Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Sun Tzu · 06-21-2003, 09:02 AM

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and gave the homeless person fifty dollars.

I’m actually joking I’m not attempting to insult anyone; I seem to subscribe to certain aspects of each party. As far as economy it does seem conservatives encourage entrepreneurship more than liberals; but I'm not a tax expert, so I could be wrong on that.

The Electoral College thread brought up another subject that’s been circulating in my mind; our current tax system. I was listening to someone I find annoying; yet I seem to listen to all the time: Rush Limbaugh. He had someone subbing for him and this is what he presented:

If you don’t pay taxes, you’re not eligible to vote. On a grading scale someone that pays more in taxes is eligible for more votes. When I first heard this I thought "what crock of shit, that’s right lets let corporate giants run the country" well don’t they already have a huge say? In any event I thought that was ridiculous, especially if someone is busting there ass, but they just don’t make as much as someone bringing in $850,000 a year or more.

After further listening he did bring up a valid point: what is the person paying more getting for their money? He used this analogy: Person A and Person B both go to the same gas pump. Person A is paying $1.25 and person B is paying $5.50

What more is person B getting for their money than person A except a bigger financial hickey? Should someone that’s paying $900 have the same vote as someone paying $35,000? Or even someone that doesn’t pay taxes? Should we take the amount brought in annually from taxes, divide by eligible voters and produce a level amount that’s the same for everyone? If everyone in the US has an equal chance at creating wealth for themselves, does this seem fair?

06-21-2003, 09:02 AM	#1 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	Paying more taxes = having more votes? A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person. The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and gave the homeless person fifty dollars. I’m actually joking I’m not attempting to insult anyone; I seem to subscribe to certain aspects of each party. As far as economy it does seem conservatives encourage entrepreneurship more than liberals; but I'm not a tax expert, so I could be wrong on that. The Electoral College thread brought up another subject that’s been circulating in my mind; our current tax system. I was listening to someone I find annoying; yet I seem to listen to all the time: Rush Limbaugh. He had someone subbing for him and this is what he presented: If you don’t pay taxes, you’re not eligible to vote. On a grading scale someone that pays more in taxes is eligible for more votes. When I first heard this I thought "what crock of shit, that’s right lets let corporate giants run the country" well don’t they already have a huge say? In any event I thought that was ridiculous, especially if someone is busting there ass, but they just don’t make as much as someone bringing in $850,000 a year or more. After further listening he did bring up a valid point: what is the person paying more getting for their money? He used this analogy: Person A and Person B both go to the same gas pump. Person A is paying $1.25 and person B is paying $5.50 What more is person B getting for their money than person A except a bigger financial hickey? Should someone that’s paying $900 have the same vote as someone paying $35,000? Or even someone that doesn’t pay taxes? Should we take the amount brought in annually from taxes, divide by eligible voters and produce a level amount that’s the same for everyone? If everyone in the US has an equal chance at creating wealth for themselves, does this seem fair? __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*