• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

If politicians are too worried about getting money to get reelected, I think there is a better solution: Impose term limits on senators and congressmen.

We should just limit voting to net tax-payers. That would really clean the system out, and keep it clean.
 
We should just limit voting to net tax-payers. That would really clean the system out, and keep it clean.

If you're comfortable abandoning representative governance... :roll:

How exactly would this clean out the system anyway? Net taxpayers - not tax recipients - are typically the ones spending millions of dollars to nudge candidates/office-holders toward whatever policy is important to them
 
Last edited:
If you're comfortable abandoning representative governance... :roll:

Excluding net tax-consumers from voting does nothing to undermine the integrity of representative governance.

How exactly would this clean out the system anyway? Net taxpayers aren't typically the ones spending millions of dollars to nudge candidates/office-holders toward whatever policy is important to them.

Once the net tax-consumers (Re: Dumb People) are excluded from voting the special interests and politicians will have to trick the net tax-payers (Re: Less Dumb People) into supporting their agendas.

An informed citizenry is the best guard against bad government and special interests; net tax-consumers dilute the intelligence of the American voting bloc, therefore they should be excluded from voting.
 
Excluding net tax-consumers from voting does nothing to undermine the integrity of representative governance.

Of course it does. If more than half of adults do not have the right to vote, the government does not represent the people.

Ethereal said:
Once the net tax-consumers (Re: Dumb People) are excluded from voting

Wow, and I thought *I* was an elitist.

Ethereal said:
the special interests and politicians will have to trick the net tax-payers (Re: Less Dumb People) into supporting their agendas.

Or - more likely - the net taxpayers will have to trick the politicians into supporting THEIR agenda. Just as they do now through campaign contributions, which would not change at all under your plan. So how exactly is this relevant to the subject at hand? How would it eliminate the corrupting influence of money on politics?

Ethereal said:
An informed citizenry is the best guard against bad government and special interests; net tax-consumers dilute the intelligence of the American voting bloc, therefore they should be excluded from voting.

Then why not just have a civics test instead of assuming that the average pro baseball player is more intelligent than the average nurse, based on their salaries? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Then why not just have a civics test instead of assuming that the average pro baseball player is more intelligent than the average nurse, based on their salaries? :roll:

You say this like it would be a bad thing. :lol:
 
Of course it does. If more than half of adults do not have the right to vote, the government does not represent the people.

Becoming a net tax-consumer is a choice. If voting is that important to someone they should simply refrain from taking more money than they contribute.

Wow, and I thought *I* was an elitist.

1. You are...:2razz:

2. Are you disputing the factuality of my statement?

Or - more likely - the net taxpayers will have to trick the politicians into supporting THEIR agenda. Just as they do now through campaign contributions, which would not change at all under your plan. So how exactly is this relevant to the subject at hand? How would it eliminate the corrupting influence of money on politics?

You can't eliminate the corrupting influence of money on anything, let alone politics. I'm just basing my position off the fact that smart people are typically better than dumb people at making decisions.

Then why not just have a civics test instead of assuming that the average pro baseball player is more intelligent than the average nurse, based on their salaries? :roll:

I've thought of that before but such a test would be prone to manipulation by politicians. Also, this has nothing to do with a person's salary. It has to do with the amount of tax dollars they consume directly.
 
We should just limit voting to net tax-payers. That would really clean the system out, and keep it clean.

WRONG.

Elitism is lame.

Every American who is 18 gets to vote. If you don't like it, you are free to leave the country and move to Russia.
 
WRONG.

Elitism is lame.

Every American who is 18 gets to vote. If you don't like it, you are free to leave the country and move to Russia.

I wondered how long it would take for the populist whining to begin...
 
Becoming a net tax-consumer is a choice. If voting is that important to someone they should simply refrain from taking more money than they contribute.

Then I propose we only allow people who agree with me on all the issues to vote. It's a choice. If voting is that important to you, you can simply refrain from disagreeing with me on anything. :2razz:

Why the tax payer/consumer distinction? What's so special about THAT distinction as opposed to any of the other infinite number of distinctions you could make?

Ethereal said:
1. You are...:2razz:

2. Are you disputing the factuality of my statement?

That net tax consumers are inherently dumb because of their lower salaries? Yes, I am disputing that.

Ethereal said:
You can't eliminate the corrupting influence of money on anything, let alone politics. I'm just basing my position off the fact that smart people are typically better than dumb people at making decisions.

Then it isn't really relevant to the subject of this thread.

Ethereal said:
I've thought of that before but such a test would be prone to manipulation by politicians. Also, this has nothing to do with a person's salary. It has to do with the amount of tax dollars they consume directly.

And how exactly do you propose to measure that?
 
Then I propose we only allow people who agree with me on all the issues to vote. It's a choice. If voting is that important to you, you can simply refrain from disagreeing with me on anything. :2razz:

Clever but not analogous. This would force people into voting for a specific candidate or agenda, whereas my requirement would not. That's an important distinction.

Why the tax payer/consumer distinction? What's so special about THAT distinction as opposed to any of the other infinite number of distinctions you could make?

Because self-sufficient individuals are usually more intelligent than people who are reliant upon the government.

That net tax consumers are inherently dumb because of their lower salaries? Yes, I am disputing that.

It has nothing to do with their salary. A person could pay $1,000 in taxes for a year and still vote so long as they accepted no more than $1,000 in taxes for that same year.

Then it isn't really relevant to the subject of this thread.

Well, gee, then we better stop discussing it...:(

And how exactly do you propose to measure that?

A calculator.
 
Excluding net tax-consumers from voting does nothing to undermine the integrity of representative governance.
Sure it does. It means that people who need every dollar to get by, and are thus exempt from taxes, can't vote.

Once the net tax-consumers (Re: Dumb People)

Or old people, or disabled people, or students, or those temporarily on unemployment...

are excluded from voting the special interests and politicians will have to trick the net tax-payers (Re: Less Dumb People) into supporting their agendas.
It always saddens me when people have such little faith in their countrymen. Surprisingly enough, most social-net programs were voted in with the approval of net tax-payers.

An informed citizenry is the best guard against bad government and special interests; net tax-consumers dilute the intelligence of the American voting bloc, therefore they should be excluded from voting.

I disagree. People who are net tax-consumers can be just as intelligent. You're just trying to rig the voting pool to favor your policies and it's revolting.
 
I completely agree, and would further assert things like, "only land owners shall vote on land tax issues."

Of course, I would also disenfranchise anyone from federal elections who did not have a high school diploma or the equivalent.
 
I think interfering with the willing transfer of private funds should be a crime.

To be honest, I'd rather be represented by businessmen than environmentalists, union thugs, minority agitators or ACORN.
 
Clever but not analogous. This would force people into voting for a specific candidate or agenda, whereas my requirement would not. That's an important distinction.

OK, OK. You don't have to agree with me on the issues. You just have to be a college professor to vote. Now you aren't being forced into any agenda, and it's completely fair. Right? :2razz:

Ethereal said:
Because self-sufficient individuals are usually more intelligent than people who are reliant upon the government.

And college professors are usually more intelligent than non-professors. So why is your distinction better than mine?

Ethereal said:
It has nothing to do with their salary. A person could pay $1,000 in taxes for a year and still vote so long as they accepted no more than $1,000 in taxes for that same year.



Well, gee, then we better stop discussing it...:(



A calculator.

How do you propose to measure how much of the federal highway budget I personally use? How do you propose to measure what fraction of our military budget goes to protecting me personally?
 
Sure it does. It means that people who need every dollar to get by, and are thus exempt from taxes, can't vote.

No, net tax-consumers would be excluded from voting. That means if you pay zero dollars in tax money you are not a net tax-consumer.

Or old people, or disabled people, or students, or those temporarily on unemployment...

I wouldn't be adverse to certain exemptions; the disabled, for instance.

It always saddens me when people have such little faith in their countrymen.

Sell it to Hollywood.

Surprisingly enough, most social-net programs were voted in with the approval of net tax-payers.

No they weren't. There is no referendum on Federal legislation.

I disagree. People who are net tax-consumers can be just as intelligent.

Exception to the rule.

You're just trying to rig the voting pool to favor your policies and it's revolting.

You're doing the exact same thing...it's quite revolting.

OK, OK. You don't have to agree with me on the issues. You just have to be a college professor to vote. Now you aren't being forced into any agenda, and it's completely fair. Right? :2razz:

And college professors are usually more intelligent than non-professors. So why is your distinction better than mine?

The relative intelligence of the voting bloc is only one consideration. The issue of civic duty is another, which cannot be accounted for in your analogy.

I think participation in the political process should be predicated upon one's contribution to the system itself. Net tax-payers are contributing to the system which means they have a right to participate in the process.

Net tax-consumers, on the other hand, are living off of societal largess, which means they are not contributing to the system, which means they have no right to participate in the political process via voting. Why should they have a say in the political process when they are nothing more than a burden upon the system? They contribute nothing yet they incur all the benefits. I don't think that's fair or sensible.

How do you propose to measure how much of the federal highway budget I personally use? How do you propose to measure what fraction of our military budget goes to protecting me personally?

That's not what I meant. I'm talking about individuals receiving money directly from the government in the form of welfare. The indirect benefits they incur from the military or highways cannot be quantified.
 
I wouldn't be adverse to certain exemptions; the disabled, for instance.

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.

Ethereal said:
Exception to the rule.

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.

Ethereal said:
The relative intelligence of the voting bloc is only one consideration. The issue of civic duty is another, which cannot be accounted for in your analogy.

Ah, now the argument is changing. OK, let's talk about civic duty. Is paying money the only way people can contribute to society? Are teachers, nurses, soldiers, and scientists not contributing to society if they don't have a six-figure paycheck?

Ethereal said:
Net tax-consumers, on the other hand, are living off of societal largess, which means they are not contributing to the system, which means they have no right to participate in the political process via voting. Why should they have a say in the political process when they are nothing more than a burden upon the system? They contribute nothing yet they incur all the benefits. I don't think that's fair or sensible.

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). Why do you need a six-figure salary to have an opinion on any of those issues?

Ethereal said:
That's not what I meant. I'm talking about individuals receiving money directly from the government in the form of welfare. The indirect benefits they incur from the military or highways cannot be quantified.

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. ;)
 
No, net tax-consumers would be excluded from voting. That means if you pay zero dollars in tax money you are not a net tax-consumer.
Another problem here is how you calculate it. Is it done by the month of the election, the year, the term?


I wouldn't be adverse to certain exemptions; the disabled, for instance.
Why should they be treated any differently?

No they weren't. There is no referendum on Federal legislation.
Let me rephrase. The majority of net tax payers voted in politicians that would either vote these programs in or continue to keep these programs running.

Exception to the rule.
And what are you basing this on, that net tax-producers are just as intelligent? I mean the rich include people like Paris Hilton who inherited their money, and people like Michael Vick who made their money based on their physical attributes not their mental acuity. You also have people who might be students or might be disabled or retired who take in more money but take the time to research the issues.

You're doing the exact same thing...it's quite revolting.
How am I doing the same thing by saying the franchise should be given to all non-felon adults over the age of 18. I'm not trying to limit anyone from voting, I'm trying to make sure everyone has a say in THEIR country.

Net tax-consumers, on the other hand, are living off of societal largess, which means they are not contributing to the system, which means they have no right to participate in the political process via voting. Why should they have a say in the political process when they are nothing more than a burden upon the system? They contribute nothing yet they incur all the benefits. I don't think that's fair or sensible.
I disagree, you seem to see the system as only the economy, and we are much more complex of a system than that. Many other things matter than their economic contributions.


That's not what I meant. I'm talking about individuals receiving money directly from the government in the form of welfare. The indirect benefits they incur from the military or highways cannot be quantified.

Just welfare, or programs like disability and social security too? Medicare?
 
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...:)
 
WRONG.

Elitism is lame.

Every American who is 18 gets to vote. If you don't like it, you are free to leave the country and move to Russia.

People on welfare that do not contribute to the welfare of the rest of the country should not have the right to vote more free stuff for themselves at the expense of those that do contribute to the welfare of the country.... I would call that representation without taxation.... and that is just as bad as the other way around.
 
People on welfare that do not contribute to the welfare of the rest of the country should not have the right to vote more free stuff for themselves at the expense of those that do contribute to the welfare of the country.... I would call that representation without taxation.... and that is just as bad as the other way around.

Are they still affected by the government's decisions?
 
Are they still affected by the government's decisions?

Nobody is forcing them to accept welfare.

You want people to be able to have their cake and eat it, too. That's not how it should work in America.
 
Nobody is forcing them to accept welfare.

You want people to be able to have their cake and eat it, too. That's not how it should work in America.

You didn't answer my question. Also would you deny someone on disability the right to vote, or someone on social security?
 
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.

So it's not really about intelligence or civic duty at all. It's about "fault." The fact is that you have no reason to believe that the disabled are more intelligent than any other net tax consumer, and they obviously are not performing any civic duty. The only difference is that you feel sorry for them.

Ethereal said:
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.

I find that difficult to believe. Almost no one who earns less than $100K per year is a net taxpayer, and even many people who earn more than that are net tax consumers.

Ethereal said:
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.

That correlation is very weak at best. And there are plenty of better ways to distinguish intelligent/dutiful people from everyone else, which you reject.

Ethereal said:
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.

Yes they do. There are ways of contributing other than money.

Ethereal said:
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.

How are they contributing to the political system? Why should they be exempt, but not nurses, teachers, and scientists (or for that matter, anyone with a job)?

Ethereal said:
The government implements all of these policies by spending money. Without money there is no policy, no government.

That does not change the fact that those policies affect the poor disproportionately. When the government debates whether or not to go to war, for example, the question of who is going to pay for it is only a peripheral issue to the main question of whether or not it's actually a good idea. You don't have to be wealthy to have an opinion on that.
 
Another problem here is how you calculate it. Is it done by the month of the election, the year, the term?

I'd let the States and local governments figure out what works best for them.

Why should they be treated any differently?

Because they cannot be blamed for their dependence upon society.

Let me rephrase. The majority of net tax payers voted in politicians that would either vote these programs in or continue to keep these programs running.

So, these programs would exist even if we excluded net tax-consumers from voting?

Good point.

And what are you basing this on, that net tax-producers are just as intelligent? I mean the rich include people like Paris Hilton who inherited their money, and people like Michael Vick who made their money based on their physical attributes not their mental acuity. You also have people who might be students or might be disabled or retired who take in more money but take the time to research the issues.

I'm basing it upon the fact that net tax-consumers are mostly unemployed and dependent upon the government, as opposed to people who are employed and self-sufficient; the latter group sustains the political system (no to mention the welfare programs) with their tax dollars; they have a right to dictate its composition.

How am I doing the same thing by saying the franchise should be given to all non-felon adults over the age of 18.

Because permitting a dependent class of citizens to vote themselves into the Treasury supports your agenda. Truly despicable.

I'm not trying to limit anyone from voting, I'm trying to make sure everyone has a say in THEIR country.

Except felons...why is that? Is it because they've incurred some kind of debt to society? Why! You cruel bastard!

:mrgreen:
 
Are they still affected by the government's decisions?

Yes they are, but if they don't contribute, they shouldn't be able to vote to benefit themselves at my expense… again, no representation without taxation.
 
Back
Top Bottom