• 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!

Only property owners should vote

Should owning property be a requirement to vote

  • yes, only property owners should vote

    Votes: 6 7.3%
  • no, let everyone vote

    Votes: 76 92.7%

  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
That's only if you count suicide as a viable option.

It doesn't matter what the choices are, OC. What matters is that no matter how much someone tries to control someone else they will never truly be able to do it. Regardless of the claims of the slave owners they never really owned squat. You can not own another person.
 
I'm not sure what the point of this rant is other than class warfare. I guess people whose parents send them to good schools and try to set them up for a good life owe society a great debt for their greater chance to success. Let's cut to the chase. What do you think we should do with such free loaders?

Oh that wasn't class warfare, just tired of those who inherit their wealth complaining bitterly a TINY portion is given to the Government as taxes AND for all the wailing and self stroking rant the rich do, they are in little if ANY danger of losing the platinum status.

Oh they don't owe a great debt, just quit bitching on the way to the Country Club they are being 'raped'... :roll:

Not so sure the school the attended is a greater chance for success so much as the last name... I don't think BushII got where he is because of his C's in a 'good school'...

Then again our elites are becoming an aristocracy instead of a meritocracy...

As for what we should do with them... tell 'em to STFDASTFU- they ain't ever had is so good... :2wave:
 
Not at all, just admire the CONvoluted mindset that thinks because they were born rich they somehow 'worked' for it. :roll:

What, you mean like virtually every single person who lives in the United States of America?
 
It doesn't matter what the choices are, OC.

Actually, it does. Your belief only works if you count suicide as a real option. This is why your world view is so messed up. Your arguments have to go to absolute insane extremes to justify how they aren't outright wrong. Yes, your argument is correct if we count suicide as a real option. For the rest of the world, particularly the sane portion, your argument is bullocks because we don't accept suicide as a real option.

What matters is that no matter how much someone tries to control someone else they will never truly be able to do it.

The South says otherwise. As did the Spartans who ran their economy on slaves. Rome too.

Regardless of the claims of the slave owners they never really owned squat. You can not own another person.

That depends on how you define "own" and to which your argument will go to insane lengths to justify how it's not totally wrong.
 
Until students are self supporting they should not have any say what so ever
No thanks. I'll happily reject the notion that a large chunk of the future workforce should have no say in current and future policy because some would use tax receipts as the lone qualification for worthiness or "skin in the game."
 
What you mean? :confused:

Your average everyday Americans are fabulously wealthy. We have easier, wealthier, lives than the vast majority of Humanity. If you are born in the United States, probably, you are the 1%.

This is what a poor person looks like for most of humanity:

poverty-in-india.jpg


This is what a "poor" person looks like in America:

images


You'll notice about a 100lb difference.
 
Last edited:
Oh that wasn't class warfare, just tired of those who inherit their wealth complaining bitterly a TINY portion is given to the Government as taxes AND for all the wailing and self stroking rant the rich do, they are in little if ANY danger of losing the platinum status.

Oh they don't owe a great debt, just quit bitching on the way to the Country Club they are being 'raped'... :roll:

Not so sure the school the attended is a greater chance for success so much as the last name... I don't think BushII got where he is because of his C's in a 'good school'...

Then again our elites are becoming an aristocracy instead of a meritocracy...

As for what we should do with them... tell 'em to STFDASTFU- they ain't ever had is so good... :2wave:

I didn't realize there was such a outpouring of bitching going on. I'm too concerned with generating my own money to worry about anyone else' too much.

As for the aristocracy you mention...I would agree. I'm against another Bush running or another Clinton, or Reagan, or Obama. That's more of an influence thing than it is a money thing I would say.

I only hope that I can generate enough wealth and connections for my children to benefit from and eventually inherit. What they do with it is up to them.
 
many people pay taxes with money that the government gave to them.

lots of people use far far more government resources than they pay in taxes

it is not tax off earned income
 
No thanks. I'll happily reject the notion that a large chunk of the future workforce should have no say in current and future policy because some would use tax receipts as the lone qualification for worthiness or "skin in the game."

