• 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
Cephus said:
When can we expect these people to work and take responsibility for their own lives?
Click to expand...
Can you provide some stats to show that most poor people aren't "working and taking responsibility for their own lives"?

Can you also provide some stats that shows most poor people and wealthy people start at the same place and are therefore a valid comparison?
 
TurtleDude said:
I like Jamesrage's idea that if a tax does not affect you you don't have a say about it. If you aren't a top tax bracket income tax payer you shouldn't have a say about raising the rate. If you don't own firearms, you don't have a say in the Robinson-Pittman Act rates. Non-smoker-don't be voting on the taxes on smokes
Click to expand...

But then the folks would not be able to dissent via their votes. Only being able to vote on the things you agree with? Would change ever happen at all? Not likely. I mean it would be like having polls where the yes folks are only able to show up?
 
theplaydrive said:
Can you provide some stats to show that most poor people aren't "working and taking responsibility for their own lives"?

Can you also provide some stats that shows most poor people and wealthy people start at the same place and are therefore a valid comparison?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter where they start, it matters where they go from there. Are they all getting an education, or are they dropping out of school? More than half of inner-city kids drop out of high school and never get an education. Are they making responsible choices in their lives? Most poor people do not. Bad choices make for no responsibility where it counts. However, unlike many liberals, I don't let them make excuses. There are plenty of poor people who do stay in school, who do not get involved in gangs and drugs, who don't get pregnant at age 15, who don't go to prison, who work hard and get out of the ghetto. It can be done. I don't accept anyone who refuses to do it.
 
Cephus said:
But see, the middle class and the wealthy are actually paying for the things they want out of their taxes. The poor, who pay no income taxes, aren't paying for a damn thing, they just want other people to fund what they want.

There is a difference, it's sad that people don't recognize that.
Click to expand...

It's sad you think because someone making $14,000 or under compared to my $50k a year means they aren't paying the exact same state, local, ssi, and medicare I pay as all of these are flat taxes. So what does that mean? Does the poor that pays into these but has no use for them at the time (for example, me when I was making under $14k and single going to college) mean they have no say in it for their future? Is that what you are basically getting at? It's sad that people don't recognize that.
 
JohnWOlin said:
It's sad you think because someone making $14,000 or under compared to my $50k a year means they aren't paying the exact same state, local, ssi, and medicare I pay as all of these are flat taxes. So what does that mean? Does the poor that pays into these but has no use for them at the time (for example, me when I was making under $14k and single going to college) mean they have no say in it for their future? Is that what you are basically getting at? It's sad that people don't recognize that.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about people who make NOTHING per year because they don't work AT ALL. They get handed a check by the state month after month because they're too damn stupid or lazy to go get a job and earn their own way.
 
TurtleDude said:
I like Jamesrage's idea that if a tax does not affect you you don't have a say about it. If you aren't a top tax bracket income tax payer you shouldn't have a say about raising the rate. If you don't own firearms, you don't have a say in the Robinson-Pittman Act rates. Non-smoker-don't be voting on the taxes on smokes
Click to expand...
How does this work when these decisions are made by elected representatives, and not by direct votes on the issues? What does a non-smoking firearm-owning top-bracket-taxpayer get to do?

Of course, the very premise is absurd. Don't own firearms? You could still be affected by them, and still be a tax payer and otherwise upstanding member of society. Just one example.
 
theplaydrive said:
Yes, that GE. Just because you give a lot, doesn't mean you don't take what you haven't paid for.

Also, what about those super cool banks who took a little bit of bailout money. What about them?


Did I say that? Quote please.
Click to expand...

what causes this sort of irrational hatred of corporations.
 
Kali said:
But then the folks would not be able to dissent via their votes. Only being able to vote on the things you agree with? Would change ever happen at all? Not likely. I mean it would be like having polls where the yes folks are only able to show up?
Click to expand...

I don't think someone paying no income taxes should have the power to vote up the rates on those who do
 
radcen said:
How does this work when these decisions are made by elected representatives, and not by direct votes on the issues? What does a non-smoking firearm-owning top-bracket-taxpayer get to do?

Of course, the very premise is absurd. Don't own firearms? You could still be affected by them, and still be a tax payer and otherwise upstanding member of society. Just one example.
Click to expand...

why should people who don't pay income tax have a right to vote up the rates on those who do
 
Kali said:
Some folks seem to feel unless you are rich you should not be able to vote. Screw the poor, disabled, felons or anybody else that does not have money. Screw the rights of the folks! Only those deemed worthy should matter and get to vote. Sad state of affairs that people care more about their snooby messed up mindset than the given rights of the people!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
This whole thread is causing me to see a connection between what some claim is the Republican Party's insidious attempt to disenfranchise voters they don't like*, just so they can get their way, and the whole "unworthy voter" mindset put forth here.

*- An accusation I argued against for years... until just recently as now I'm starting to wonder.
 
Jryan said:
So you are okay with them putting a, "you must make this much money to vote."?

(Off to bed)
Click to expand...

get some more schooling. that is not what I said
 
TurtleDude said:
radcen said:
How does this work when these decisions are made by elected representatives, and not by direct votes on the issues? What does a non-smoking firearm-owning top-bracket-taxpayer get to do?

Of course, the very premise is absurd. Don't own firearms? You could still be affected by them, and still be a tax payer and otherwise upstanding member of society. Just one example.
Click to expand...
why should people who don't pay income tax have a right to vote up the rates on those who do
Click to expand...
Why did you feel the need to avoid the question? I highlighted it in red for your convenience.

ETA: You still haven't clarified exactly who these people are, btw.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Doesn't matter where they start, it matters where they go from there.
Click to expand...
It actually does. My family had many more opportunities than my cousins did and our starts definitely contributed where we went.

Are they all getting an education, or are they dropping out of school? More than half of inner-city kids drop out of high school and never get an education. Are they making responsible choices in their lives? Most poor people do not. Bad choices make for no responsibility where it counts. However, unlike many liberals, I don't let them make excuses. There are plenty of poor people who do stay in school, who do not get involved in gangs and drugs, who don't get pregnant at age 15, who don't go to prison, who work hard and get out of the ghetto. It can be done. I don't accept anyone who refuses to do it.
Click to expand...
I don't make excuses for people. I just don't reduce the complexity of decision-making and positions in life down to "you just have no personal responsibility". It's an irrational position. It would be irrational for you to say that you have gotten to your position in live because you just "took responsibility for yourself". You may like to think that way because it makes you feel good about yourself, but the fact remains that your choices in life were greatly influenced by people and events outside of your control - people and events that a great many other people may not have had.
 
Cephus said:
They should have jobs. Let us know when they do.
Click to expand...
Fix the economy and prove that most of those without jobs aren't looking. Let me know when you do.
 
radcen said:
Why did you feel the need to avoid the question? I highlighted it in red for your convenience.

ETA: You still haven't clarified exactly who these people are, btw.
Click to expand...

maybe tax decisions should be based on the vote of those affected.
 
theplaydrive said:
What the hell does this have to do with my question? We cannot have a discussion if your responses have nothing to do with my questions.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you can't seem to follow along. Your claim is that limiting voting rights to property owners would keep lower income people from voting. I disagreed by making the point that plenty of lower income people own property- including myself.


theplaydrive said:
I never said anything about right and wrong. I said your opinions are subjective...which they are. You're earlier opinions (which you seem to have abandoned, but which are nevertheless the opinions I have been critiquing) about what actions illustrate one who "has a stake in this country" and "has goals" are nothing more but subjective judgments.

If your opinions are NOT subjective, then please provide objective evidence that owning property is the only legitimate measurement of "having a stake in the country" and "having goals".
Click to expand...

I haven't "abandoned" anything. I was merely trying to clarify the hypothetical. Also, I never said owning property is the only legitimate way of having a stake in the country. Some people focus short term and other don't. That was point point.

Kali said:
Why do you wish to take away folks legal rights to vote? It was not long ago that folks felt the sameway about women and black folks voting that you feel about the mentally handicapped. I guess you probably feel they should not be able to live alone if able either too? Just lock em up and throw away the keys! Backwards thinking.
Click to expand...

lol you are making this emotional and it's not. All I said was that I don't believe that 12 year olds should be able to vote. Someone with the mentality of a 12 year old is no better. If they are, then the logical conclusion to that is to allow 12 year olds to vote. Why not 10 year olds while we're at it?
 
TurtleDude said:
maybe tax decisions should be based on the vote of those affected.
Click to expand...

Ok then the rich cant vote on anything they have a vested interest in which is EVERYTHING else ...im cool with that...but you wont like it much
 
TurtleDude said:
maybe tax decisions should be based on the vote of those affected.
Click to expand...
Apparently, the question is too difficult, or the answer is too inconvenient.

How does this work when these decisions are made by elected representatives, and not by direct votes on the issues?

But, hey, thanks for playing. Our hostess will give you a lovely parting gift as you exit the building.
 
radcen said:
How does this work when these decisions are made by elected representatives, and not by direct votes on the issues?
Click to expand...

I don't know about Turtle, but I've been treating this whole discussion as direct votes, not elected representatives. A vote on a particular issue ought to be made up of those who will directly fund and be affected by said issue. The idea that a group of people can vote to have someone else pay for something that directly benefits them seems absurd.
 
evanescence said:
I'm sorry that you can't seem to follow along.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that you're projecting.

Your claim is that limiting voting rights to property owners would keep lower income people from voting. I disagreed by making the point that plenty of lower income people own property- including myself.
Click to expand...
My argument does not rest on the premise that many lower income people don't own property. My argument rests only on the premise that higher income people are more likely to own property than lower income people. That premise is a fact and so my argument still stands.

I haven't "abandoned" anything. I was merely trying to clarify the hypothetical. Also, I never said owning property is the only legitimate way of having a stake in the country. Some people focus short term and other don't. That was point point.
Click to expand...
But if you don't think owning property is the only legitimate way of having a stake in the country, then why do you consider it a valid means of determining voting rights. If there are ways other than property ownership to have a stake in the country, then wouldn't people who use those ways instead of property ownership also lose their right to vote?
 
Cephus said:
I don't know about Turtle, but I've been treating this whole discussion as direct votes, not elected representatives. A vote on a particular issue ought to be made up of those who will directly fund and be affected by said issue. The idea that a group of people can vote to have someone else pay for something that directly benefits them seems absurd.
Click to expand...

concur totally

dems want a society where the majority are beholden on dem politicians to give the majority the wealth of the minority
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom