Why? If your motive is civic duty, why should the fact that they are disabled matter? They're still consuming more than they're paying.
Because they're largely incapable of contributing anything since they're, you know, disabled and whatnot. Can't really fault them for failing in their civic duty if they're mentally and physically handicapped.
In fact, I'm much more pragmatic than you might think. I would be willing to compromise on many different issues that you and I disagree on. For instance, I think children, the insane, and the severely disabled should receive free health care at the expense of tax payers, since they are incapable of providing it for themselves; with the caveat that parents and guardians MUST provide it for them in if they are able.
I realize this is ideologically inconsistent and I readily admit it but, unlike many people at this forum, I don't really care if someone labels me as inconsistent or hypocritical or whatever. I'm fine with making reasonable compromises, so long as we can be honest about what it is we're doing.
No it's not. At best, there is a very WEAK correlation between being a net taxpayer and intelligence. Being able to make a lot of money doesn't show how smart you are, it just shows that you're skilled at making a lot of money. I would bet that the average nurse is every bit as intelligent as the average CEO.
Once again, it has nothing to do with how much money you make. I know people who make less than $20 K a year that would still be eligible to vote simply because they don't accept government money.
Self-sufficient does not necessarily mean wealthy, which is my contention, i.e., that self-sufficient individuals are typically more intelligent and dutiful than people who are dependent upon the government.
Ah, now the argument is changing.
No, just expanding. I've thought about this topic for quite a while.
OK, let's talk about civic duty. Is paying money the only way people can contribute to society?
No, but it is one of the few ways you can contribute to the maintenance and operation of our political system. I'm not excluding net tax-consumers from participating in society, just the political process, which is something they don't contribute to.
Are teachers, nurses, soldiers, and scientists not contributing to society if they don't have a six-figure paycheck?
I would also have an exemption for members of the military, since they're contributing to the political system, but I would put a statute of limitations on how long they were exempt. Being in the military is no excuse for sucking at the government teat for the rest of your life.
The government does more than just spend money. It establishes policies on a huge range of issues, from foreign policy (which affects the poor disproportionately), to abortion (which affects the poor disproportionately), to law and order (which affects the poor disproportionately).
The government implements all of these policies by spending money. Without money there is no policy, no government.
Why do you need a six-figure salary to have an opinion on any of those issues?
You don't.
In other words, it's OK if they're a burden on the system, as long as they don't receive money from government programs which you don't like.
Well, if you can think of a way to quantify those things I’d be happy to hear it, but until then we're stuck with simple addition and subtraction...