, except perhaps that guy who lives on his own private compound and lives off the land. Something tells me that guy doesn't vote.

I guarantee you Uncle Ted votes.

When I say taxes I absolutely mean federal income taxes.

Magical hand-waving away of taxes is a pretty popular tactic by a lot of states, especially red states it seems. It's pretty popular in Oklahoma. They make a big deal about cutting income tax, and then just raise fees on everything else government related.

So even if we discount federal income taxes, state income taxes, and sales taxes, we would still end up with people paying fees to the government when they renew a license, apply for a permit, pay their 911 service fee on their phone, etc etc etc.

The idea that there are a large group of people that doesn't pay into the government is pants-on-head stupid.

How about we allow people 1 vote for each percentage of their total income that goes to Social Security in taxes?

 DogofWar1 wrote:
How about we allow people 1 vote for each percentage of their total income that goes to Social Security in taxes?

How about....... NO.

I think we should all get a vote for the number of hats we own *starts counting*

I keep saying this, when will people learn...

all decisions/elections should be via thunderdome...

its the only fair way.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think we should all get a vote for the number of hats we own *starts counting*

I think we should rate them by fanciness as well. I have a lot of fancy hats (in fact I'm wearing a top hat and goggles right now).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I think we should all get a vote for the number of hats we own *starts counting*

I think we should rate them by fanciness as well. I have a lot of fancy hats (in fact I'm wearing a top hat and goggles right now).

 LordofHats wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I think we should all get a vote for the number of hats we own *starts counting*

I think we should rate them by fanciness as well. I have a lot of fancy hats (in fact I'm wearing a top hat and goggles right now).

Wait, wait! Guys! I got it! Why don't we just make it so only people who own land get to vote? No one has ever tried that before have they?

Instead of putting some requirements to permit a vote...

Why don't we fething just simplify the tax codes so that EVERY fething ADULT in the U.S. who's earning/recieving something is taxed.

Maybe a tier'ed flax tax.

IE, folks at/below poverty line pays 2%, next groups plays 5%, next 10%, next 20%, and so on...

Or, however ^^ it's ^^ done, just so long as EVERYONE has some sort of *skin* in the game. It may encourage more people to participate in the election.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 DogofWar1 wrote:
How about we allow people 1 vote for each percentage of their total income that goes to Social Security in taxes?

How about....... NO.

I was mainly being sarcastic, as it disenfranchises the unemployed, both those searching for work and those who choose to be unemployed like stay at home parents.

But the idea is frankly no less ridiculous than giving people a vote based on their raw income tax like Perkins is suggesting.

 whembly wrote:
Instead of putting some requirements to permit a vote...

Why don't we fething just simplify the tax codes so that EVERY fething ADULT in the U.S. who's earning/recieving something is taxed.

Maybe a tier'ed flax tax.

IE, folks at/below poverty line pays 2%, next groups plays 5%, next 10%, next 20%, and so on...

Or, however ^^ it's ^^ done, just so long as EVERYONE has some sort of *skin* in the game. It may encourage more people to participate in the election.

hmm how about a 18% flat tax above $24,000? (that 18% can move around depending on current economic status, And the $24,000 can change based on cost of living of where you currently live)

So if you made $24,000 or less you pay no tax

But if you make more than that you pay taxes on the ammount you make

IE if you make $25,000 in a year (from anything) you only get taxed $180, (18% of $1,000)

if you made $100,000 in a year you would pay $13,680 (18% of 76,000)

Flat Tax no deductables. You make X? You pay (X-24,000)*(.18) Done
Tax Code/law now fits on a 8X11 sheet of paper.

 whembly wrote:

Why don't we fething just simplify the tax codes so that EVERY fething ADULT in the U.S. who's earning/recieving something is taxed.

Everyone in the US is earning any sort of wage in a legal manner is subject to FICA.

Also, why would you tax someone who was receiving aid because they were receiving aid?

 whembly wrote:

Or, however ^^ it's ^^ done, just so long as EVERYONE has some sort of *skin* in the game. It may encourage more people to participate in the election.

Its highly unlikely that a person who pays no federal income tax will be able to permanently and legally leave the country, so their "skin in the game" is literally their skin. If things go poorly in the US, they are likely to suffer more than anyone else.

Indeed, I would argue that the people with the least "skin in the game" are the people that pay the most in taxes, because generally their wealth and connections enable them to simply leave if things go poorly in the US.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Why don't we fething just simplify the tax codes so that EVERY fething ADULT in the U.S. who's earning/recieving something is taxed.

Everyone in the US is earning any sort of wage in a legal manner is subject to FICA.

True... but if you're at that lower end of the income bracket, you'll likely get it back at least.

Also, why would you tax someone who was receiving aid because they were receiving aid?

Most states already tax them. o.O You're right though, I'm pretty sure the Feds don't consider that taxable, only that it's declared.

 whembly wrote:

Or, however ^^ it's ^^ done, just so long as EVERYONE has some sort of *skin* in the game. It may encourage more people to participate in the election.

Its highly unlikely that a person who pays no federal income tax will be able to permanently and legally leave the country, so their "skin in the game" is literally their skin. If things go poorly in the US, they are likely to suffer more than anyone else.

Indeed, I would argue that the people with the least "skin in the game" are the people that pay the most in taxes, because generally their wealth and connections enable them to simply leave if things go poorly in the US.

Wow... that's very...

...

...
cynical. (I think that's the word I'm looking for...).

I personally know two people whom are disabled (bi-polar and another mental prob) who's on government cheese and they travel. One of them goes to Hawaii every year (because that State does a good job with the homeless and the fact that you can sleep on some of the beaches. )

Point being... I'm not sure I agree with your assessment here... but, I could be persuaded.

Traveling and permanently relocating to another country is significantly more complicated and in most cases more expensive than traveling to Hawaii.

 Hordini wrote:
Traveling and permanently relocating to another country is significantly more complicated and in most cases more expensive than traveling to Hawaii.

Yeah, I get that... but, why should that be in the equation of "having skin in the game"?

 whembly wrote:

cynical. (I think that's the word I'm looking for...).

I personally know two people whom are disabled (bi-polar and another mental prob) who's on government cheese and they travel. One of them goes to Hawaii every year (because that State does a good job with the homeless and the fact that you can sleep on some of the beaches. )

Point being... I'm not sure I agree with your assessment here... but, I could be persuaded.

I don't think I'd compare the two. Relocating to another country and gaining citizenship requires massive amounts of time and money. A lot of countries make it almost impossible without corporate sponsorship. Hawaii is also still the states.

 whembly wrote:

Yeah, I get that... but, why should that be in the equation of "having skin in the game"?

Because someone unable to escape a collapsing building is much more invested in ensuring its structural stability than someone who can just get out whenever they want.