That is what is wrong with country, everyone wants a free ride without any skin in the game
 
Everyone has the right to vote (with the REASONABLE restrictions we have in place now), and that isn't going to change. It's a right, just like the 2nd amendment or any other of your "favorite" rights. :roll:
 
When George Washington was elected only 6% of the population could vote because you had to be a white male property owner over the age of 21. It wasn't until 1856 that the vote was expanded to include all white men. In 1868 black men got the vote and finally in 1920 women got the right to vote . It wasn't until 1972 that the voting age was lowered to 18 and the steady dumbing down of the voter pool was complete. Before people start screaming racist and misogynist that is not my point here. I'm fine with all races and women voting but we never should have dropped the property owner requirement and never should have lowered the voting age to 18. When you have reached a point in your life where you own property you have demonstrated the ability to participate in this society in a contributing way but the main thing is you have skin in the game. At this point you want America to be a stable functioning country that is prosperous and has an effective economy where your hard work will be rewarded and safe guarded. Kids and non property owners are going to vote on and for different issues than they will or would when they are a participating member of our economy and should not be allowed to vote until they do more than hang around the fringes. The extreme example of this is people on welfare voting and kids in school who have never had a job in their lives. These people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting against a thriving economy and for give away programs to benefit them and will vote in their own self interest instead of considering what is best for the country at large. IMO we should reinstate the original voting requirement of being a property owner.

Only Jews should be allowed to vote. That I am Jewish should in no way be viewed as a deciding factor in how I arrived at that belief.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it does. Your belief only works if you count suicide as a real option. This is why your world view is so messed up. Your arguments have to go to absolute insane extremes to justify how they aren't outright wrong. Yes, your argument is correct if we count suicide as a real option. For the rest of the world, particularly the sane portion, your argument is bullocks because we don't accept suicide as a real option.

Thanks for the personal insult, but you're wrong. The only person truly in control over the actions and thoughts of any individual is forever going to be just one person. All anyone else can ever do is coerce you to do as they desire, but they will forever be on the outside trying to control something they really can't control.


The South says otherwise. As did the Spartans who ran their economy on slaves. Rome too.

Your point? The opinions of fools doesn't change the fact that they can't control the body of someone else.

That depends on how you define "own" and to which your argument will go to insane lengths to justify how it's not totally wrong.

They did not and could not have mastery over another person.
 
When George Washington was elected only 6% of the population could vote because you had to be a white male property owner over the age of 21. It wasn't until 1856 that the vote was expanded to include all white men. In 1868 black men got the vote and finally in 1920 women got the right to vote . It wasn't until 1972 that the voting age was lowered to 18 and the steady dumbing down of the voter pool was complete. Before people start screaming racist and misogynist that is not my point here. I'm fine with all races and women voting but we never should have dropped the property owner requirement and never should have lowered the voting age to 18. When you have reached a point in your life where you own property you have demonstrated the ability to participate in this society in a contributing way but the main thing is you have skin in the game. At this point you want America to be a stable functioning country that is prosperous and has an effective economy where your hard work will be rewarded and safe guarded. Kids and non property owners are going to vote on and for different issues than they will or would when they are a participating member of our economy and should not be allowed to vote until they do more than hang around the fringes. The extreme example of this is people on welfare voting and kids in school who have never had a job in their lives. These people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting against a thriving economy and for give away programs to benefit them and will vote in their own self interest instead of considering what is best for the country at large. IMO we should reinstate the original voting requirement of being a property owner.

Whoa. That's a revelation. I didn't know that that kind of retrograde pro-feudal reactionism could still exist. If you inherit property that your renters are paying the taxes on, you're entitled to vote but they aren't?
 
Thanks for the personal insult, but you're wrong. The only person truly in control over the actions and thoughts of any individual is forever going to be just one person. All anyone else can ever do is coerce you to do as they desire, but they will forever be on the outside trying to control something they really can't control.

Your point? The opinions of fools doesn't change the fact that they can't control the body of someone else.

They did not and could not have mastery over another person.

Your definition of control leaves much to be desired. When you are using a definition that is outside of the English language, I can't have a discussion with you.
 
Your definition of control leaves much to be desired. When you are using a definition that is outside of the English language, I can't have a discussion with you.

:roll:

1. To exercise authoritative influence over
2. Authority or ability to manage or direct
 
So if I get no government assistance, then I am a NET TAXPAYER?

Why is Social Security being included into the formula since I have already paid for that?

If you get no government assistance, you meet your own needs independently, like most real adults do, which in my view justifies a full vote, like real adult citizens should get. Children get no vote because they're fully dependents of others. Adults on public assistance are usually somewhere in the gray area, so their votes should be weighted.

You don't "pay for" social security checks. An involuntary tax is not a purchase.
 
That is what is wrong with country, everyone wants a free ride without any skin in the game

The average American citizen, even if they don't pay a net loss to income tax, still pays social security tax, sales tax, excise taxes, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, taxes on telecommunications, and all sorts of other ones. Unwieldly? Yeah. Of course. But the notion that anyone who isn't paying income tax, or doesn't own property, is getting a "free ride" is moronic to the Nth degree.
 
Everyone has the right to vote (with the REASONABLE restrictions we have in place now), and that isn't going to change. It's a right, just like the 2nd amendment or any other of your "favorite" rights. :roll:

Maybe property owners should be the only people to have the right to free speech? Or the right to own guns? I wonder how that would fly with our elitist, classist OP? After all, why benefit from the rights granted in the Bill of Rights if you don't have "skin in the game"?
 
Maybe property owners should be the only people to have the right to free speech? Or the right to own guns? I wonder how that would fly with our elitist, classist OP? After all, why benefit from the rights granted in the Bill of Rights if you don't have "skin in the game"?

:doh

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Public Education System of the United States of America.
 
:doh

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Public Education System of the United States of America.

Brilliant non-seq, but as far as I learned in my "public education," the right of American citizens to vote cannot be abridged under abitrary circumstances. Since the OP is clearly advocating that, apparently the Constitution is fair game. So why not expand that to other rights?

Illegal search and seizure? Legal, if you don't own property.
Quartering soldiers? Legal, if you don't own property.
Cruel and unusual punishment, excessive bail, or excessive fines? Legal, if you don't own property.

Face it, the only reason anyone is defending the OP is because the blacks and poors don't vote for Republicans. Gee, I wonder why.

EDIT: I see we're up to THREE WHOLE VOTES in favor of the OP's proposition, yet I see more than that arguing that it's not a bad idea. Not a public poll, guys. You can be racist, classist assholes without us knowing who you are.
 
When George Washington was elected only 6% of the population could vote because you had to be a white male property owner over the age of 21. It wasn't until 1856 that the vote was expanded to include all white men. In 1868 black men got the vote and finally in 1920 women got the right to vote . It wasn't until 1972 that the voting age was lowered to 18 and the steady dumbing down of the voter pool was complete. Before people start screaming racist and misogynist that is not my point here. I'm fine with all races and women voting but we never should have dropped the property owner requirement and never should have lowered the voting age to 18. When you have reached a point in your life where you own property you have demonstrated the ability to participate in this society in a contributing way but the main thing is you have skin in the game. At this point you want America to be a stable functioning country that is prosperous and has an effective economy where your hard work will be rewarded and safe guarded. Kids and non property owners are going to vote on and for different issues than they will or would when they are a participating member of our economy and should not be allowed to vote until they do more than hang around the fringes. The extreme example of this is people on welfare voting and kids in school who have never had a job in their lives. These people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting against a thriving economy and for give away programs to benefit them and will vote in their own self interest instead of considering what is best for the country at large. IMO we should reinstate the original voting requirement of being a property owner.

So basically, unless you're relatively wealthy, you don't think someone has anything to offer society.

I'm a gainfully employed renter. And in fact, no matter how much money I had, I don't think I'd ever want to buy a house. I'm a city girl, and I like it that way. That means I will probably never own property. How does this mean I'm not intellectually capable of voting?

But even if it were purely an issue of money, how does that make someone unqualified to vote? The wealthy are the ones who set the tone of society for the poor. So why, precisely, should the poor be excluded from the discussion?

The fact that you associate allowing the poor to vote with "dumbing" things down speaks volumes about you.

And why do you believe simply owning a piece of the dirt will make someone interested in America's "success?" If anything, doesn't it make them more interested in themselves, at the expense of others if need be?

That is the logical counterpoint to your illogical statement of human nature, but it's not true, of course. The truth is that money doesn't make people what they are. Plenty of poor people, or simply people who don't own a piece of dirt, are interested in America's well-being. Plenty of people who are wealthy and own dirt aren't interested in the well-being of anyone but themselves.

If you want to raise the voting age, fine. But you should also raise the age at which you expect people to go die for their country along with it.
 
Last edited:
many illegals do not pay any taxes, welfare- no taxes

That is an astounding thing to claim. How can anyone live in our society without paying some tax when most simple purchases are subject to sales taxes?
 
If you get no government assistance, you meet your own needs independently, like most real adults do, which in my view justifies a full vote, like real adult citizens should get. Children get no vote because they're fully dependents of others. Adults on public assistance are usually somewhere in the gray area, so their votes should be weighted.

You don't "pay for" social security checks. An involuntary tax is not a purchase.

If I pay for it - like I do social security - it matters not if it is voluntary or not. And in a sense it is voluntary because I have the power and right to withdraw from the American system at any time of my chosing but I stay just the same knowing the rules of the game and I keep playing of my own free will.

I ask again - if I am NOT on public assistance and work for a living, am I in this group of a NET TAXPAYER?
 
How do we determine the difference between a "tax consumer" and a "net taxpayer"?

Is it solely money-in vs money-out?

How about services used? Even unseen services. A person engaging in international business may benefit from government programs and services that make their international endeavors possible, and without which would be virtually impossible.

The people who spout this crap are NEVER able to define such a difference with any actual formula that can be applied to each person to make that determination. It is simply right wing rhetoric based on a desire to disenfranchise the people who do not vote the way they want them to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom