Opening the floor: Representation without taxation

There are many who think that voting is a right but it is not. It is a widespread privilege that has only been open to everyone (everyone over 18 years of age and a citizen that is) for less than a hundred years. That "right" could be taken away for a felony conviction among other things.

Our founders had one large complaint against the crown of England; taxation without representation. The colonists were forced to pay taxes but did not have a voice in the English Parliment over how those taxes were to be spent. It is hard to argue that they were wrong. If you have to pay then you should have a say in where those taxes go.

It is easy to make the opposite case; people who don't pay taxes should not be involved in the process to award that money. Some will want to erroneously argue that this is about race but that would be so wrong. It is about having skin in the game or being a stakeholder. If you are black, white, or yellow and pay your taxes then you are a stake holder. There are more people in the U.S. who are white that don't pay federal taxes than anyone else. No, there is no racial design here, it is money.

So I would propose that if you cannot prove a payment, any payment, of federal taxes then you should not be voting. The states can take of themselves. One could surmise that someone who pays one million dollars in taxes should have more say than someone who pays ten thousand dollars in taxes. There could be some truth in that. Hypothetically, a country who has one large taxpayer who pays 99.9% of all the taxes maybe should have more say than one of those who cover the other .1%. I can point to those like Supreme Court nominee Lani Guinier who believed in cumulative voting. The votes of all blacks (or asians or eskimos) would be equivalent to all the votes of the white people. In other words the black people making up 16% of the population would have each vote count for about 5.1 votes each. So it has been proposed for other reasons. She was wrong about that and it would be wrong to ration voting according to wealth.

It is unworkable. What is standard? $100, $1,000, or $100, 000? If you made a single dollar the standard then Bill Gates could have many millions of votes. Remember, it is based on taxes and not wealth. I think it is best just to say that if you pay federal taxes then you may vote. That keeps it simple.

What say you?

I say I should be the only one able to vote...

No, no, it's not about race. That's why you spend half your post talking about....race.

ExNyer is correct about you. You're nuts.

There are many who think that voting is a right but it is not. It is a widespread privilege that has only been open to everyone (everyone over 18 years of age and a citizen that is) for less than a hundred years. That "right" could be taken away for a felony conviction among other things.

Our founders had one large complaint against the crown of England; taxation without representation. The colonists were forced to pay taxes but did not have a voice in the English Parliment over how those taxes were to be spent. It is hard to argue that they were wrong. If you have to pay then you should have a say in where those taxes go.

It is easy to make the opposite case; people who don't pay taxes should not be involved in the process to award that money. Some will want to erroneously argue that this is about race but that would be so wrong. It is about having skin in the game or being a stakeholder. If you are black, white, or yellow and pay your taxes then you are a stake holder. There are more people in the U.S. who are white that don't pay federal taxes than anyone else. No, there is no racial design here, it is money.

So I would propose that if you cannot prove a payment, any payment, of federal taxes then you should not be voting. The states can take of themselves. One could surmise that someone who pays one million dollars in taxes should have more say than someone who pays ten thousand dollars in taxes. There could be some truth in that. Hypothetically, a country who has one large taxpayer who pays 99.9% of all the taxes maybe should have more say than one of those who cover the other .1%. I can point to those like Supreme Court nominee Lani Guinier who believed in cumulative voting. The votes of all blacks (or asians or eskimos) would be equivalent to all the votes of the white people. In other words the black people making up 16% of the population would have each vote count for about 5.1 votes each. So it has been proposed for other reasons. She was wrong about that and it would be wrong to ration voting according to wealth.

It is unworkable. What is standard? $100, $1,000, or $100, 000? If you made a single dollar the standard then Bill Gates could have many millions of votes. Remember, it is based on taxes and not wealth. I think it is best just to say that if you pay federal taxes then you may vote. That keeps it simple.

What say you?

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Great idea. We would exempt a large number of people from Cigarette Taxes, Alcohol Taxes, Fuel Taxes, Phone Taxes, Property Taxes, ....et al. Secondly, those not voting would be exempt from all Federal Laws as they have no say in their formulation. Thirdly, in the event the draft was reinstated, non taxpayers would not be subject to compulsory service. Those not paying Federal Income Tax would also not be subject to any deductions for SSI or Medicare as these are Entitlements.

There are many who think that voting is a right but it is not. It is a widespread privilege that has only been open to everyone (everyone over 18 years of age and a citizen that is) for less than a hundred years. That "right" could be taken away for a felony conviction among other things.

Our founders had one large complaint against the crown of England; taxation without representation. The colonists were forced to pay taxes but did not have a voice in the English Parliment over how those taxes were to be spent. It is hard to argue that they were wrong. If you have to pay then you should have a say in where those taxes go.

It is easy to make the opposite case; people who don't pay taxes should not be involved in the process to award that money. Some will want to erroneously argue that this is about race but that would be so wrong. It is about having skin in the game or being a stakeholder. If you are black, white, or yellow and pay your taxes then you are a stake holder. There are more people in the U.S. who are white that don't pay federal taxes than anyone else. No, there is no racial design here, it is money.

So I would propose that if you cannot prove a payment, any payment, of federal taxes then you should not be voting. The states can take of themselves. One could surmise that someone who pays one million dollars in taxes should have more say than someone who pays ten thousand dollars in taxes. There could be some truth in that. Hypothetically, a country who has one large taxpayer who pays 99.9% of all the taxes maybe should have more say than one of those who cover the other .1%. I can point to those like Supreme Court nominee Lani Guinier who believed in cumulative voting. The votes of all blacks (or asians or eskimos) would be equivalent to all the votes of the white people. In other words the black people making up 16% of the population would have each vote count for about 5.1 votes each. So it has been proposed for other reasons. She was wrong about that and it would be wrong to ration voting according to wealth.

It is unworkable. What is standard? $100, $1,000, or $100, 000? If you made a single dollar the standard then Bill Gates could have many millions of votes. Remember, it is based on taxes and not wealth. I think it is best just to say that if you pay federal taxes then you may vote. That keeps it simple.

What say you?

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I would say it is a vaguely disguised attempt to disenfranchise a group of people who do not have the same priorities that you do.

Having said that, I don't believe it is inherently evil but let's be honest about the implications:

--It would move the form of government farther away from a Democracy and towards an Oligarchy, just as the founding fathers believed in (contrary to their "democracy" words they really only believed land owning men were trustworthy enough to vote).

--Just as the NRA types argue, it is the first step towards buying elections. Once you say you must pay to vote, it is a very small logical step to say you get one vote per dollar (or per $1,000, etc). By your argument, shouldn't someone with MORE skin in the game get more votes? And then those who buy the election will elect candidates who just reinforce the odds in favor of the wealthy. I truly believe it puts you on the road to more class warfare, not less. A Brazil scenario with lots of "disposable" poor. And eventually a lot of private armies trying to keep the lid on mob violence--I have ZERO faith that politicians voted in by the most money would have a sane view of fairness. Why should they? No, I do not believe the majority of rich people are inherently benevolent (or more correctly, they are not inherently knowledgeable about those in a completely different economic reality).

Again, I can accept the logic of the argument but it is about much more than the face value you are putting out there--and I don't think it is an improvement.

Personally, if you want to have people "earn" their vote I would rather see it via sweat. Three years in the military, or VISA, or other similar public service work. That kind of skin I believe is more significant than writing a check, and it is nowhere as easy to distort. Plus I think it would make better citizens if they worked to get the vote--and I assume it would be more palatable to both ends of the political spectrum (at least until they realized "the other side" is in favor of it).

PS: Lani Guinier's cumulative voting proposal the way you describe it is just plain stupid, impossible to implement in an ethical way, and nothing more than a gross attempt to subvert democracy in a different way.

Okay, we got the ball rolling but I have to correct Old T on a couple of points and confirm him on a couple more. It is true the founders only gave the "right" to vote to property owners in the beginning. What was their reasoning?
T. Jefferson was divided. He believed in property rights (especially for women) but did not believe that it was the prime motivation for citizenship and citizenship was a requirement for voting rights. Jefferson also gave his famous warning that our republic would only survive until the masses found that they could vote to raid the treasury to give themselves benefits.
J. Madison thought that all men should have a passion for democracy and freedom and only with that passion should they go forward with the power of the vote. Knowing that men are flawed, as are all humans, Madison argued against democracy preferring the republic as it was designed. Madison warned against "factions" like those with land versus those without land, those who farm versus those who manufacture, but he DID NOT divide between those who pay taxes versus those who do not pay taxes.
B. Franklin thought that the best thing for the poor was to drive them from poverty rather to make their poverty easier. Couple this with the quote that the only certainties were death and taxes. It is apparent that Franklin believed in the importance of taxes and the positioning of all Americans to pay those taxes.

I brought up the idea of race not because it has any merit but to stop the race baiters from advancing that argument. The race baiters show up frequently in discussions about voting "rights". So I just anticipated their arguments.

You would be surprised (or maybe not) that I have already written about limiting voting rights to those who have served this country. That service should be arduous, have some danger and discomfort, and not be profitable other than the chance to have a say in the direction of the country. Military service is not the only choice but would be the predominant one. First things first though.

This is not about disenfranchising any particular group but enfranchising those who have earned the right to have a say. We have already decided that convicted felons have no right to direct the government so it is not a ground breaking position to modify that "right".

Lanier foiled her nomination with her support of cumulative voting. Once again, I was attempting to anticipate a negative argument by exposing previous support by a similiar thinking faction of the populace.

I also advocate strong penalites for those who abuse the "voting" rights system. Revocation of the vote should be the first punishment for anyone convicted in a voter/registration fraud scheme followed by stiff penalites. This includes punishing an organized effort by a party or campaign. This would force parties to do due diligence over their own members.

No, no, it's not about race. That's why you spend half your post talking about....race.

ExNyer is correct about you. You're nuts. Originally Posted by timpage

indeed

Ummm CJ, this is an adult thread. Unless you can keep up or maintain the intellectual standard then just move on. I hear there is a great thread about hamburgers for you.

Ummm CJ, this is an adult thread. Unless you can keep up or maintain the intellectual standard then just move on. I hear there is a great thread about hamburgers for you. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Right. An "adult" thread advocating the position that we should be thinking about taking away the right to vote of a substantial percentage of the citizens of the United States.

I'll repeat: you are insane.

Taking away the vote....that is your incorrect interpretation. This is about reinforcing the rights of those who contribute. Of course you feel threatened, and your wiener shrinks, because your party requires the votes of the freeloaders. How sad is that? I mean that is so sad that your party works to create more poverty to increase your voting base. Sorry about the weiner comment. It was probably small to begin with.

Okay, we got the ball rolling but I have to correct Old T on a couple of points and confirm him on a couple more. It is true the founders only gave the "right" to vote to property owners in the beginning. What was their reasoning?
T. Jefferson was divided. He believed in property rights (especially for women) but did not believe that it was the prime motivation for citizenship and citizenship was a requirement for voting rights. Jefferson also gave his famous warning that our republic would only survive until the masses found that they could vote to raid the treasury to give themselves benefits.
J. Madison thought that all men should have a passion for democracy and freedom and only with that passion should they go forward with the power of the vote. Knowing that men are flawed, as are all humans, Madison argued against democracy preferring the republic as it was designed. Madison warned against "factions" like those with land versus those without land, those who farm versus those who manufacture, but he DID NOT divide between those who pay taxes versus those who do not pay taxes.
B. Franklin thought that the best thing for the poor was to drive them from poverty rather to make their poverty easier. Couple this with the quote that the only certainties were death and taxes. It is apparent that Franklin believed in the importance of taxes and the positioning of all Americans to pay those taxes.

I don't think this is inconsistent with my post. In fact, I tried to acknowledge that there are some definite reasons one could realistically and rationally seek to limit who can vote. Some of those are indeed expressed in your comments above. I just fear the eventual corruption of money in almost all areas.

I brought up the idea of race not because it has any merit but to stop the race baiters from advancing that argument. The race baiters show up frequently in discussions about voting "rights". So I just anticipated their arguments.

I did not take your OP as racial in tone.

You would be surprised (or maybe not) that I have already written about limiting voting rights to those who have served this country. That service should be arduous, have some danger and discomfort, and not be profitable other than the chance to have a say in the direction of the country. Military service is not the only choice but would be the predominant one. First things first though.

No, not surprised. When I read this OP I seemed to remember you advocating such a position before, and agree with it. It does seem the kind of view you would hold. Actually, whether looked at from a "service before self" perspective or a "contribution to society" perspective, I have always been a bit surprised that the idea never got more traction.

This is not about disenfranchising any particular group but enfranchising those who have earned the right to have a say. We have already decided that convicted felons have no right to direct the government so it is not a ground breaking position to modify that "right".

Again, I have no issue with that logic. The tough part would be to agree what the appropriate currency and amount for the buy-in.

Lanier foiled her nomination with her support of cumulative voting. Once again, I was attempting to anticipate a negative argument by exposing previous support by a similiar thinking faction of the populace.

Again, I took it that way. She is an extreme POV that has no place on the Court.

I also advocate strong penalites for those who abuse the "voting" rights system. Revocation of the vote should be the first punishment for anyone convicted in a voter/registration fraud scheme followed by stiff penalites. This includes punishing an organized effort by a party or campaign. This would force parties to do due diligence over their own members. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Another place I can easily agree in principle--the hard part would be in defining fraud vs enthusiasm. Take a look at FL as we speak: one side says they are trying to expunge illegitimate people on the roster--the other side believes they will be over zealous. There are those who should obviously be removed from the voting roster, but if comes down to "how much do you trust the enforcers to be equitable in the gray areas?".

Right. An "adult" thread advocating the position that we should be thinking about taking away the right to vote of a substantial percentage of the citizens of the United States.

I'll repeat: you are insane. Originally Posted by timpage

Yes, that is the proposition up for discussion--I don't think it is an area that should be barred from intelligent debate. There is no perfect voting system--in fact it can be (and has been) mathematically proven. Every voting scheme favors some people or groups, every one has weaknesses.

Taking away the vote....that is your incorrect interpretation. This is about reinforcing the rights of those who contribute. Of course you feel threatened, and your wiener shrinks, because your party requires the votes of the freeloaders. How sad is that? I mean that is so sad that your party works to create more poverty to increase your voting base. Sorry about the weiner comment. It was probably small to begin with. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Now, you want to talk about my dick?

You flatter yourself to think that I find any of the drivel you post to be threatening, or in fact, even mildly challenging.

This ridiculous topic is about the same thing that voter ID laws are about, the same thing that your silly voter fraud posts are about....the need of the republicans to suppress the minority vote so they can win some elections in the future. You can't do it with ideas or actions that might be beneficial to all citizens and that might convince them to vote GOP. So, instead, you come up with hare-brained ideas like this one to deprive folks of the most basic right of a democracy, that you think would win elections for you.

Regarding your statements about the right to vote not being a right....you might want to take a look at the 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution.

Your idea is stupid, it's never going to happen and you're stupid for advocating it and thinking that talking about my cock is an appropriate part of the discussion. Fucking sad little man is what you are. Back to the drawing board Professor.

Another place I can easily agree in principle--the hard part would be in defining fraud vs enthusiasm. Take a look at FL as we speak: one side says they are trying to expunge illegitimate people on the roster--the other side believes they will be over zealous. There are those who should obviously be removed from the voting roster, but if comes down to "how much do you trust the enforcers to be equitable in the gray areas?".





Yes, that is the proposition up for discussion--I don't think it is an area that should be barred from intelligent debate. There is no perfect voting system--in fact it can be (and has been) mathematically proven. Every voting scheme favors some people or groups, every one has weaknesses. Originally Posted by Old-T

Any system that bars a substantial number of citizens from voting based on income is, by necessity, never going to be a part of an "intelligent debate."

Poor Timmie, fighting above your weight class again?

I was not really talking about your dick. I was actually ridiculing your attempts at serious thought. Learn the difference.

As for the historical application, the "right" to vote has not be consistent in the history of the US. It has changed and it can change again. Aren't we talking about giving illegal aliens the right to vote? Maybe we need to create our own offensive to push back. Those amendments that you cited ride piggy back on the original ten. They have been redefined and/or changed since then. Don't think it won't happen again.

Once again, try to get it this time, this is about redefining who "has bought into" the system and deserves a place at the table, not about barring people from voting. If they can't vote then all they have to do is start paying federal taxes. Its not hard to figure out. Anyone can fill out a 1040 and just put in one little dollar. So where is the problem?

To respond to Old T; I have always supported draconian penalites for those in charge of the system to keep them honest including jail time, loss of income, and loss of benefits.

Right. An "adult" thread advocating the position that we should be thinking about taking away the right to vote of a substantial percentage of the citizens of the United States.

I'll repeat: you are insane. Originally Posted by timpage

indeed x 2