Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
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
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
Comments165
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
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.
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.
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
Democracy is a con. We live in oligarchies.
Regards
DL
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.
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
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
"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.
"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.
USA voting system is fucked up with their regionals and primaries.
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
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
As the one who pays millions in taxes, I bet I'd had other methods of political influence besides voting 
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
Hard to say sometimes though when there is bobbing and weaving going on.
Regards
DL
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..
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..
Didn't Mitt Romney pay like 14% taxes on 18 million dollars? How is that fair share?
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.
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.
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"
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"
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
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
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.
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.
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
[link]
I am pleased we agreed on taxes.
Regards
DL
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.
You also are using a puppet account and that means we are done.
I don't trust puppet accounts.
Define taxpayer?
Try Webster.
Regards
DL
Regards
DL
Here to help.
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
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
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)
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
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
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.