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?

if you say no taxes, no votes, then a shitload of college students would be w/o votes.

it's called ability-to-pay taxes, as you have more money, you are able to pay more

as in a gas station, it's based upon use. a person using more gas is likely to travel a lot more, putting wear and tear on roads (assume everyone gets same mileage). this example is irrelevant, but i just wanted to put it in.

back to the earlier point.

so, if voting is according to taxes you pay, rich would control the country.

voting should not be based on wealth at all. remember back in the day when you had to own property to vote? this is just like that.

There should be a nationwide sales tax with no exceptions. That is the only way everyone will ever pay their fair share. It would be simple for cities, counties, states, to present their budgets - add whatever is needed to fund the federal government and determine what percent the sales tax would have be to fund all of this. That would be the only fair tax - and the last tax that Congress would ever consider.

but we'll need an ammendment to do that.

and you really think states would give up their #1 source of revenue?

They wouldn'y give up anything - they would still get whatever is needed to meet their budget (which most can't do right now!) It would simply place the tax burden on every man woman and child in the US equally - For example - the national sales tax is 32.78%. You buy something that costs $1000 - you add the tax and it costs $ 1387.80. Costs you $ 1387.80 and it costs Bill Gates the same amount. It costs the illegal alien who pays no tax $ 1387.80. This is the only fair tax - even your legislator will tell you that - but he'll never vote for it!

P.S Even if the tax was higher than my imaginary figure - It is still the fairest of all taxes.

isnt sales tax in most (if not all) states the same % for all people?

so, it's not a competition between a rich person paying more and a poor person paying less. it's more like a person in CA paying more than a person in TX (i'm guessing ca has higher rate, texas is 8.25)

No, the idea weighted votes based on tax burden is against the some of the basic premises this nation was founded on, included the idea that "...all men are created equal".

Dude! Let me try to explain it again. You are right - in Texas you pay the same as the richest man in Texas on what you buy - and that is the only place he pays anywhere close to what you and I pay - The rich don't pay anyhere close to the percent of their gross income income as you or I do.

Sure that'll work... Until everyone starts buying everything out-of-state, where sales tax won't apply to a non-resident (do you buy things online, that's how *that* works).

Ahhh, so we get rid of that loophole. Then everyone buys everything overseas, US economy implodes, end of story.

Oh, and as far as the original topic? Ridiculous. Does the 18 year old who inherits 15 million worth as much as the entrepreneur who earned every penny of it?

One person, one vote.

yes, but not in sales taxes.

income taxes (both federal and state, WHICH TEXAS DOESNT HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)


in an utopian society, i'd agree the inc taxes should be proportional.

but in today's world...no.

if you take 10k from a guy making 100k and taking 1k from a guy making 10k is not the same.

the poor guy will have to make drastic spending decisions (necessities) cuz of the loss of the 1k. but the rich guy wouldnt have to make anything close to drastic.

so, let's say we take the 1k out.
what's next?

the guy ends up in welfare/social assitance line. and conservatives already complain about welfare enough. so, we put another person on assistance from the government by taking that money.

yes, i know it's unfair to tax like this. but you're gonna put a person otherwise not on assistance on assistance if you dont do it.

Dude - think a minute!

"yes, but not in sales taxes.

income taxes (both federal and state, WHICH TEXAS DOESNT HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)"
Are you trying to tell me the IRS doesn't know where Texas is? People in Texas pay out just as much in taxes - one way or the other, as do people in every other state - it doesn't matter what name they hang on them, taxes are taxes - like the state tax on long distance you pay in Texas - a tax that was supposed to die a long time ago - Or the tolls on the DFW Turnpike - those tolls were only going to be colledted until the road was paid for!!! Do you honestly think they haven't gotten the original construction costs paid by now!

i just said we didnt have to pay state income taxes. i didnt say that we didnt have to pay any other taxes.

yes, we have other taxes

here they are : (this is a list of taxes AND fees)

