Do we need a requirement to Vote?

AlbqOwl said:

Sticky wicket here though along with the difficulty of proving that one pays taxes. And everybody does pay something in taxes just by living their lives.

The danger comes, however, in exempting whole big blocks of people from incurring the consequences of tax policy. When 50% of Americans pay little or no federal income taxes, for instance, that group becomes interested in voting for people who will require the other 50% to carry the whole burden, and they are less likely to care what sort of burden that other half carries.

So the solution is to ensure that all pay a proportionate share of the taxes so that everybody shares in the consequences of changes in tax policy. Then perhaps more will pay attention to the core philosophy and track record of those they elect to office.

Click to expand...

You're on a roll. :thumbs:

Excellent commentary.

AlbqOwl said:

Sticky wicket here though along with the difficulty of proving that one pays taxes. And everybody does pay something in taxes just by living their lives.

The danger comes, however, in exempting whole big blocks of people from incurring the consequences of tax policy. When 50% of Americans pay little or no federal income taxes, for instance, that group becomes interested in voting for people who will require the other 50% to carry the whole burden, and they are less likely to care what sort of burden that other half carries.

So the solution is to ensure that all pay a proportionate share of the taxes so that everybody shares in the consequences of changes in tax policy. Then perhaps more will pay attention to the core philosophy and track record of those they elect to office.

Click to expand...

As I understand it, a strictly proportional share in the Federal budget would be about $12,000 per person --- every man woman and child.

If I had to pay $24,000 each year for me and my (minor) son, we wouldn't have enough money left to live on. Literally. Lots of other people in the same boat.

Goshin said:

As I understand it, a strictly proportional share in the Federal budget would be about $12,000 per person --- every man woman and child.

If I had to pay $24,000 each year for me and my (minor) son, we wouldn't have enough money left to live on. Literally. Lots of other people in the same boat.

Click to expand...

What does that tell you then?

They are spending to much money.
On the other hand, are you receiving $24k worth of services?
Probably not, so it wouldn't be proportionally attributed to you like that.

AlbqOwl said:

Sticky wicket here though along with the difficulty of proving that one pays taxes.

Click to expand...

A simple check of the 1040 will take care of that.

And everybody does pay something in taxes just by living their lives.

Click to expand...

Well, that's true, but when I'm speaking, I'm referring refer to income tax.

The danger comes, however, in exempting whole big blocks of people from incurring the consequences of tax policy. When 50% of Americans pay little or no federal income taxes, for instance, that group becomes interested in voting for people who will require the other 50% to carry the whole burden, and they are less likely to care what sort of burden that other half carries.

Click to expand...

That's kind of the point -- if you arent paying taxes, then you should have no say on how taxes are spent.

Goshin said:

As I understand it, a strictly proportional share in the Federal budget would be about $12,000 per person --- every man woman and child.

Click to expand...

If you look at it on a per-capta basis, yes.
If you made it proportional to income, then it would depend on the proportion and your income.

I've often wondered if universal suffrage was really such a good idea.

Lots of people vote who have not a clue.

Some of the Founders wanted to limit it to landowners; some to landowners who possessed at least $100,000 worth of property. This idea was voted down, but it was out there. The idea being that those who had a bigger stake in how things were done should be the ones making the decisions.

Not sure I'd go that route, but I would like to restrict voting to those who take it at least a bit seriously. How to do that is the rub.

Could we come up with a "test" that would be politically neutral? That is, not biased to either the left or the right in terms of acceptible answers? I have my doubts. Putting that power in Gov't hands could eventually result in its abuse, even if it started off the right way.

I'd favor a poll tax, of 1/2 a % of the per-capita GDP. Right now, I think that would be about $150.

Those who don't take voting seriously are not going to shell out $150 to do it. Those who do take voting seriously, hey you have 2 years between elections, all you have to do is save about $6 a month for two years and you're covered. If you can't save six bucks a month you've got more worries than politics.

I'd exempt people who served 4 yrs in the military or 8 yrs in the Reserves/Guard and got an honorable discharge, or were discharged early for medical reasons. I'd let them vote for free, since they already did their service to the country.

About 30% of America actually bothers to vote even in years where there is a Prez election. The poll tax would probably cut that number by half, maybe even two-thirds... and that might not be a bad thing.

No rquirements- NONE. Oh well one actually- that your vote cant be counted if your dead- Disenfranchised is just that ," Bad things happen to good people".

Goshin said:

I'd favor a poll tax, of 1/2 a % of the per-capita GDP. Right now, I think that would be about $150. Those who don't take voting seriously are not going to shell out $150 to do it.

Click to expand...

Imagine the money that certain parties would spend to make sure that large portions of their base would NOT simply decide to not vote.

Goobieman said:

If you look at it on a per-capta basis, yes.
If you made it proportional to income, then it would depend on the proportion and your income.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to go about calculating that, but it would probably still be devastatingly high to the bottom 25% of income earners.

Let's see...rough guesstimate time... the Fed budget is currently about three trillion. If we say that the average household is about 2.5 individuals, and the average household income is about $60,000... that's 120 million households, so the per-household share averages 3T / 120 M = $25,000 per household.

We could also calculate that as $10,000 per person. Whether we calculate it as per person or per household is going to make a difference.

Okay, if I make $30,000 and I'm the sole income in my household, then I make half the average household income, so my taxes should be half the household average, or in other words $12,500.

30,000 - 12,500 is 17,500.

Congratulations, you have now taxed me and my child down from "doing tolerably well" to "living in terrible poverty". We couldn't afford health insurance. We'd have to unhook the heat pump; in the winter we'd have to burn whatever wood we could cut off my land; in summer we'd just have to open all the windows and hope for a breeze. We'd probably be eating a lot of boiled rice and whatever I could shoot for the pot: rabbit, squirrel, possum, whatever. I hate possum.

If we did it per-person, at half avg household income my share would be 5k per person or 10,000 total...30k - 10k = 20k, not much better. Maybe we could afford to eat at McDonald's once in a while, but I might still lose my house or go into bankruptcy for being unable to pay my debts.

You'd have to trim the Federal budget by at least half before this could possibly work, or else there would be rioting in the streets.

Goobieman said:

Imagine the money that certain parties would spend to make sure that large portions of their base would NOT simply decide to not vote.

Click to expand...

Yeah, well you'd have to make that illegal and punish it harshly.

:shrug: It was an idea, not an ideal idea.

Goshin said:

I'm not sure how to go about calculating that, but it would probably still be devastatingly high to the bottom 25% of income earners.

Click to expand...

Just make it, say 10% of all income and leave it at that.
Force the government to live within its means.

Yes and no. I don't believe that there should be a direct test to vote, but I believe that you should not be allowed to vote until you become a legal adult, and I believe that there should be a test for that. I realize that testing whether someone is mature enough to be a legal adult would be expensive and difficult, and will probably never happen, so I'll settle for the way things are now.

I'm actually not worried about the stupid voting. That's a legitimate constituency, with legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. It's the willfully ignorant who I'd like to see excluded from the system. I can't say I have a great idea on how to do that, but here's my first draft:

Each candidate writes a paragraph describing his own positions, and one responding to the paragraphs written by each of his opponents. Each candidate also writes one sentence summing his position that he most wants emphasized. That sentence, and not the candidate's name, would appear on the ballot. The paragraphs would all be posted prominently in the polling room, but not be visible from inside the voting booth. The names and pictures of each candidate would be posted next to their paragraphs, but the sentence that's on the ballot would appear only on the ballot. Poll workers should be available to read anything, word for word, to anyone who wants assistance. Defining words would be prohibited, as that can taint meaning. (voters could bring a dictionary, if they want) So candidates would be forced to write simply. The votes of people who couldn't recognize their chosen candidate's position sentence would just end up as random noise.

I'd also require a picture ID and proof of citizenship, if the ID itself doesn't imply it.

Of course, the Constitution plainly does not give the government authority to restrict voting, except in the case of minors. (and arguably traitors) So anything of this type would require a Constitutional Amendment, not simple legislation.

Mellie said:

What if you can read Spanish, but not English?

Click to expand...

English is the language of the United States. Is it asking too much that voters know English?

Goshin said:

As I understand it, a strictly proportional share in the Federal budget would be about $12,000 per person --- every man woman and child.

If I had to pay $24,000 each year for me and my (minor) son, we wouldn't have enough money left to live on. Literally. Lots of other people in the same boat.

Click to expand...

A per capita tax would be neither constructive or reasonable.

But if everybody paid an equal percentage of their income, the lower income people would pay relatively small amounts compared to the high income people. 10% of $10,000 is $1,000 or about $83/month. If $83 a month makes the difference between having enough to live on and not having enough to live on, you have a lot bigger problem than the tax code.

The other factor in that is such a plan would be a tremendous boost to the economy so that most working people would have opportunity to make substantially more than any amount they were assessed in taxes.

And there would be no incentive at all to keep one's income below the taxable level.

I agree that they are people who are too uninformed to be allowed to vote. Watch Leno's on the street interviews sometime (et.al.). It's horrifying to think that these people vote. However, I do not agree with any of your choices for determining qualification.

Speaking and reading English should be required. However, that's difficult for some native born citizens! Doesn't mean they don't understand what's going on. Being able to read and write isn't even prerequisite for high government office. Look at AG Holder. He voted against the AZ law without even reading it.

One thing I do agree with is that all should be required to perform extensive public service (years) to qualify to vote and for naturalized citiazenship. Now let's figure out what "public service" should be required and get the amendment process underway.

AlbqOwl said:

A per capita tax would be neither constructive or reasonable.

But if everybody paid an equal percentage of their income, the lower income people would pay relatively small amounts compared to the high income people. 10% of $10,000 is $1,000 or about $83/month. If $83 a month makes the difference between having enough to live on and not having enough to live on, you have a lot bigger problem than the tax code.

The other factor in that is such a plan would be a tremendous boost to the economy so that most working people would have opportunity to make substantially more than any amount they were assessed in taxes.

And there would be no incentive at all to keep one's income below the taxable level.

Click to expand...

Depends on the tax rate. If the tax rate is 10%, maybe everyone could manage.

10% won't pay for the Federal government. 20% wouldn't. If we cut the existing budget in half, maybe 15-20% would. Lotsa luck with that.

What about state taxes? Local tax? Property tax? Medicare/medicaid/SocSec/etc? If I have to pay all that crap AND pay the Fedgov 15-20% I'm going to be screwed.

LowRevs said:

One thing I do agree with is that all should be required to perform extensive public service (years) to qualify to vote and for naturalized citiazenship. Now let's figure out what "public service" should be required and get the amendment process underway.

Click to expand...

The problem with requiring public service is the nature of the service. California currently requires 30 hours, in order to graduate from high school. One of the more common ways to meet the requirement is helping with an election campaign. So we have the government compelling children to work toward getting the government elected. The conflict of interest there is blinding. And because the "service" only counts if it's approved in advance by some designated teacher, it's easy to see how political motives creep in. I find it unlikely that praying with hospice patients is as likely to be approved as working in a needle exchange. (a surprisingly common choice)

While in principal I like the idea of community service, it seems likely to end up as little more than forced labor for the dominant party's pet projects.

Goshin said:

Depends on the tax rate. If the tax rate is 10%, maybe everyone could manage.

10% won't pay for the Federal government. 20% wouldn't. If we cut the existing budget in half, maybe 15-20% would. Lotsa luck with that.

What about state taxes? Local tax? Property tax? Medicare/medicaid/SocSec/etc? If I have to pay all that crap AND pay the Fedgov 15-20% I'm going to be screwed.

Click to expand...

You don't know that it wouldn't pay for the Federal government. Vigorous economic growth with positive effects on hiring, wages, GNP, etc. would funnel billions of dollars into the treasury that isn't being produced now. And I wonder just how many billions or trillions would be saved if we had a government who respected the effort required to earn a tax dollar and who treated that with as much care as we treat it ourselves?

One thing is for sure that over the last 70+ years, Congress has spent every dime it has collected and then some. Do you honestly believe you have received fair value for all that money spent?

Every year more and more money has gone into the U.S. Treasury and every year many billions more are added to the National Debt. That debt clock never stopped running even during the brief 'surplus' of the Clinton administration. There is no reason to think that giving the government more money to spend will produce any different results.

The only solution is to put the government on a strict diet by strictly limiting the amount it has to spend and strictly limiting how it is allowed to spend the people's money.

And the only way we are going to accomplish that is for every American to have a stake in the costs of government.

AlbqOwl said:

You don't know that it wouldn't pay for the Federal government. Vigorous economic growth with positive effects on hiring, wages, GNP, etc. would funnel billions of dollars into the treasury that isn't being produced now. And I wonder just how many billions or trillions would be saved if we had a government who respected the effort required to earn a tax dollar and who treated that with as much care as we treat it ourselves?

Click to expand...

The bolded portion could also read "if a miracle happens". :mrgreen:

One thing is for sure that over the last 70+ years, Congress has spent every dime it has collected and then some. Do you honestly believe you have received fair value for all that money spent?

Click to expand...

Nope. That doesn't mean I want them to get MORE of my money, which is what would happen under your plan. Do you understand that just a little bit more taxes, and I'd have to drop my healthcare insurance? Do you understand that a little more still, and I'd be without electricity and maybe in bankruptcy court? Do you understand that the cost of things we need has gone up between 20-50% over the past few years, while wages have not increased?

Every year more and more money has gone into the U.S. Treasury and every year many billions more are added to the National Debt. That debt clock never stopped running even during the brief 'surplus' of the Clinton administration. There is no reason to think that giving the government more money to spend will produce any different results.

The only solution is to put the government on a strict diet by strictly limiting the amount it has to spend and strictly limiting how it is allowed to spend the people's money.

And the only way we are going to accomplish that is for every American to have a stake in the costs of government.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but the point I've repeated many times is this: Nobody's tax burden should push their head underwater. No politician or plan should ever violate this cardinal rule.

Goshin said:

The bolded portion could also read "if a miracle happens". :mrgreen:

Nope. That doesn't mean I want them to get MORE of my money, which is what would happen under your plan. Do you understand that just a little bit more taxes, and I'd have to drop my healthcare insurance? Do you understand that a little more still, and I'd be without electricity and maybe in bankruptcy court? Do you understand that the cost of things we need has gone up between 20-50% over the past few years, while wages have not increased?

That's fine, but the point I've repeated many times is this: Nobody's tax burden should push their head underwater. No politician or plan should ever violate this cardinal rule.

Click to expand...

If you would be underwater with a 10% flat income tax on income above a standard deduction, you're inevitably going to be under water sooner or later anyway.

The only way out of the mess we've created is to scale government back to its intended purpose and allow the private sector to work as it was intended to work. Why do you think costs have gone up 20 to 50% while wages have stayed more flat? That isn't any result of the free market. That is the result of government interference into areas it was never intended to be in this country and buying and selling votes, pure and simple.

If we correct that and make sure all Americans have a stake in the process, I think you will see amazing opportunity and possibilities for you and your family that are almost invisible now. And your children will again face their future knowing that the American dream is alive, well, and out there for the taking.

AlbqOwl said:

If you would be underwater with a 10% flat income tax on income above a standard deduction, you're inevitably going to be under water sooner or later anyway.

The only way out of the mess we've created is to scale government back to its intended purpose and allow the private sector to work as it was intended to work. Why do you think costs have gone up 20 to 50% while wages have stayed more flat? That isn't any result of the free market. That is the result of government interference into areas it was never intended to be in this country and buying and selling votes, pure and simple.

If we correct that and make sure all Americans have a stake in the process, I think you will see amazing opportunity and possibilities for you and your family that are almost invisible now. And your children will again face their future knowing that the American dream is alive, well, and out there for the taking.

Click to expand...

Again, my point was that 10% isn't going to pay for the Fedgov itself, let alone State and local taxes, FICA/SS/Medi-etc. You'd probably have to go to 20-30% to pay for that, which would push at least a third of US households under water.

Would a flat 10% rate boost the economy? Sure. In the short term though, there would be immense budget shortfalls; we'd either run up a huge deficit or have to cut the budget drastically. Would it boost it enough in the long run? Nobody can really say, but you know about politicians and their predilection for spending!

Look at the national sales tax plans if you don't believe me. IIRC those pushing the idea want it to be well over twenty percent. Figures I've heard range from 22 to 30 cents on the dollar, AND that does NOT include SS/Medi-etc, State, Local, Property, etc.

I'm sorry, you can't tax everyone the same unless you cut the budget dramatically. Right now, our national budget is over 1/3 DEBT. THAT has to go before we go the way of Greece! THEN you'd need to cut it in half again before you have a balanced budget AND charge everyone the same rate without bankrupting 25-30% of American households.

:no:

Goshin said:

Again, my point was that 10% isn't going to pay for the Fedgov itself, let alone State and local taxes, FICA/SS/Medi-etc. You'd probably have to go to 20-30% to pay for that, which would push at least a third of US households under water.

Would a flat 10% rate boost the economy? Sure. In the short term though, there would be immense budget shortfalls; we'd either run up a huge deficit or have to cut the budget drastically. Would it boost it enough in the long run? Nobody can really say, but you know about politicians and their predilection for spending!

Look at the national sales tax plans if you don't believe me. IIRC those pushing the idea want it to be well over twenty percent. Figures I've heard range from 22 to 30 cents on the dollar, AND that does NOT include SS/Medi-etc, State, Local, Property, etc.

I'm sorry, you can't tax everyone the same unless you cut the budget dramatically. Right now, our national budget is over 1/3 DEBT. THAT has to go before we go the way of Greece! THEN you'd need to cut it in half again before you have a balanced budget AND charge everyone the same rate without bankrupting 25-30% of American households.

:no:

Click to expand...

You're assuming that the Federal government has to have as much money as it gets. It doesn't.

And you're assuming that the 10% would be assessed on the GDP that is produced now. It wouldn't.

But all that can be debated on a more appropriate thread than this one.

Now back on topic.

If there was ever an argument for having some kind of test or other cognizant requirement to vote, these folks should clinch it:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg0pDPK56Ys"]YouTube- Michael Savage- Stupidest Caller Ever- Welfare Money From Obama Stash, Illegal Aliens[/nomedia]



[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ"]YouTube- Stupid Americans![/nomedia]

I think a simple test of listing the candidates in one column down the left side of the ballott with the offices (scrambled) in a column down the right.

The voter would then have to match their desired candidate to the office they are running for.

If they get it wrong,... that part of their ballott simply doesn't count.