A friend of mine asked me to propose this to you folks, just to see what kind of comments this would generate. To give you some background, he is pretty conservative however he has someone close to him that is on the "public dole". (ie got a refund for more than they paid in...) The rationale is pretty straight forward, if you are not smart or driven enough to earn a modest taxable income, should you really help guide the country with your vote?
Though it is probably illegal for some reason, do you think people should lose the right to vote if they do not pay Federal Income Taxes for a period of time?
An analogy that comes to me is my local PTA, I do not get to vote on how the funds are spent if I do not pay dues... Even though my child attends the school and I contribute to the fund raisers. Should the USA be any different? If so, why? If not, why? Thoughts?
A different topic... Cupboards and countertops are installed... Everything looks great !!! All I have left to do is to blow more insulation into the attic where I shoveled it off when installing the recessed lights... Though I'll probably do the whole thing while I am up there... I mean it is ~26 yrs old and settled, and natural gas isn't getting any cheaper. Yippeee, I may get back to my hobbies at some point !!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
"if you are not smart or driven enough to earn a modest taxable income, should you really help guide the country with your vote?"
Lots of smart people don't earn a lot of money. And lots of stupid people earn quite a lot of money. I am frequently amazed at the stupidity of much of what I hear from highly paid TV commentators, to point to one obvious example. To tell you the truth, if we both disenfranchised Wall Street bankers, and prohibited them from making political contributions, America could quite possibly be better off.
And everyone pays taxes.
--Hiram
This argument always reminds me of the classic case where the kid who murders his parents, pleads for mercy on the ground that he's an orphan. For many years now, we have pursued policies in this country that have created a disparity of wealth. The middle class is being squeezed out of existence. One by product of that is that fewer and fewer Americans are making enough to pay federal income taxes. Way too many Americans don't have a skin in the game anymore, and that worries me. And something else that worries me is that the reflexive response of our political class seems to be that we don't need to find away to get more Americans invested in the system, instead we need to find a way of taking away the rights of the growing class of people in our country who aren't.
--Hiram
That would kind of short circuit the 'consent of the governed' thing wouldn't it?
That would kind of short circuit the 'consent of the governed' thing wouldn't it?
Nobody ever asked my consent to be governed.
--Hiram
Now I understand the idealistic argument of "consent of the governed", however do you really want people that can not keep a minimum wage job picking our leaders?
By the way, what is the required competency level before you can vote?
Imagine if companies selected leaders this way... Then again maybe this goes a long way towards explaining the current state of the USA..
"Now I understand the idealistic argument of "consent of the governed", however do you really want people that can not keep a minimum wage job picking our leaders?"
Being poor is really the single worst character flaw you can think of? I don't want some crazy jerk down the street who poisons cats and screams at his wife and kids to pick our leaders, but I don't get to decide, do I?
"By the way, what is the required competency level before you can vote?"
18 years old and a citizen, since you asked.
As someone who, 100 years ago, wouldn't have been permitted to vote, I happen to think your suggestion to limit voting rights is, frankly, reprehensible. My 80 year old parents have no income to speak of. Do you want to strip their voting rights while you're at it? College students? PTSD vets? Mothers who leave careers to raise their kids?
Granting someone voting rights based on their income runs so counter to democracy that it makes me wonder/hope if you're just trying to bait comments.
--Annie
Hey, let's follow this idea to it's logical conclusion. If poor people get no vote, let's give rich people MORE votes. How about we make everyone's vote weighted, based on income and net worth. Paris Hilton gets as many votes as my whole hometown.
--Annie
I am not sure if I am trying to bait comments, but as usual I am interested in looking at something from a different perspective.
How will it help our country to be more successful if folks keep voting themselves a welfare check? Will this help our kids?
Maybe for retired folks it would be based on how much money they contributed to social security during their working years?
Or some other measure of contribution to our society? And maybe we can dock Paris points for all things she has done to rob value from our society...
We have worse income inequality than any Western nation. Do you think the haves are going to vote in the best interest of the have nots? Read up on the French Revolution, John. Concentrating wealth and power at the top while scorning the poor? Our gallic brothers pretty much proved that it isn't a sustainable model of governance.
And besides! The Constitution specifically prohibits it. Read up on the Twenty-fourth Amendment. Your vote-denying fantasy would never become law.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
--Annie
ps--your HS civics teacher told me to tell you should be ashamed of yourself.
"Now I understand the idealistic argument of "consent of the governed", however do you really want people that can not keep a minimum wage job picking our leaders?"
For one thing, we are talking about pretty much half the country. We are talking about people who actually do the work of this country.
I wonder about the wisdom of letting Sean Hannity having influence in picking our leaders. I don't think we have a voter problem, I think we have a media problem.
"magine if companies selected leaders this way... Then again maybe this goes a long way towards explaining the current state of the USA."
A lot of companies could do worse.
--Hiram
Annie,
Yes I am aware that it will not happen because it would be illegal. Ironically my 8th grader has been recently covering post Civil war politics is school. (ie Jim Crow Laws, Poll Taxes, etc) So my HS Civics Teacher may be disappointed but thankfully I am in a remedial course.
You raise an excellent point, maybe the USA'a slide toward Socialism is directly related to the Amendments of the 1900's. Wiki Amendments I mean we mostly only had testosterone driven white males voting for the first 140 yrs.
Now are our current Socialistic policies good or bad. That is a more complicated topic that we have discussed many times. And I am sure we will cover again.
Hiram,
If it is 50%, then our Income Tax code definitely needs some help. Imagine that 50% of the population has no "money" in the game, and yet can vote for benefits that cost money... Seems like a recipe for disaster, they should at least be paying some nominal amount so that they feel engaged.
All,
For a refresher... G2A Bar Stool Economics
"Imagine that 50% of the population has no "money" in the game, and yet can vote for benefits that cost money..."
The problem isn't with the income tax code, it's the fact that fewer and fewer Americans have money in the game. The middle class is disappearing. We are becoming a two class society, one that has the wealth, and one that serves the wealthy. And I do agree, it is becoming increasingly clear that what is happening the ever increasing disparity between the rich and the rest of us, in America is a recipe for disaster.
Perhaps those of us who see and warn against a rise of Socialism aren't wrong.
--Hiram
"You raise an excellent point, maybe the USA'a slide toward Socialism is directly related to the Amendments of the 1900's."
I date the slide towards Socialism to the crushing of PATCO. That's when the stagnation and now the disappearance of the middle class began.
--Hiram
PATCO 1981 I actually had to google this one... I think you are going to have a hard time attaching causality...
Though I must agree that time frame was key in our history. That was about when the American citizens got tired of paying for poor quality American Made products and started buying products that were designed and/or manufactured in low cost countries.
Now were those products poor because the self centered union workers "stuck it to the company" by intentionally putting defects in the product, or because the greedy business owners cut corners? That would probably justify a post of its own.
Either way, we on the whole started to buy all of the "high quality inexpensive products". And there went all those good paying jobs. And then the foreign companies had the capital to invest in developing higher end products. Or they just don't see the damage they are doing to save a few bucks.
So ironically the middle class gutted and continues to gut themselves by buying those inexpensive high quality foreign products. Maybe it is just karma...
Quite a little cycle we have gotten ourselves into... We gave away the jobs to foreign companies to keep a little extra money in our wallets. Then the jobs went away so we had a little less money in our wallets. And now many do not have the money required to buy true American products.
I wonder how we break the cycle?
On the upside, when our incomes and life styles match that of the low cost countries, we will be on a fairer competitive playing field. Then again, maybe that isn't really the upside.
Just heard an interesting commentary on Herman Cain's "9-9-9 plan." The point was that EVERYBODY would be paying some taxes, including those who received benefits from the government, as they made purchases. Everybody would have some "skin in the game" and realize that asking for more government spending would require their taxes to go up, too. The rates would not be increased, as critics claim, because EVERYBODY would be against having their taxes go up, unlike now when half don't care if the other half's taxes go up.
Fascinating idea, and it lets everybody continue to vote.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment