• 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!

Would you vote for the compromise?

How would you vote on the compromise as described in the OP?

  • Total voters
    49
Unlike mega, I actually voted for this compromise. Again, this is not a measure removing anyone who pays the lower tax rates. Nor within the compromise, as described, do the rich get more power. In fact, I would say that this compromise benefits the middle class the most.

My rationale for voting yes is this. Those who do not functionally support our government should be limited in their voice in that government. Remember, a net taxpayer only has to put in more than they get out in direct deductions or credits. It is the same as our fighting motto during the Revolutionary War "no taxation without representation" only stated as "no representation without taxation." Mind you the all social groups could just as easily get enough tax breaks and deductions to remove them from the net taxpayer "bracket."

I don't understand why we do allow those who do not pay for the government to get a voice. I have no problem with helping the poor or the needed and even lowering their tax brackets appropriately. If we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people then I see no reason why taxation can't be a standard to use to define "of" and "by."
 
TurtleDude said:
but lets-for the sake of argument-agree that we could find an objective way of determining a non-contributor-and why should that person have equal say to someone who is a major contributor-be it a medal of honor hero or the guy who discovered a cure for Polio or AIDS
Click to expand...

For starters:

TacticalEvilDan said:
the government has a record of sucking at the second thing (accurate measurement).
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
I think the more accurate term is those were morally wrong. I don'[t think its a question of morality as to who has the franchise
Click to expand...

They were the norm when the US was founded, you suggested that only allowing property owners being the only ones to vote was american because it was the norm when the US was founded should be used as a basis for limiting the vote today. As for not being able to vote for the government that has authority to make laws over what you do, is certainly a moral issue. If you cant vote to prevent the government from locking you up or limiting your freedoms because you are Japanese, a woman, or Nigerian, it most certainly is a moral issue. Now if you want to limit the laws of the US government to apply only to those who pay taxes, and as such have the ability to vote then I would agree with you. But I doubt many people would like to see millions apon millions of Americans with immunity to US federal government laws
 
TurtleDude said:
lets stop being evasive

You know there are plenty of people who make no positive contributions to society-lets start with them.
Click to expand...

If we can't define or agree on terms, discussing this is pointless. You need to describe what you mean by positive contribution.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
If we can't define or agree on terms, discussing this is pointless. You need to describe what you mean by positive contribution.
Click to expand...

define it as you see fit and imagine someone who makes no positive contributions and compare them to those who (in your mind) do

why should the former have the same say as the latter
 
hallam said:
Unlike mega, I actually voted for this compromise. Again, this is not a measure removing anyone who pays the lower tax rates. Nor within the compromise, as described, do the rich get more power. In fact, I would say that this compromise benefits the middle class the most.

My rationale for voting yes is this. Those who do not functionally support our government should be limited in their voice in that government. Remember, a net taxpayer only has to put in more than they get out in direct deductions or credits. It is the same as our fighting motto during the Revolutionary War "no taxation without representation" only stated as "no representation without taxation." Mind you the all social groups could just as easily get enough tax breaks and deductions to remove them from the net taxpayer "bracket."

I don't understand why we do allow those who do not pay for the government to get a voice. I have no problem with helping the poor or the needed and even lowering their tax brackets appropriately. If we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people then I see no reason why taxation can't be a standard to use to define "of" and "by."
Click to expand...

I'll challenge you to the same thing as I did turtle. Define "functionally support our governement"... and remember, taxes are not the only way people do that.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'll challenge you to the same thing as I did turtle. Define "functionally support our governement"... and remember, taxes are not the only way people do that.
Click to expand...

do you think everyone who currently exists in America actually supports the goverment or society in a net positive fashion?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'll challenge you to the same thing as I did turtle. Define "functionally support our governement"... and remember, taxes are not the only way people do that.
Click to expand...

Taxation is a reasonable interpretation of functional support of government
 
hallam said:
Taxation is a reasonable interpretation of functional support of government
Click to expand...

however i would note that a disabled combat veteran or fire fighter who may no longer be able to work has paid in full
 
TurtleDude said:
define it as you see fit and imagine someone who makes no positive contributions and compare them to those who (in your mind) do

why should the former have the same say as the latter
Click to expand...

These are actually two questions. I would define someone as making no positive contributions to society as VERY limited.Maybe the homeless drug addict who has refused any and all assistance that has been offered from friends, family, charities, and the government. But I still wouldn't disenfranchise him, because he is still bound by the laws in this country and bound by societal standards. If you are a citizen of a country and have to abide by the rules of that country, to me, it is your right to have a say in those rules. Regardless of what you earn, own, or taxes you pay.
 
hallam said:
Taxation is a reasonable interpretation of functional support of government
Click to expand...

Nope. There are many other ways people contribute. If you are going to keep the scope limited, like this, your argument holds no water.
 
TurtleDude said:
however i would note that a disabled combat veteran or fire fighter who may no longer be able to work has paid in full
Click to expand...

There are caveats to everything. And although I agree that veterans should get specialized status, that would be for the overall society to decide.
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess you don't want to engage in a discussion based on the parameters I established
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that I don't trust the government to accurately measure the worth of a person's contribution even based on a theoretically objective, fair standard.

If you want me to assume that it could for the sake of argument, you're essentially asking me to assume a spherical cow of uniform density.

Are you asking me to make that assumption? If you are, I will, but only on the premise that it's impossible in the real world.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
These are actually two questions. I would define someone as making no positive contributions to society as VERY limited.Maybe the homeless drug addict who has refused any and all assistance that has been offered from friends, family, charities, and the government. But I still wouldn't disenfranchise him, because he is still bound by the laws in this country and bound by societal standards. If you are a citizen of a country and have to abide by the rules of that country, to me, it is your right to have a say in those rules. Regardless of what you earn, own, or taxes you pay.
Click to expand...

ah the statist argument

since its the law it has to be right.

ok I guess that ends the discussion
 
TurtleDude said:
do you think everyone who currently exists in America actually supports the goverment or society in a net positive fashion?
Click to expand...

I would say that very few people do not. I also qualified my position in my previous post. This is more like the "stop beating your wife" argument. My position is that you do not have to contribute at all in order to vote, for the reasons I outlined.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Nope. There are many other ways people contribute. If you are going to keep the scope limited, like this, your argument holds no water.
Click to expand...

if so many people contribute I wonder why we have such a large deficit:mrgreen:

I guess we should have made it net contributions. iF someone steals 100K from a bank and then buys something and pays 10 dollars in sales tax I guess you would claim that is a positive contribution:2wave:
 
TurtleDude said:
ah the statist argument

since its the law it has to be right.

ok I guess that ends the discussion
Click to expand...

That's a complete distortion of what I said. Try reading it again. And... just because you don't like my position, doesn't make it any less accurate. I am coming from a "rights" position. I thought you folks felt that people had inalienable rights. Guess not.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I would say that very few people do not. I also qualified my position in my previous post. This is more like the "stop beating your wife" argument. My position is that you do not have to contribute at all in order to vote, for the reasons I outlined.
Click to expand...

and why should they vote?
 
TurtleDude said:
if so many people contribute I wonder why we have such a large deficit:mrgreen:

I guess we should have made it net contributions. iF someone steals 100K from a bank and then buys something and pays 10 dollars in sales tax I guess you would claim that is a positive contribution:2wave:
Click to expand...

You seem to believe that the only way one contributes is through their wallet. A VERY narrow view, indeed.
 
Here is a thought


As the US originally did not have an income tax, and funded most of the budget through excise taxes or tariffs, the US government should have only allowed merchants both foreign and US citizens to vote. Not property owners as they were not paying income taxes
 
TurtleDude said:
lets stop being evasive

You know there are plenty of people who make no positive contributions to society-lets start with them.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should just put em in slave labor camps. You would probably support it:shock:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You seem to believe that the only way one contributes is through their wallet. A VERY narrow view, indeed.
Click to expand...

you seem to think that existence is contribution. You also seem to think almost everyone is a net contributor

but why should someone who doesn't contribute have equal say with those who do?
 
TurtleDude said:
and why should they vote?
Click to expand...

Because as a citizen, they have to abide by the laws and rules of this society and country. I would be fine with them not voting if they did not have to do this or if there were no consequences for NOT doing it. Are you saying that you believe that if someone lives somewhere, it is reasonable for the government to take away their ability to have a say in how they are governed? You are sounding like a fascist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom