• 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 voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax


  • Total voters
    54

bilbus

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
629
Reaction score
115
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Currently 40% of Americans pay no income tax, should these financial failures be permited to influence the country?

Also should people on government assistence be permited to vote?

I understand the "right" to vote can not be removed ... but what if?
 
Currently 40% of Americans pay no income tax, should these financial failures be permited to influence the country?

Also should people on government assistence be permited to vote?

I understand the "right" to vote can not be removed ... but what if?

What if all the kids in college without real incomes suddenly started getting taxed? And then there's those greedy retired failures without income, too, I guess - after all, why should old people get to vote?

:roll:
 
And what about the wealthy who find loopholes to pay no income tax?
 
ok, fine the old people can vote.

college kids should be working also, but really do we want a bunch of branwashed college kids voting?

You need to give them atleast 2 or 3 years of the real world to get all the socialism out of their systems.

And what about the wealthy who find loopholes to pay no income tax?

I hope that was a joke. Think what you will ... Every single wealthy person pays taxes. Well unless you work for obama, and get to run the irs .. or the other half dozen people he apointed.

You really think that "loopholes" stop the rich from paying taxes .. sure they can avoid some but not even close to a large amount. Most of the ways people use to avoid taxes is called fraud. We all know where those people end up .. one day (unlesss you are a member of congress)
 
Last edited:
Holy crap, I never thought of that. I don't know -- I would have to think about it, so I can't say yes or no.
You need a 3rd option there -- "too ignorant to figure it out, and this only applies to Pookie."
Purrs,
Pookie
 
Why should people who contribute nothing, be permited to vote .. they will only vote for somone who will keep giving them free stuff.

Think of it like high school .. the one that got voted class presedent was the one who promised to do the most stuff for the most people.
 
ok, fine the old people can vote.

college kids should be working also, but really do we want a bunch of branwashed college kids voting?

You need to give them atleast 2 or 3 years of the real world to get all the socialism out of their systems.

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?



I hope that was a joke. Think what you will ... Every single wealthy person pays taxes. Well unless you work for obama, and get to run the irs .. or the other half dozen people he apointed.

You really think that "loopholes" stop the rich from paying taxes .. sure they can avoid some but not even close to a large amount. Most of the ways people use to avoid taxes is called fraud. We all know where those people end up .. one day (unlesss you are a member of congress)

No joke at all. If you do not believe that this happens, you are being quite naive.
 
Why should people who contribute nothing, be permited to vote .. they will only vote for somone who will keep giving them free stuff.

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.

Think of it like high school .. the one that got voted class presedent was the one who promised to do the most stuff for the most people.

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.
 
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.
 
No joke at all. If you do not believe that this happens, you are being quite naive.
Got any proof of this.

I've heard that high income earners in the US can get out of paying income tax but I think the top 10% of income earners in the US pay something like 70% of the income taxes in the US.
 
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.


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:
All law abiding adults citizens should have a right to vote. Maybe the kids should vote, too. It might lead to better schools.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Sure, if you cheat on your taxes you should be barred from office.



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

The lowest in the top 1% could pay the yearly income of one of the bottom 50% and only pay less than 9% of their wages on taxes.

Of COURSE they will pay more of the pot. They make more than 91% more money than the bottom 50 percent.

Think of it this way.

100 people.

50 of them have $5, 25 have $8.23, 15 have $16.64, 5 have $28.01, 4 have $39.49, and 1 has $100.

Now lets say they all got taxed 30%

They are left with

50 have $3.50 (total revenue $75), 25 have $5.76 (total revenue $61.75), 15 have $11.65 (total revenue $74.88), 5 have $19.61 (total revenue $42.02), 4 have $27.64 (Total revenue $47.39), and the one now has $70 (total revenue $30). Total revenue generated $331.04.


Now what happens when we make the one with a $100 start off with $1000? (translates into $3,888,060 per year) This works because the top 1% make greater than $388,806 so it is more akin to real world numbers to make that 1% have more than the minimum for the sake of the math experiment.

Now the numbers look the same for every one except the rich guy has $700 left over and paid $300 in taxes.

Total revenue is now $601.04! That guy just paid almost 50% of the total taxes!!!!


And think of it this way.

Let's say take 50 people who are in the bottom 50% that make just a single penny below the cut off from being in the top 50% ($31,986.99 per year) and then you take just one guy from the top 1% who makes $1,599,350 per year (a lot of money, sure, but not outrageous considering that there are about 2,000,000 millionaire household in the US excluding primary residence which is a little over half of 1% of the total population of the US so taking on of the top 1% is actually more likely to get you a millionaire than not).

The guy from the top 1% makes more money per year than all 50 of the bottom 50% COMBINED.

Now let's take 30% of taxes form them all.

The guy in the top 1% just paid out $479,805 and is left with a paltry $1,119,545 to get by on. This equals the pre-tax wages of 35 of those bottom 50%!

The bottom 50% would pay out a total of $479,804.85 and be left with the hefty sum of $22,380.84 each to live on.

So, what if the person in the top 1% made 14 million a year? Like Albert Haynesworth for example.

Haynesworth will make an average of about 14 million per year with his contract

So let's say he pays 30% of taxes on that or 4.2 million dollars. Add it the 480 thousand by 50 people in the bottom 50% and the total is 4.68 million, of which Haynesworth would have paid a whopping 89.74%! This is so unfair!!!! Poor Albert! He's being persecuted! How's he gonna live on 9.8 million a year?!?!?!?




I posted all of this to illustrate that quoting statistics doesn't mean anything if you don't take into account all the factors involved in creating the disparity you are pointing out.

I also used a flat tax rate to point out that the disparity would still occur if there wasn't a graduated tax-rate.

But let's face it, living off of 70% of 32K is not exactly the same thing as living off of 70% of $388,806

Or even more to the point, living on 98% of 32K ain't exactly the same as living on 50% of $388,806. Although both might have struggles, one's struggles are far more compelling than the other's.
 
Or even more to the point, living on 98% of 32K ain't exactly the same as living on 50% of $388,806. Although both might have struggles, one's struggles are far more compelling than the other's.

I don't disagree at all, but the question revolves around whether tax policy should be based on how compelling people's struggles are.

The fact that Warren Buffet could live comfortably without making a single penny for the rest of his life doesn't mean we should tax 95 or 100% of his income.
 
Or even more to the point, living on 98% of 32K ain't exactly the same as living on 50% of $388,806. Although both might have struggles, one's struggles are far more compelling than the other's.
This treads dangerously close to the idea that the government should decide who has 'enough' and who has 'too much' -- and then taxing those people accordingly.

'Greed' is wanting more than you 'need';
You 'need' what a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have.
 
I don't disagree at all, but the question revolves around whether tax policy should be based on how compelling people's struggles are.

The fact that Warren Buffet could live comfortably without making a single penny for the rest of his life doesn't mean we should tax 95 or 100% of his income.

Absolutely. We shouldn't tax people on the basis of living comfortably or not, but we should not tax those who's tax-burden would prevent them from living in reasonable comfort (I'm defining that as Maslow's lowest tier on the heirarchy of needs: Food, Shelter, etc)

Personally, I'm in favor of a flat-tax of some sort, myself.

This treads dangerously close to the idea that the government should decide who has 'enough' and who has 'too much' -- and then taxing those people accordingly.

Not really. I'm pointing out something that is obvious. The statement is true.

It doesn't mean that people who make more than enough to pay for their basic needs shouldn't be taxed. I'm just saying that when discussing tax policy, harping on how much more of a total revenue percentage the top 1% of incomes pay is pointless. There's a valid reason for this that would exist in any tax system. If someone makes 10K a year, and you take away 3K, they are going to become even more of a burden on society than they already are.

If someone makes 28K and you take 7K of that, you are making them pay their taxes, and they are going to feel the bite of those taxes quite strongly, but that alone should not exempt them from paying taxes. But they just might warrant paying less than the total flat-tax rate in order to prevent their taxes from sending them to the poor house.

Whereas the guy making 100K pays out 25K in taxes, he's still fine for the most part, but he's definitely going to feel the bite of those taxes, too.

Whereas the guy making 10 million can pay out 2.5 million and he's going to be peachy.

Personally, I think that a dude making 400K shouldn't have to pay the same total rate as the dude making 400 million, but I'm OK with him having the same tax rate as the guy making 80K.
 
People that don't put money into the kitty shouldn't have a vote on what to have for dinner.
 
Back
Top Bottom