Shop 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 todayís 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 taxpayerís 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
Add a Comment: