• 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!

Should the Poor not be allowed to vote

Should the Poor not be allowed to vote

  • The poor should be banned from voting

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • The richest 10% should be banned from voting

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • The top 1% should be banned from voting

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • Only the middle class should be allowed to vote

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3
they tend to ignore this nasty little fact, able bodied people with no children don't get welfare.

just as you tend to ignore the fact that able bodied people with no children actually have jobs and thus pay income tax. :lamo
 
Don't forget that rents are generally calculated to include property taxes, so mkst renters actually are paying the property taxes for their landlords.

Meaning they actually pay the one tax that qualifies one to vote in the constitution.

this, of course, ignores that most of the people we are talking about tend to live in govt housing and therefore the govt is the landlord, so there again these people are not actually paying taxes.
 
Don't forget that rents are generally calculated to include property taxes, so mkst renters actually are paying the property taxes for their landlords.

Meaning they actually pay the one tax that qualifies one to vote in the constitution.

If you don't directly pay a tax you pay no tax. And once again, propery taxes are local.
 
Gasoline taxes, utility taxes, and so on... the list is virtually infinite. Yeah, those pesky little facts. :roll:

errbody noes dat when you live in gubbermint housing you don't be payin no utilities and since you walk errwhere you don't buys no gas neither.
 
Ok, those who "pay no taxes"* don't get to vote. Fine. Those who don't get to vote don't have to pay taxes. At all. Period. They get a refund every year for what they paid in sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, utility taxes, and anything else they paid.

Oh, wait... that would make YOUR tax bill go up as the lost money would have to be replaced from somewhere. Oh. My. God... we couldn't have that! :shock: No taxation without representation, ya know.

*- An incorrect assumption to begin with, but I'll play along.
 
Last edited:
Removing the right to vote from tens of millions of Americans, gives the Federal government more power over the people.

Why, would Conservatives want to give the Federal govt. more power over the people?

This is very confusing.

....if you can be drafted, if govt. can have any power over you...than YOU should have power over the govt.
 
They get a refund every year for what they paid in sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, utility taxes, and anything else they paid.

.

they already do...it's called the earned income tax credit .
 
...if you can be drafted, if govt. can have any power over you...than YOU should have power over the govt.

women can't be drafted, so women shouldn't get to vote
old men can't be drafted, so old men shouldn't get to vote
physically handicapped can't be drafted, so cripples shouldn't get to vote

only able bodied males, age 18-25 are required to register with selective service. are they the only ones who should be allowed to vote?

your logic fails at its core.
 
Last edited:
you made a claim. please provide evidence for the claim so we know the claim is true and not simply baseless speculation.

what claim? that I am talking about people who live in housing projects? sorry, you'll just have to take my word that I am talking about the people I say I am talking about.

here is a hint for the terminally challenged: if they don't live in a housing project...I was not talking about them.

sometimes it really is that simple
 
errbody noes dat when you live in gubbermint housing you don't be payin no utilities and since you walk errwhere you don't buys no gas neither.

hmmm....If I am reading your comment right, it sounds like you don't want simply poor people to lose the right to vote. You want poor BLACK people to lose the right to vote.

interesting.
 
hmmm....If I am reading your comment right, it sounds like you don't want simply poor people to lose the right to vote. You want poor BLACK people to lose the right to vote.

interesting.

typical

Losing-Liberals1.jpg
 
People do realize that the poor are effected by government too? This also seems like a ploy to take away votes from college students. I don't like this at all. In fact, there should be a button, "Those who think a certain group of people shouldn't be allowed to vote, they are the ones who shouldn't be aloud to vote".
 
Personally, if one resemble some of the knuckle draggers I've seen over the years, meandering thru Walmarts with glazed over eyes and an empty head, then maybe one should not be casting their vote.
 
Personally, if one resemble some of the knuckle draggers I've seen over the years, meandering thru Walmarts with glazed over eyes and an empty head, then maybe one should not be casting their vote.

My argument stands, you shouldn't be casting a vote.
 
Right but ever single one of them want their taxes lowered and the poors taxes raised.

in which case the poor would suddenly get the means and a powerful incentive to vote, thereby counterbalancing the problem. checks and balances.

also look at demographics. A minority of Americans voting could even be considered poor, and lets take it further--if a 19 year old kid working at McDonalds while in school should he not be able to vote? So a person is poor they still pay into Social Security, Medicare, and of course state and local taxes. What say you to that?

I would say that the A)States are free to adjust accordingly and B) FICA taxes are flat taxes, and hence, there isn't the creation of the kind of incentive structure that is concerning here. If we were to switch to a flat tax, much of the support behind this argument would disappear.
 
in which case the poor would suddenly get the means and a powerful incentive to vote, thereby counterbalancing the problem. checks and balances.



I would say that the A)States are free to adjust accordingly and B) FICA taxes are flat taxes, and hence, there isn't the creation of the kind of incentive structure that is concerning here. If we were to switch to a flat tax, much of the support behind this argument would disappear.

What does it matter if FICA is a flat tax or not? Aren't the poor and lower-middle class going to be able to take advantage of these programs more in the future anyways? So shouldn't they have a say now in how it is used for their future? The only thing I could think of that the well off would care about with FICA is if they are paying less into it or not.
 
What does it matter if FICA is a flat tax or not?

in a progressive tax system, a large number of recipients of redistribution on the bottom are able to take advantage of the political process to shift the burden ever increasingly onto a minority unable to defend itself. in a flat tax system, this is not the case.

Aren't the poor and lower-middle class going to be able to take advantage of these programs more in the future anyways?

as it is currently structured - not really. SS benefits are tied to inputs - so the wealthy actually get more back. Republicans have suggested that we start means-testing these programs specifically so the poor receive more and the wealthy receive less... only to be demagogued as wanting to kill off granny.

So shouldn't they have a say now in how it is used for their future?

well, that is certainly part of the logic behind the push for privatized accounts.
 
People ... wake up! Citizens v. United ...! January 21, 2010 the day "We the people ceased to exist".

The SCOTUS decision's real significance is that corporations now have an unconstrained ability to participate in elections! Cold hard cash will rule the day ...! It has an enormous impact on even local elections of judges ... I think the candidates should wear jump suits with sections of cloth allocated to the donors.

The five conservative justices, on their own initiative, declared that corporations and unions have a constitutional right to spend as much as they wish on television election commercials specifically supporting or targeting particular candidates. Yep ... they sold us out.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom