View Poll Results: How would you vote on the compromise as described in the OP?

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • For

    4 6.90%
  • Against

    50 86.21%
  • Rabbit

    4 6.90%
Page 13 of 41 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 405

Thread: Would you vote for the compromise?

  1. #121
    Educator hallam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Philly
    Last Seen
    10-23-15 @ 09:44 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    620

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    It's not just an opinion. It is what this country is about. Equality for all under the law. Not "Equality for all that pay more in taxes than they get back in their tax returns".
    What we have and what this compromise fixes is the inequity under the laws currently. Equality is not allowing those to game the system for their entire life and direct other people's money to themselves when they are not a net taxpayer. You are fighting for inequality.

  2. #122
    Educator hallam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Philly
    Last Seen
    10-23-15 @ 09:44 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    620

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The restrictions you mention are one. And one that is biologically appropriate. You would not give the right to vote to a 3 month old because they would not have the capacity to do so. It is the same general principle. I already said that we would need to do some studies to assess what age would be appropriate.
    And yet these restrictions exists already. It is only your opinion that says they are biologically appropriate. If a 3 month year old is a citizens, then under you argument they should be allowed to vote. Anything else is a arbitrary limit placed on voting rights which destroys your argument. I love how you completely ignore that you limit voting rights of prisoners or fail to acknowledge that the age and prisoner restriction we currently have a completely arbitrary. I might add if capacity is what the age restriction is measuring then it completely fails. We should move this to mental capacity because their are millions of people who do things for immature and stupid reasons including voting at ages well above age 18. We arbitrarily say that those 18 are acting in a responsible manner. Btw, you have still failed to rationally (or constitutionally) show how this restriction is wrong. You have only appealed to emotion which is a fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    This is no compromise. It is disenfrachising members of society who are affected by decisions that they would then have no say in. You are talking about fascism. If that's what you support, that's fine, but at least call it what it is.
    It is disenfranchising people who game the system and are not living up to their civic duty. This country requires its citizens to support our government. Again, I have stated one way to do this and have admitted to you that there are other ways to support ones government. However, you have failed to show those other ways and you have failed to show why this restriction is wrong other than an appeal to emotion. You call it fascism to appeal to disgust generally found with that terms. You have jumped to Godwin's law without actually presenting an argument. Further, you have no idea about what Fascism is. Fascism is political system that requires everyone to hold singular political positions. Nothing in this argument says that our political parties would combine into one political party. Nothing in this argument says that Democrats and Republicans would hold hands and sing kumbyya. This line of your counter argument is a cop-out.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Of course it is. Irrlevant. As I have explained to you, if we look at contributions to society, you are only looking at the dollar value. There is more to contributions that that.
    Is any limit on voting arbitrary, yes. However, my argument here was against saying that net taxation is arbitrary which it isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Of course it is. This is fascist speak for "we're just making a change."
    Again Godwin's law. This is not a real argument since your use of fascism is completely incorrect. Here is a link to the definition of fascism so that you can see that this has nothing to do with fascism. Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    It is now the government's job to create equality? Wait... are you a fascist or a liberal. You are confusing me.
    This compromise promotes equality.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Prove that.
    I already have. I will so again one last time. Those who are represented now when they are not net taxpayers get representation. Those who are represented now when they are net taxpayers get representation. Therefore everyone gets the same representation without regard to putting into the government. This creates an unequal system. Anyone can see that those who do not put in get what those who do put in. If it is not their money, they shouldn't get as large of a voice in the say of what that money does. I don't care if you are rich or poor. I don't care if you are Democrat or Republican. The actual position you hold are irrelevant. This is a more equal system because those are taxed get representation and those who are not do not get representation at the same rate.



    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Wrong. Their contributions may be non-monetary. See, you cannot argue this because you have STILL not refute my position that contributions are not defined by money. Until you do, your position is nothing more than moving the goalposts and an inaccurate definition.

    And, as I said, one's contributions is measured in a variety of ways. So, you have proven nothing. Like I said, you do not get to define MY argument. I have refuted yours by explaining that contributions are not only monentarily based. Either you refute that, or there is little we have to discuss.
    My position is that there may be more ways to contribute to support the government. That is for society to decide. However, you have failed to demonstrate why net taxation is a wrong way to define support within those ways to contribute. Until you provide a rationale argument, you emotion will not sway me.

  3. #123
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    from Hallam

    My position is that there may be more ways to contribute to support the government. That is for society to decide. However, you have failed to demonstrate why net taxation is a wrong way to define support within those ways to contribute. Until you provide a rationale argument, you emotion will not sway me.
    This question was answered 44 years ago when we adopted Amendment 24 to the US Constitution barring any sort of tax to being connected with the right to vote. An idea like this - which in effect connects wealth to the voting franchise - is at least two centuries out of fashion.

    The idea that a compromise like this actually promotes equality is absurd on its face and is a statement that Lewis Carroll could have placed on the lips of his Wonderland characters. The people who would be hit the hardest would be racial minorities who are disproportionately lower wage earners. It is their rights that would be taken away in such a scheme.

    Of course, the equal rights of minorities has never been a concern to some in this land and I don't expect it to start now. It has been noted that many modern conservatives and right wingers would like to effectively the political reforms of the 20th century. I guess now we have to add the reforms of the 19th century to that indictment as well.
    Last edited by haymarket; 11-26-10 at 09:30 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  4. #124
    Educator hallam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Philly
    Last Seen
    10-23-15 @ 09:44 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    620

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    from Hallam

    This question was answered 44 years ago when we adopted Amendment 24 to the US Constitution barring any sort of tax to being connected with the right to vote. An idea like this is at least two centuries out of fashion.

    The idea that a compromise like this actually promotes equality is absurd on its face and is a statement that Lewis Carroll could have placed on the lips of his Wonderland characters. The people who would be hit the hardest would be racial minorities who are disproportionately lower wage earners. It is their rights that would be taken away in such a scheme.

    Of course, the equal rights of minorities has never been a concern to some in this land and I don't expect it to start now.
    First that amendment prevents actually taxing voting. That is not what we are suggesting and you are referencing it incorrectly. We are suggesting that it is okay to have one additional requirement to vote by putting into the government similar to the other requirement already in place on voting.

    However, I take direct umbridge against you counter argument. This compromise is not against minorities. The fact that you think minorities are not net taxpayers is slightly racist in the first place. Further to think that minorities are the only ones who are on welfare and government support is sickening. White people utilize these resources more than anyone other subset group. So your entire argument is fallacious. You have the same biases that Regan had and I would ask you to reevaluate. But I have never know Dems to actually evaluate themselves when they hold clearly false racial beliefs.

    I have shown you how this promotes equality and you have not demonstrated how it doesn't. You ran to the strawman argument. Try again.
    Last edited by hallam; 11-26-10 at 09:39 AM.

  5. #125
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    It's not just an opinion. It is what this country is about. Equality for all under the law. Not "Equality for all that pay more in taxes than they get back in their tax returns".
    If you really believed in true equality it would flow both ways.



  6. #126
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    from Hallam

    First that amendment prevents actually taxing voting. That is not what we are suggesting and you are referencing it incorrectly.
    Not at all. The 24th Amendment expressly prohibits or forbids "any poll tax or other tax" connected with the right to vote. this entire proposal is linked to the supposed non payment of income taxes by the 47% who would see their voting rights denied or abridged. You should read your Constitution. Getting proper information is the first step toward making a logical argument.

    However, I take direct umbridge against you counter argument
    .

    Which is both your right and indicative of the radical right wing who strongly resents and screams FOUL everytime their racist tendencies are brought to the light of day.


    This compromise is not against minorities.
    Because African Americans and Hispanics have incomes below most Whites and they disproportionately find themselves in the targeted 47%, it is a simple fact of reality that it would impact them far harder and disenfranchise them at far greater rates than Whites. It is what it is and you can resent it. You can take umbrage because of it. You can bristle at it. But it is what it is. And what it is is highly discriminatory against minorities.

    this will help you with the hard and cold facts of income distribution in the USA and how race falls along the different income levels

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States

    a small selection for you

    Race

    personal and household incomein the United States Census in 2005


    Percent of households with six figure incomes and individuals with incomes in the top 10%, exceeding $77,500.
    Despite advances minorities have made to exit poverty and with many Black Americans and Latino Americans joining the middle class, there is still an uneven racial distribution among the income quintiles. While White Americans made up roughly 75.1% of all persons in 2000,[17] 87.93% of all households in the top 5% were headed by a person who identified as being White alone. Only 4.75% of all household in the top 5% were headed by someone who identified him or herself as being Hispanic or Latino of any race,[18] versus 12.5% of persons identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino in the general population.[17] Overall, 86.01% of all households in the top two quintiles with upper-middle range incomes of over $55,331 were headed by a head of household who identified him or herself as White alone, while only 7.21% were being headed by someone who identified as being Hispanic and 7.37% by someone who identified as being African American or Black.[18] Overall, households headed by Hispanics and African Americans or Blacks were underrepresented in the top two quintiles and overrepresented in the bottom two quintiles. Households headed by persons who identified as being Asian alone, on the other hand, were overrepresented among the top two quintiles. In the top five percent the percentage of Asians was nearly twice as high as the percentage of Asians among the general population. Whites were relatively even distributed throughout the quintiles only being underrepresented in the lowest quintile and slightly overrepresented in the top quintile and the top five percent.[18]
    The bottom two quintiles is the lower 40% of income earners - just the folks in that 47% that the right wing is targeting to lose their Constitutional rights to vote.

    more from hallam
    The fact that you think minorities are not net taxpayers is slightly racist in the first place. Further to think that minorities are the only ones who are on welfare and government support is sickening. White people utilize these resources more than anyone other subset group. So your entire argument is fallacious. You have the same biases that Regan had and I would ask you to reevaluate. But I have never know Dems to actually evaluate themselves when they hold clearly false racial beliefs.
    Do you really truly believe that Turtle and the radical right wingers who are backing this daffy idea do not for one minute understand the racial implications of their crusade? That is the worst sort of willful Ostrich like behavior and a complete denial of income figures from the US Census bureau.

    Who the heck is talking about welfare other than the right wingers here? All I am doing is taking your proposal, your measurements, your rubrics and applying them to modern American society as measured by the census. What you are attempting to do, and not even doing it well or subtly, is the right wing tactic of screaming " call me a racist will you, that proves that you are one yourself" or other wacky illogic. It is a right wing attempt to remove the charge of racism from the table and protect themselves and their motivations from criticism. And you are doing that right here.
    Last edited by haymarket; 11-26-10 at 11:51 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #127
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    speculation--I suspect (and neither one of us can prove it) those who are paying taxes are usually the ones engaged in civic charity.
    Actually, that's not really true. People in lower tax brackets are more likely to give a higher percentage of their earnings to charity and more likely to not deduct those contributions from their taxes.

    Low-income working families are the most generous group in America, giving away about 4.5 percent of their income on average.
    A Nation of Givers — The American, A Magazine of Ideas
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #128
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by hallam View Post
    What we have and what this compromise fixes is the inequity under the laws currently. Equality is not allowing those to game the system for their entire life and direct other people's money to themselves when they are not a net taxpayer. You are fighting for inequality.
    How many people actually do spend their entire lives on assistance though? It certainly isn't that entire "47%". In fact, I'd be willing to bet that many of that number have paid taxes in the past. And many of those will pay income taxes within the next 5 years, if not this year.

    Plus, this argument never takes into account someone who may be self-sufficient. A person/family who provides their own food, water, shelter by their own hard work. Perhaps they sell their excess for just enough money to get anything else they may need or want. Perhaps they had money from an inheritence. Maybe they make good investments. Whatever the case, not everyone takes or even applies for government assistance even if they might fit into the brackets to receive it.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #129
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,856
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by hallam View Post
    What we have and what this compromise fixes is the inequity under the laws currently. Equality is not allowing those to game the system for their entire life and direct other people's money to themselves when they are not a net taxpayer. You are fighting for inequality.
    No what this compromise does is take peoples right to vote away. If you want equality then get rid of the tax system as it stands now and create one without any loopholes/tax breaks and then put in a flat tax based either on your income or your consumption. Taking peoples right to vote away does nothing except enslave those people to your way of thinking. There is a HUGE potential for abuse with such a system. Which is why we got rid of it a long time ago.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  10. #130
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,856
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    If you really believed in true equality it would flow both ways.
    Hence my support of a flat tax. But there is no way in hell that I would ever support the compromise in the OP. I would actually rather we kept it the way it is now than even think of supporting such a compromise.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 13 of 41 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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
  •