Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 22, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 164

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013
Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today’s terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.

There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.

Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.

This is counter to the taxpayer’s wishes.

Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?

If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.

Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?

Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?

Regards
DL
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconpoopgoblyn:
Poopgoblyn Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
No. This is one of those things that is super duper stupid. The taxpayer is not the core of democracy, the tax payer is the core of government finance.

Denying someone the right to engage in democracy, that is to vote, because they cannot or did not contribute to government finance, is stupid. It makes government more of a private club.

Also consider this; what if we had a leader who's been creating a system by which it's difficult to get a job, as such right before election year you lose your job. The economy is in the toilet, the job rate is dropping, and yet those that have been hurt the most, i.e you, are then unable to actually participate in an action that would remove them.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
Governments and their rich controllers is a private club my friend and as Carlin says, we ain't in it.

Democracy is a con. We live in oligarchies.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconpoopgoblyn:
Poopgoblyn Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
Except that's not true at all. and just because some comedian says that it is doesn't make it so. Throwing around empty political catch phrases without actually understanding how or when to use them is stupid and ignorant.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
How many millions did the parties get from those two groups of millionairs again? I have forgotten the number.

No. The government is free to do the right thing even if the heads have been bought and paid for. Not.

If you are the artsy type, you might appreciate this but I doubt that you are with it enough. Have a look regardless it is well done.

[link]

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconpoopgoblyn:
Poopgoblyn Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
"How many millions did the parties get from those two groups of millionairs again? I have forgotten the number." Totally irrelevant, as the actual election proved: the guy who totally used a lot more money (Romney) lost. At the end of the day it's the politician's choice to accept that or not. We don't have an oligarchy, we have a two party system that has for the last 20 or so years has hijaked the ability for there to be any kind of alternative voice. That wasn't done with bribery from some nameless big donors. That was done with sheer politics. Inspired by, and pushed for by, politics. Potentially even the desire to have more federal control over the every day lives of the people. But an oligarchy it is not.

"No. The government is free to do the right thing even if the heads have been bought and paid for. Not." actually it is, and there are plenty of politicians who stick to that principle, and many many more that aren't. Government truly is corrupt, and everything it touches corrupts. But it's not money that government is fed on, hell it can print that infinitely as it proved, but a desire to expand and justify said expansion. Again, no oligarchy.

"If you are the artsy type, you might appreciate this but I doubt that you are with it enough. Have a look regardless it is well done." Considering I spend long hours publishing work on dA, and being engaged in the community, and considering that I take art history and history in general as something cherish able, I do consider myself artsy. But that doesn't mean I'm some sort of gullible pseudo-intelligent half wit that is going to somehow paint a political picture with a single little art piece. No sorry. There is a ton more subtext, context, historical, macro and micro economic,political and everything else in between that is involved.

If you come here wanting to have an actual discussion about real world events, and real problems that ARE in fact facing you, I welcome it. But if you're going to sit here and push forward a bunch of hip-cat-wannabe political bullshit on people it's going to get called out. By me. And right now, it's being called out.
Reply
:iconkeydan:
Keydan Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
We need to define what kinds of taxes, because everyone pays the VAT. But yes, I believe working people, who pay taxes, have no relevant crimes on them and of age 21+ should have the right of vote. And one vote for everybody, none of that proportional stuff, every man has 1 vote that counts up to a total.
USA voting system is fucked up with their regionals and primaries.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
I agree with your last.

I see governments as corporations and in corporate voting, the largest holders of stock are given more say than those who only hold a few and that is why I think that the guy who pays 10 million dollars in taxes should have more say than the one paying 20.

If you were the one paying 10 million, would you feel that the one who pays 20 is equal to you?

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconkeydan:
Keydan Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
As the one who pays millions in taxes, I bet I'd had other methods of political influence besides voting :)
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
That did not quite answer the question but it shows that we are on the same page.

Hard to say sometimes though when there is bobbing and weaving going on.

Regards
DL
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
It is unconstitutional to exclude voters due to income.

However, Isee your point and it is a valid one.

The poor do not pay their fair share of taxes, neither do the middle-class.

So why are the rich being targeted as if they are bad people for being successful?

The poor are always a burden and they will always vote for the Democrat. The liberals have made the "war on poverty"since FDR their baby, but they never plan on winning. The poverty level doesn't go down. If it did, we wouldn't need the entitlement party (Dems) anymore. They know that, that is why they never actually fix the problem. They can't, and they really don't know how.

They want and need the useless and the lazy to have their backs, so they offer freebees and get votes in return.

The only reason the libs want the Dream Act to be passed, is because hispanics make up a great deal of these people and they most likely will vote Democrat. So if the government can make them legal voters, they see a Democrat run dictatorship in the future. We already see that with our silly king, Obama. He is the most arrogant and yet under-qualified man to ever take the oval office. However, his purpose is clear, make the USA a European cesspool and the people subservient to government, by trampling the US Constitution in the mud..
Reply
:iconferricplushy:
FerricPlushy Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Didn't Mitt Romney pay like 14% taxes on 18 million dollars? How is that fair share?
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Income is taxed higher than capital gains.

Mitt Romney does not draw an income check, his money comes from investments.

The reason, is because the money invested is already taxed, and the lower tax is there to encourage investment risk. Since there is a risk, the tax must be low to give a good reason for investment.

Whatever complexities of his taxes gave way to a lower percentage, that is his business and also within the law.

Any one of us would take all tax breaks and deductions we can to pay as little as we can. As long as it is within the law, there is nothing alarming about it. The rich have the same rights we do concerning the rules of taxes.

Good for him that he could keep as much as he did. I wouldn't have much respect if he were not smart enough to know how to hold onto his cash.

The very reasons that Dems put down Romney, is what would have made him a great president during bad economic times. I would rather have a smart businessman at the helm, than a community organizer that hasn't run as much as a snow-cone machine, let alone a real business.

Vilifying the rich for being successful is pure jealousy. You, me and the rest of the country, are not deserving of Mr. Romney's cash. He earned it. It is his. All beggars be damned.

Totally legal and totally fair.

When will the poor pay their fair share? They put nothing on the line, nothing into the system. They just take. But Obama is proud he has a record level of losers on the public dole. As long as he keeps giving them free money, they will support him and he will support them.

Mitt Romney also gives more than 10% of his increase every year to charity. more than Obama. More than Biden. He also has paid more in one year in taxes even at a low percentage, than you and your parents collectively will pay in your whole entire lives.

So, who are you, to claim that Gov. Romney isn't paying enough or paying his fair share?

We always hear these complaints of the rich, by those who never have a dollar to their name. The rich pay almost ALL the taxes in this country. It's something like 10% of the wage earners in this country pay 90% of the taxes. That (about) 10% are the top wage earners, the rich, the evil white rich man. And yet they pay for most all the infrastructure and programs you take for granted.

So long as you get your information from leftist outlets, you will be misinformed.
Reply
:iconferricplushy:
FerricPlushy Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
LOL you are completely brainwashed. For one, if you reinvest your money back into the company you own that money is tax exempt. And the money you make from capital gains and the money you invest to render dividends are completely different, dividends aren't already taxed.
You're such a little sycophant to think if it's law it is just. What about the millions these "job creators " hide in offshore accounts or shell companies? How is that the same playing as a nurse or teacher?
You know running a corporation doesn't make you a benevolent overlord like you seem to think a plutocracy would function. Workers have no rights, you can be fired for no reason whatsoever, severance isn't required by law, and your company can sue you years later to get back the unemployment you get. I know this for a fact because this is exactly how Cleveland Clinic operates.
Raises are a thing of the past.
I'm not vilifying the rich for being successful, I'm vilifying them for destroying the middle class. Union membership is at record lows because of these billionaire fucks lobbying for representatives that union bust, and as the rate of union membership goes down, the level of economic disparity increases. America has one of the very highest levels of economic disparity of virtually any modernized country, at the same levels of Central American Countries, and it's because someone was laid off for the benefit of some asswipes stock options.
You're the one vilifying the working poor that have no workers rights, that have been fired without cause, tossed out of their union, or became the victim of "productivity"
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
Pleased that you see my POV on taxes.

Being Canadian I have my own view of the U S political arena and FMPOV, Obama is the best you have had in quite a while. He is still a puppet to his handlers but he is bright enough to know what rhetoric to use which is lacking at present in his opposition.

Especially on gays, women and pot.
He does not suffer from the usual American phobias and if he can kiss his handlers off, watch what he can do. If I am right that is.

Regards
DL
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Sorry, but Obama is not qualified to do the job and is failing every day.

He is a far-left whack-o socialist pig, that spends money we don't have, and puts the burden on our children. He is proud to be the food-stamp president, which basically means, he's proud that more people than ever before are now subservient to nanny government on his watch.

Our spending and national debt are out of control and are the top issues on people's minds, but he is only interested in silly distractions like immigration reform and gun control.

In 4 years he broke his promises and made the economy worse and then blamed everything he fails at on the Republicans and George Bush. When is this arrogant slacker going to own his own presidency? Are we going to hear him blame Bush for the next 4 years for his mistakes?

We are NOT better off than we were 4 years ago.

Obama is not as smart as people make him out to be. He is under qualified to do the job.

Bush was a better president by far. No question. No contest. Bush at least, is a real man, can't say the same for that pussy in the White House now.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
Sure. That is why his party did not even think of using him to win the election. Even they were ashamed of his record.