911 Emergency Service Fee
911 Wireless Emergency Service Fee
911 Equalization Charge
Automobile Theft Prevention
Automotive Oil Sales Fee
Bank Franchise
Battery Sales Fee
Boat & Boat Motor
Cement Production
Cigarette
Cigar, Tobacco Products
Cig/Tob Advertising Fee
Coastal Protection
Coin Operated Amusement Machine Tax
Controlled Substances
Crude Oil
Diesel Fuels
Fireworks
Franchise
Gasoline
Hotel
Inheritance
Insurance Maintenance Tax (Res. & Oversight Council on W.C. Ins)
Insurance Maintenance Tax (TX Dept. of Ins)
Insurance Maintenance Tax (TX Workers Comp. Comm.)
Insurance Premium Tax (Independently Procured)
Insurance Premium Tax (Licensed Insurers)
Insurance Premium Tax (Surplus Lines/Purchasing Groups)
Insurance Premium Tax (Unauthorized Ins.)
IFTA
Liquefied Gas
Loan Administration Fee
Local Property Tax
Manufactured Housing
Misc Gross Receipts
Mixed Beverage
Motor Vehicle Gr. Rental Receipts
Motor Vehicle Sales and Use
Motor Vehicle Seller-Financed Sales
Motor Vehicle Registration Surcharge
Motor Vehicle Surcharge
Natural Gas
Off. of Pub. Ins. Council Assessment
Oil & Gas Well Servicing
Oyster Sales Fee
Pari-Mutuel
Petroleum Prod. Del.
Property Tax
Public Utility Gross Rec.
Retail Charge Acct. Delinq. Fee
Retaliatory Tax
Sales & Use
School Fund Benefit
Sulphur
Surcharge - Construction Equipment
Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund
Tx Local Sports Venue
Volunteer Fire Dept.


but if you look @ most of them, it's taxes that would be pay-for-use kind of taxes. gas taxes, since you are likely to use roadways more.

"but if you look @ most of them, it's taxes that would be pay-for-use kind of taxes. gas taxes, since you are likely to use roadways more."

So when you get to the bottom of the list - would you be content to just pay one single tax? Know what you are paying, and know everyone else is paying the same?

so, are you saying that people in other states dont pay any of the listed taxes?

check out this link

http://www.taxsites.com/state.html
they link u to state sites about taxes in each state.

most of the nation has to pay state inc taxes+ones i listed above

http://www.stateline.org/compare_iss...=122&submit=Go

according to that link, inc taxes account for 37.1% state inc (avg of US states)

in texas, it's 0%

where do we make up that money?

sales tax is one area. tx state tax is higher than average

So, uh, does everyone agree that the tax system is what is broken, not the electoral system? :)

no i think they both are broken, we no longer need the electoral college, which was set up so that the American people could not elect an idiot to the white house (man is it broken) but with all the media today, everyone can see the candidates enough that the electoral college is no longer necessary

exactly, the original intention is way over with.

I think no taxes = no vote makes some sense.

Why? Because politicians seize my wealth at the point of a gun and use it to purchase other (non-tax-paying) voters' votes. Remember the old adage about democracy being two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner? Take away the ability of the government to plunder some for the benefit of others, and we might start having respect for the producers (i.e., the rich) and stop having to worry about them "having too much power."

As for us all being created equal, I don't believe that this means that we all have a God-given right to vote. I have no "inherent right" to vote. I have an inherent right not to be violated or robbed by my fellow man, which is usually the result of them voting. So maybe we have an inherent right not to live in a state where others systematically and habitually reach into our wallets and steal our money.

Why not just allow people to choose which programs their taxes go into on their tax form? Want to support the military, but not pork projects like the missile shield? Click the option to support the operational budget of the military, but decline the special military projects box. Want to have subsized sex ed in public schools? Click that box, or don't if you don't think government should be doing that.

This way, we aren't completely pissing on the basic idea of democracy, that is, one person, one vote.

seizing your wealth at the point of a gun, huh?

Here's the biggest problem with no taxes=no vote. 50% of America pays 90% of the federal income tax burden. While this may somewhat roughly align with the voter turnout in some recent elections, half of america would control the other half. I personally like to see low voter turnout because it make my vote count for more, but "buying" that would not appeal to me. As far as changing the tax structure goes, a flat tax would be fairer because people with more money would spend more and pay more taxes. And no, you couldn't just go to another state to avoid paying NATIONAL sales tax. The same tax would be levied there too. Check out this link. (It is an excel spreadsheet so hope you've got excel). The last set of figures deals with % of total tax burden
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in01rt.xls

Sure!

If I refuse to pay taxes, be they income, property, or otherwise, the state will initiate force against my person. Taxes are collected under force or the threat of it. I don't pay taxes because I really like what the state does with my money. Nor do most people, I would hazard to guess. I pay them because I am coerced.

when you vote, you are chosing on things more than tax policy.

if a person gets no vote, he/she gets no voice in other issues.

The electoral college gives recognition and power to the states, and so should remain. As nice as the US is, we are still the "United States" and the federal government should not usurp the powers of the states as it has occasionally with drugs, guns, and transportation.

Somehow, I get the feeling that your opinion on this would be different had the Supremes ruled differently in Florida.

No offence intended, but that seems to be the way the wind is blowing at the moment.

he wants us to become an aristocracy.

Democracy = 1 person, 1 vote. Aristrocracy = nobles(aka rich people) have the votes.

Let's just toss everything our founding fathers worked for out the fucking window.

edit- comprehensibility issues

that's a better way to put it papermachesatan.

isnt that what this means?

That wiondow has been open for a very long time.

Just a couple points:

THe US is not a democracy its a republic- so through all the filtering do you really think the "nobles" dont already have strong say? Im not saying its the optimal way.

The positive side is anyone reguardless of where they come from has the opertunity to create whatever wealth they have the drive and the intent to make for themselves. IMHO its the main reason people from all parts of the world immigrate to US. In the past I dont think indivuals that werent born noble had much of a chance. Thats the difference.

THe question I have is this:

Person A is a self made millionare that was rasied in the ghettos, put themself through college and created financial liberty. Person B is in and out of jobs, maybe even has a drug problem and doesnt pay taxes. Person C works 9 to 5 40 hour weeks and made enough to be qualified as middle class "whatever that is".

Person A pays $50,000 in taxes
Person B pays no taxes
Person C pays $5000 in taxes

They all have an equal vote


What is person A getting for their money? Because person A was successful this is what they have to look forward to?

If everyone is going to get a C on the test, why even study?

They do have more influence true but you're talking about cementing their power.

A superior standard of living for one thing.

You give all the power to the wealthy and they're going to put people in power that only take the wealthy into account when determining the country's policies. As a result, the rest of the population gets screwed. The equal chance to become wealthy in the U.S. will disapear because the nobility will be the big businesses. Since they have the power, they'll enact measures to ensure their continued wealth.

Is he, by any chance refering to the Democrats? After all they have enjoyed the lion's share of power in the U.S. over the last 50 years. Now if the Democrats represent the poor, and the Republicans represent the wealthy (as the prevailing conventional wisdom would lead us to believe), then maybe the current system is unfair to the wealthy?

Lion's share of power?

Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton(2)

vs

Eisenhower(2), Nixon(1.5), Ford(0.5), Reagan(2), Bush, Bush


Doesn't look to me like democrats dominated the last 50 years...

you dont work to get votes!

i dont know anyone that works hard w/ the intention of gettin a larger portion of the votes.

Re: Paying more taxes = having more votes?
 

Access.

John works at the Qwickee Mart, pays maybe a few hundred in taxes a year.
George owns the Qwickee Mart, pays a few thousand in taxes a year.

Who has a better chance of meeting his legislative representative?

I realize this is a gross oversimplification, but I think ya'll get the point.


Also, what about stay-at-home parents? We feel it's better for the kids that one of us is home, so does that mean I have to give up my vote, since I don't have any direct income?

Since 1953 the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress for 34 years. The Republicans, on the other hand, have only controlled Congress for 8 of those years. The remaining 8 years were split between the 2 parties. Eisenhower had the luxury of both houses of Congress under Republican control for the first 2 years of his first term in office (the 83rd Congress). Since then no Republican President has had his party control both house of congress, until 2003. ALL the above mentioned Democratic Presidents enjoyed having Democrats in control of both houses of Congress for ALL OR PART of their terms. (Kennedy- ALL, Johnson- ALL, Carter- ALL, Clinton- first term)

That's control!

look @ control now

exec - bush
legislature - delay and frist (Majority in both houses)
judiciary - rehnquest (majority)

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Democrats were far from ever having as much control as the wealthy in a aristorcracy would. The wealthy will never be as abused as the rest population would be if a aristocracy came into play. I cite fuedal systems, the soviet union, etc. etc. as how well the 'serf, worker, etc' population comes out when a minority group(the wealthy) controls all the power and all the means to achieving power.

Voting in an aristocracy will be pissing on everything our founding fathers worked for.

As I said earlier in this thread, buying votes is not something I'm in favor of, but it has nothing to do with rule by Aristocracy. One vote per person. By the way- wasn't that the same system in the Soviet Union?

It has every thing to do with rule by aristocracy. The richer you are, the more votes you have. Thus you can easily outvote the majority and put someone in power who favors you and helps cement your power(through favorable economic government policies) through screwing the majority.

No. The elite(the communist party) were in power and controlled the means of gaining power. The average worker had no say and if he dared to open his mouth to complain, he was silenced. Remember that our constitutional protections can be eliminated by new amendments. When you've got control of the government, passing those new amendments won't be nearly as hard.

I agree with you, but what I meant was that was not the reason I was against it. The simple fact of power would bring some sort of group to the forefront. I disagree with proportioned voting becasuse it is one leg of balancing power and ensuring that it stays in the hands of the general populous.


The Soviets were still allowed to vote for their leaders, at least some. They used to brag about 98% voter turnout (I assume the other 2% weren't voting in the next election, either). The Communist party chose the candidates, but the people of the Soviet Union chose the winner. The point is this, even if you have one person-one vote that doesn't gaurantee democray, nor does it assure you that your country cannot be controlled by an "elite" ruling class.

where there was only one candidate on the ballot and the CPSU had the right to veto the election whenever they pleased?

Any election held by the Soviet Union was purely for show.

Yes, certain steps must be taken to ensure true democracy/republic(i.e. secret ballets).

Voting in policy that WILL create a aristocracy is the surest way to screw democracy and screw the majority in the U.S. though.

Sun Tzu, do you have a link where Rush Limbaugh supports this?

I couldn't agree more. So tell me- what role to lobbies play in a Democracy/Republic. Could this "level" of voting count as an "Aristocracy"?

Re: Re: Paying more taxes = having more votes?
 

Whats stopping John from opening his own Quickee Mart?

Ive just played devils advocate here, I dont think paying more taxes should equal more votes, but I also dont agree with the more money I create for myself the more I should pay in taxes. I never really had thought about it to much until I heard this frictional idea on Rush. I dont have the answer, but I dont think Socialism is the way to go.

Not really. While they wield high degrees of influence, they don't actually vote in the legislature nor can they physically put someone in Congress. Rich people with a vast number of votes would be able to physically put someone into Congress, the White House, etc.

Re: Re: Re: Paying more taxes = having more votes?
 

The tree's inability to grow money.

If we could charge the guy making $50,000 a year the same as the guy who makes $600,000 a year with out totally ruining the guy making $50,000 a year, we would. It's not that we're out to rip off the rich, it's just that we can't wring more out of the less wealthy guys.

I'll post a few links on how to get small business loans if you like, but I think you may probably be able to find them. It all boils down to intent. If a person is 100% intent on makeing something happen; they will. If a person has 99% intent on making something happen they wont.

I appreciate what your saying about money on tree and I agree, but not every millionare is born with a silver spoon in their mouth; some even come from poverty. We all have the tools to make it happen; it comesdown to what were willing to sacrifice. Whether it be time, physical labor, pride, etc.

What about taking the end sum of what the US brings in divide that by the amount of registered voters or the amount of people that pay taxes and have everyone pay the same thing (with adjustments for dependents?

that wouldnt work. you should tax a percentage of what people make, and not a flat amount.

i agree that progressive tax is unfair, but let's face the facts. the govt just wont run on a flat tax.

I disagree that it won't work as it is already a proven device in some states. 6 states have a flat tax rate and while 4 have modifiers to adjust income, 2 states have a simple flat rate tax structure. The biggest reason to discredit a flat tax rate on a national level seems to be the large volume of employees the IRS has. What would they do for a living if we had a flat tax?

Please do post links. No one deserves to lose their right to have a voice in their government just because they don't have the drive or aren't willing to make the sacrifices(which can be hefty) to become rich.

You're still going to get people who are ruined by a flat tax, especially if split the number among a smaller group of people(i.e. registered voters).

Flat Tax screws the people who are the group who can illafford the monetary losses the most.

http://www.cfda.gov/default.htm

http://www.entrepreneur.com/howto/ra...,5964,,00.html

http://www.federalmoneyretriever.com...s/func_ndx.htm

www.sba.gov/financing/

http://www.businessfinance.com/

www.small-business-grants.com/

http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/call/loans.htm

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/w...blsbalinks.htm


http://www.firstgov.gov/Business/Nonprofit.shtml

www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/faq/faq.html

I mentioned in the beginning I heard this suggestion on a politcal show the I dont really care for (dont ask me why I was listening). I mentioned I didnt agree with what the man was saying, but I understand the point of questioning the tax scale. I dont think its fair. I stadard of living being higher is expected, otherwise why strive for financial liberty. When Im in the position to contribute; I will without question because I know being outwardly focused creates a better social environment. I dont agree with someone being forced to compensate for others.

As far as taxes go Im actually one of those "CT" people who believes that the IRS isnt part of the federal government but a collection agency for the Federal Reserve Bank (a privately owned entity) its hard for me to trust anything that goes on. Instead of frustrating myself and going agaisnt the grain; Im learning to play the game.

Socialism has a bleak esistence; I think people are capable of so much more. This is my opinion, and I still have allot to learn.

You have a flat tax and you shift the burdeon from the super rich to the middle classes. Yes, the rich are inadvertedly being penalized for being rich but you don't any choice other than screwing the people who can't afford to lose money like the rich can or drastically eliminate the amount of revenues the country pulls in.


I agree but I think the above quote is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The only reason I mention it is because it goes full circle to the mans "frictional" suggestion that if he is going to be penalized he fills its only fair to get something for his money. In his mind the only avenue is votes; which I dont agree with.

I wont claim to be an expert as I stated before; but isnt what happens when the someone that has made more money than someone else pays more titering on socialism?

I would think that a flat tax would screw people if there were no tools or rights to progress their situation. I know about the working class; Im part of it (for the time being) I want to plow ahead to create financial liberty in my life, not to have the opportunity or privilege to give more to the federal reserve.

I cant stop thinking of the gas anaolgy earilier: why should I pay $5 more per gallon at the same pump than another person, and of I do what am I getting in return?

I dont have an answer its a siutation that were all having to deal with reguardless of what we think. I dont agree with working towards a financial goal only to have to end up paying more because of several factors; some are understandably complex. Others such as members that dont contribute anything other than to cause my taxes to go up.