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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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..