[link]

I am pleased we agreed on taxes.

Regards
DL
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
You evidently are not old enough to have seen many elections.

You also are using a puppet account and that means we are done.

I don't trust puppet accounts.
Reply
:iconhyenaworks:
Hyenaworks Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Define taxpayer?
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
Try Webster.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconhyenaworks:
Hyenaworks Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Here to help.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
Trying to redefine the English language and change definitions is not the way.

Providing a decent argument and arguing against those opposed is how help is given.

I do thank you though. I try to help others in the way mentioned and that seems to be appreciated.

Regards
DL
Reply
:icon8291353:
8291353 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
No, we all live in this country and we all deserve an equal share of say in our government. Plus, the idea of tax payers only being allowed to pay is ludicrous. It reminds me of the argument during pre-colonial times that only those who met a certain amount of landownership were allowed a minor say in government, not to mention the requirement of being a white male. Besides, technically for instance soldiers deployed aren't able to pay taxes so you'd be making it so those who served our country in the line of fire not be able to have a say in the government they are defending. (Correct me if I am wrong that soldiers can't pay taxes while on tour)
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
I don't know but they would not be exempt in any case as that type of service is giving value to the country. My target would be c hronic taxtakers.

As to deserving to vote, my basic view is no taxation without representation, the law of the land, and in effect that says that if you do not pay taxes and are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. See the logic?

On your poll tax or other older requirements. Do you think they have all gone away?

Watch this before your reply.

[link]

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconmercuryshine:
MercuryShine Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013
Everyone would still be allowed to vote, unless you've never ever bought anything with money you've earned or has been given to you.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
My basic view is no taxation without representation and in effect that says that if you do not pay taxes and are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. See the logic?

Paying 2 bucks in 20 years does not cut it.

But if you think such should be able to vote themselves a raise from your pocket then enjoy the thought.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
"When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. "

Read history fool:
[link]
"Only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens. "
nowhere is property mentioned.

There are two types of citizens, those who work for their money, and those who live off the hard work of others. Who pays taxes is not relevant. Because if you reduce someone to bellow the level where they need to pay taxes, you do not reduce the work they do, or economic benefit of such work, or the goods or services in society that work provides.

If you want the poor to pay more taxes, here is a hint, pay them more, and they will, by default.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
Try reading his Republic.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
dear fucking lord. Plato wrote the republic, not socrates.

[link]

It was written with a venomous tounge, after Socrates was more of less convicted by a lynch mob, and sentanced to die. (of which he took his own life for his own honor). It featured society being led by a "Philosopher King".

Athens was a Democracy, not a Republic, as described by Plato.

Rome was a republic, and so was Mussolini’s Italy.
Reply
:iconmars-walker:
Mars-Walker Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
So WWII veterans living in convalescent homes with no taxable income won't be able to vote? A lot of people pay no taxes for that reason. More and more people just don't have the capacity to pay in, and you can blame job destruction for that on top of disability.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
Vets and any who contribute to the society have earned their vote. 2nd and 3rd generation welfare families have not.

My basic view is no taxation without representation and in effect that says that if you do not pay taxes and are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. See the logic?

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconmars-walker:
Mars-Walker Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
This is voter disenfranchisement you are supporting.
Many welfare recipients cannot work due to disability. Business's don't hire people born without limbs. You ever been to a hospital and seen the human wreckage that cannot walk or work ever again? And what about 60 year old non veterans who are locked out of the labor market? They can't pay taxes without income, and you cannot assume they all have investments that are making enough to even be taxable.

Also, you should consider the fact that large geographic segments of the country are economically depressed, and have been for generations. When the auto industry shrank leaving the rust belt in its wake, it also took a vast logistics and service industry with it. Those are parts of the country where jobs are so scarce that most people don't bother looking. The jobs that do exist don't pay enough to sustain a family, and thus the despair and extreme poverty.

Here's something else you should REALLY pay attention to: the federal government basically pays food stamps as a way of preventing the counties from collapsing, and the people to starve and resort to mob brigandry to survive (read about the conditions prior to the Russian and French revolutions). Yeah, its that crucial to our system.

Those people are already de facto second class citizens, and now you want to exclude them from the political process which may offer hope of resolving this catastrophe? This to me reads more than a little malicious, frankly, it pisses on the notion of America that is to set on a path towards "a more perfect Union."
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
You seem to think that no just standard would be set but I think one would be and I refuse to deal with all the extreme examples that you site. We would be here till 3012.

My basic view is what was the law of the land in many countries in the past. No taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. IOW, of you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.

The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

Payment can be made in various ways so do not think I am going after the poor. In the case of Vets, representation can be earned by serving to protect the country. Those who sometimes pay taxes and at other times take taxes would have to be looked at once a standard is set. If a person pays 15 years out of 20 for instance, he would vote. Someone who only paid 5 years out of 20 and was on the dole or public purse for 15 may not get a vote.

The point is that when more and more fall into the poor categories, their vote can and is bought by the unscrupulous politicians who are elected by promises of a raise in welfare checks.

The rich are getting richer and the poor better off and the middle is squeezed by both side and any election basically becomes a war against the middle thanks to the fact that politicians are owned by the rich.

This is unjust and unsustainable and must end.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013
Did you know people can both give taxes and receive tax-paid-for services?
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
Yes. They are either net givers or net takers.
Should only the givers vote on where their wealth goes?

Most pay VAT but those on the dole use your dollars to pay it.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
Do we weight someone's vote by how much they give? If that's the case, we might as well just let people buy politicians, since it all boils down to dollars anyway.

Seems an overly complex system.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
People are already bying our politicians. Have you not noticed?

As to paying taxes.

No taxation without representation says in effect that if you do not pay taxes and are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. Right?

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
No taxation without representation isn't a law, it's a slogan.

Taking more from taxes than you pay and not paying taxes at all are two totally different things.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
True.

One should earn representation and the other not.

You seem to think that voting iu a right.

Compare that right to the right of the middle to not have their hard earned dollars taken by a corrupted system of bought and paid for politicians controled by the rich. These get elected by picking the middles pocket and using it to make promises to the poor and buying their vote.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
No, it shouldn't.

Yes, it is.

That's not a right, that's an ideal. Something we could only hope for in a perfect world. The world is not perfect. Denying the poor a say will not improve the status of the middle class.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
My basic view is what was the law of the land in many countries in the past. No taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. IOW, of you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.
The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

Payment can be made in various ways so do not think I am going after the poor. In the case of Vets, representation can be earned by serving to protect the country. Those who sometimes pay taxes and at other times take taxes would have to be looked at once a standard is set. If a person pays 15 years out of 20 for instance, he would vote. Someone who only paid 5 years out of 20 and was on the dole or public purse for 15 may not get a vote.

The point is that when more and more fall into the poor categories, their vote can and is bought by the unscrupulous politicians who are elected by promises of a raise in welfare checks.

The rich are getting richer and the poor better off and the middle is squeezed by both side and any election basically becomes a war against the middle thanks to the fact that politicians are owned by the rich.

This is unjust and unsustainable and must end.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconalevkov:
alevkov Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Yes. You know what, give also fresh water only to taxpayers.
Reply
:iconalevkov:
alevkov Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
FRESH AIR AND CLEAN WATER FOR TAXPAYERS!
Reply
:iconghostinthepines:
GhostInThePines Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
How about this... those who pay federal taxes can vote to elect federal representatives. Those who pay state taxes (include sales taxes on purchased items) can vote to elect state & local representatives.

How's that work for ya?
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
Not good. We all pay VAT but those on the dole use your money to pay it.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconimperius-rex:
Imperius-Rex Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I think everyone should be allowed to vote, regardless of their income.
Also, anybody who makes a purchase is paying a tax, even children.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
Yes, all pay VAT but those on the dole use your dollars to pay it and you have no choice.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
but most non-tax payers are productive citizens contributing to the economy. You know, in the private sector. They just don't make enough to afford to pay taxes.

If people got paid more, there would be less need for government services, and more tax dollars. Somehow this goes unanswered.

Same token, owners don't do anything, get money off someone elses work, and pay less tax per dollar. They then play a mind game complaining, that someone is taking from them via taxes, when its the same production they've taken from someone else, previously.

Of course, the heads of large companies could get together all, agree on living wages, and end the corporate welfare state by increasing wages. They could then agree to slash their own pay, and that of shareholders. More people that wouldn't notice the money missing, and wouldn't

This money is more likely to be spent locally, in the US economy

Just like the big media companies could cut down piracy be agreeing not to pay any actor, more than $1million a film.

Or mabey I take a page out of your book, and quote the bible. Mathew 19:24
[link]
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

*makes a cross motion with his hands, then squirts greatest-i-am with a holywater loaded squirt gun*

SATAN I COMMAND YOU TO LEAVE THESE FORUMS.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
Not my bible friend.

Many suggestions and some may even be workable and your first example is not one of the people who I call taxtakers. He is not on the public purse.

No taxation without representation says in effect that if you do not pay taxes and are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. Right?

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
*keeps squirting greatest-i-am with a holy water loaded squirt gun*

SATAN I COMMAND YOU TO LEAVE THESE FORUMS.
Reply
:iconshininginthedarkness:
You'd also be disenfranchising housewives and students.
Reply
Add a Comment: