View Poll Results: Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 23.44%
  • No

    49 76.56%
Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 238

Thread: Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

  1. #11
    Educator bilbus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    10-22-09 @ 05:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    629

    Re: Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtRock View Post
    What if people who cheated on there taxes or pretended they forgot to pay taxes could not be appointed to or elected to public office? Ron Kirk, is the latest in a line of crooks appointed by Obama. My point is people who expect the government to take care of them from craddle to grave will allways vote for socialist like Obama, and socialist like Obama will surround himself with a den of thiefs. Experts at wealth redistribution from the hard working taxpayers to themselfs or there causes.
    Sure, if you cheat on your taxes you should be barred from office.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I'd rather have college kids vote than old people with their ancient reactionary ideals mucking up progress.

    See? I can be partisan, too. Now, how about keeping the partisan hackery out of this?

    No joke at all. If you do not believe that this happens, you are being quite naive.
    Typical wealth envy, When the top 5% of achievers pay 60% of the taxes .. sounds to me like they are paying plenty.

    What percent taxes should the richiest 1% pay? 30%? 50%? More?

    Percentiles Ranked by AGI
    AGI Threshold on Percentiles
    Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

    Top 1%
    $388,806
    39.89

    Top 5%
    $153,542
    60.14

    Top 10%
    $108,904
    70.79

    Top 25%
    $64,702
    86.27

    Top 50%
    $31,987
    97.01

    Bottom 50%
    <$31,987
    2.99

    Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
    Source: Internal Revenue Service
    Last edited by bilbus; 03-11-09 at 07:40 AM.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Last Seen
    05-06-11 @ 05:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,082

    Re: Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

    All law abiding adults citizens should have a right to vote. Maybe the kids should vote, too. It might lead to better schools.

  3. #13
    Educator bilbus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    10-22-09 @ 05:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    629

    Re: Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

    there is no right to vote.

    The Constitution says nothing about voting being a right. It says you can not deny voting because of race or gender.

    Unproductive citizens are only going to vote for someone who will give them free stuff.
    Last edited by bilbus; 03-11-09 at 08:24 AM.

  4. #14
    Educator bilbus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    10-22-09 @ 05:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    629

    Re: Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Contributing nothing and not paying taxes do not always equate. I think we have to identify what "contributing to society" means. The stay at home mom who doesn't pay taxes, but takes care of the kids, certainly contributes to society.



    The one that got voted class President was the most popular kid. High schoolers know that class Presidents have no power to follow through with any promises.
    She does not contribute to society, she contributes to her family, its not the same.

  5. #15
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    13,933

    Re: Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

    Quote Originally Posted by bilbus View Post
    there is no right to vote.

    The Constitution says nothing about voting being a right. It says you can not deny voting because of race or gender.

    Unproductive citizens are only going to vote for someone who will give them free stuff.
    The Constitution is not a document that grants rights to individuals. Some people seem to have this notion that if a right is not explicitly stated in the constitution, you don't have it. They make statements like "where is a right to privacy in the constitution".

    This reflects a fundamental misconception about the constitution on their part. You see the constitution does not spell out the rights of individuals on U.S. soil, but rather it protects the rights of individuals and restricts the powers of government.

    The 15th Amendment states the following:

    "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

    The 26th Amendment states the following:

    "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

    From the language of both of those amendments its plainly construed that voting is a fundamental right of citizenship.
    Last edited by SouthernDemocrat; 03-11-09 at 08:35 AM.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  6. #16
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,697

    Re: Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

    The answer is not only no but hell no. Here's why:

    Suppose there is a situation, as we have now, where one party is in control of government. The only thing they need to do, if this rule were in place, to make sure they remain in control for all time is enact laws that put their opponents out of work. For instance, if this rule were in place, I would begin by enacting blatantly unfair laws about how money can be spent in certain geographic districts that tend to vote republican. This will ensure that the majority of the house of representatives stays democratic forever.

    I would then target specific industries that tend to heavily support Republicans. If I could even put, say, 10% of the current republicans out of work permanently, and not incur similar losses on the democrat's side, this rule would ensure that democrats would always control both houses of Congress and the White House.

  7. #17
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    09-16-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,644

    Re: Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I'd rather have college kids vote...

    See? I can be partisan, too. Now, how about keeping the partisan hackery out of this?
    I agree with your defending the right of college students to vote, CaptainCourtesy.

    I have strong confidence in today's generation of high school and college students. Their reasoning capacities are as good as those of any previous generation. If they graduate with a sufficient degree of historical knowledge and understanding of economics (not ideological variants), they will make decisions that are no less sound than those of any preceding generation.

    I reject the author's premise concerning younger voters, particularly his reference to their being "brainwashed." If anything, he is seeking a predetermined outcome to elections. The implicit assumption is that younger voters might not subscribe to the intended ideological outcome, so they are "brainwashed" and therefore should be barred from voting.

    If anything, an excessive ideological perspective can compromise the development of sound public policy. This hazard is particularly acute when ideology masquerades as economics. For example, in early 2007 following a year when the U.S. trade deficit crested at a record $753.3 billion, some found it fashionable to rationalize that the nation's mounting trade deficits were sustainable, did not matter, and were even a "good thing."

    To be blunt, such rationalizations were nothing less than expressions of pure ignorance. They assumed a "free lunch" even as the overwhelming weitght of economic literature argues against the notion of "free lunches." They were championing the buildup of excessive leverage in the nation's current account, even as the 1980s and 1990s were littered with harsh outcomes when negative current account balances rose to excessive levels. They were doing so, because the reality that the nation had a massive underlying fundamental problem, namely it was overconsuming relative to its income, was an unpleasant one for several reasons. It suggested that an ongoing boom was built on sand and could not continue indefinitely. It pointed to imperfections in the functioning of markets, namely that over time, random inefficiencies, externalities, and human behavior lead to imbalances that need to be corrected. Implicit in that reality was the need for a degree of regulation, a notion the trade deficit's champions found anathema.

    Back to economic reality. In the short-run, enormous imbalances don't matter, as it takes time for expectations, calculations, and decisionmaking to shift. In the long-run, they do and greatly. Just as a corporation can survive large losses for a time, but cannot remain viable if those losses consume all of its cash and investors refuse to continue to provide funds sufficient for it to meet its financing needs, neither can nations sustain enormous trade deficits indefinitely. There is a point when capital inflows necessary to underwrite those deficits slow or reverse. Sometimes the change in capital flows can produce a wrenching and painful adjustment.

    In the 2000s, the U.S. was facing a situation that was similar to that experienced by numerous countries in the past, in that its trade deficit had grown to a level at which an unwinding process would follow shortly afterward. In fact, the accelerating decline in the U.S. dollar after 2006 was an indication that the unwinding process was imminent.

    During the run-up in its trade imbalances, the U.S. experienced the kind of accelerating rush of capital inflows that has destabilized numerous countries in the past. Worse, a share of that capital poured into real estate, contributing to the massive highly-leveraged housing bubble that collapsed, precipitating a harsh credit crunsh, risk of systemic failure of the nation's banking system, the ongoing severe recession.

  8. #18
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No joke at all. If you do not believe that this happens, you are being quite naive.
    Can you cite an example of a wealthy person that paid no federal imcome tax due to loopholes?

  9. #19
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    From the language of both of those amendments its plainly construed that voting is a fundamental right of citizenship.
    And yet, your state may, absolutely, not let you vote for President.

  10. #20
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

    In a perfect world, yes.

    Practically, no.

    Re: The ultra-rich not paying taxes - That's just not possible, unless they actually have no income. There is no way to get out of paying taxes altogether, regardless of how many deductions or tax shelters you use.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •