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 30 of 41 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 405

Thread: Would you vote for the compromise?

  1. #291
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,109

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Except, every citizen has some "skin in the game".
    not insofar as costs, no, they don't. it costs paul nothing to support a candidate who promises to take from peter and give to paul.

    Every citizen is affected by federal laws. Every citizen has to pay some form of taxes, even if it is just state sales taxes.
    dealt with this already; what we are discussing is a federal policy.

  2. #292
    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 Gardener View Post
    I haven't slogged through the entire slew of postings here, but I think the entire notion of tying voting to taxation is silly, especially inasmuch as income taxes are all that is being considered here. Not being considered are all the other taxes everybody pays as well as the fact that the wealthiest people are the ones who are best able to protect huge portions of their income from taxation in the first place.
    Part of this is the point Gardener. Those rich who are protecting huge portions of their income would not be considered net taxpayers because they would be sheltering their money either as a deductions or credits. They would be minimized in representation too.

    edited for you Hay
    Last edited by hallam; 11-30-10 at 06:18 PM.

  3. #293
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,839

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by hallam View Post
    Part of this is the point Gardener. Those rich is protect huge protions of their income would not be considered net taxpayers because they would be sheltering their money either as a deductions or credits. They would be minimized in represation too.
    What does that mean

    Those rich is protect huge protions


    If you are trying to say that some rich persons are rich enough to protect portions of their income and they too would lose the right to vote, its a novel approach but silly in the extreme. Unless of course you have some applicable facts and figures to show this and how it would work? Normally however, you are loathe to actually back up any of your claims or analysis with real world facts and applicable evidence. We are simply expected to take your word as the authority on these matters.

    And I am still awaiting your explanation for that 500 page report and what you think it proves and what it has to do with taking away the vote from people.

    Since you are an eager supporter of stripping people of their vote, perhaps you could answer some questions about the process since Turtle seems reluctant to do so.

    Just what it is the exact definition of a "net taxpayer"?
    How is it measured?
    When is it measured?
    For what period of time are we measuring?
    Which taxes are we considering and why?
    Which taxes are we not considering and why not?
    Are all levels of government considered?
    Can you bounce back and forth between classifications of being a "net taxpayer" and not being one?
    How often can you bounce back and forth?
    Who will make this determination?
    Is there an appeals process?
    Is it regularly reviewed?
    Is it a violation of the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment?
    Is it a violation of the 24th Amendment?
    How many people would be stripped of the right to vote at any given time?
    Could they still vote in purely local elections?
    How would you manage such a system?
    Last edited by haymarket; 11-30-10 at 06:07 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #294
    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 cpwill View Post
    not insofar as costs, no, they don't. it costs paul nothing to support a candidate who promises to take from peter and give to paul.



    dealt with this already; what we are discussing is a federal policy.
    First of all, the entire premise is wrong, because I would bet that the majority of people do not vote on any based just on one issue. And the amount of federal taxes a person pays is one issue out of probably hundreds that come up during any election.

    Second of all, I addressed as well how paying state taxes can affect how much money a person is saving the federal government. Heck, even just buying things helps to pay taxes, since many businesses include federal taxes they have to pay as a part of the cost of a good.

    I've also covered how someone may have paid a crapload in taxes the year before and then not made as much during one particular year.

    Also, something not covered by this "compromise", not everyone votes in person. Many people send in absentee ballots for many reasons. How exactly do you deal with those people?
    "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.

  5. #295
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    First of all, the entire premise is wrong, because I would bet that the majority of people do not vote on any based just on one issue. And the amount of federal taxes a person pays is one issue out of probably hundreds that come up during any election.

    Second of all, I addressed as well how paying state taxes can affect how much money a person is saving the federal government. Heck, even just buying things helps to pay taxes, since many businesses include federal taxes they have to pay as a part of the cost of a good.

    I've also covered how someone may have paid a crapload in taxes the year before and then not made as much during one particular year.

    Also, something not covered by this "compromise", not everyone votes in person. Many people send in absentee ballots for many reasons. How exactly do you deal with those people?
    state taxes-vote on state government issues

    but what if we change the issue from one where people are disenfranchised to a system where everyone gets a vote but the more taxes you pay the more votes you get/ we will assume the Captain is correct and everyone has some stake in the game so everyone is akin to owning one share of stock. Those who pay more are treated as owning more shares since they have more at stake.



  6. #296
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,839

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    state taxes-vote on state government issues

    but what if we change the issue from one where people are disenfranchised to a system where everyone gets a vote but the more taxes you pay the more votes you get/ we will assume the Captain is correct and everyone has some stake in the game so everyone is akin to owning one share of stock. Those who pay more are treated as owning more shares since they have more at stake.
    one man - one vote.

    Its pretty basic.

    Its pretty American.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #297
    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
    one man - one vote.

    Its pretty basic.

    Its pretty American.
    Accept that this isn't how we have it now. It isn't one citizen-one vote. It is one citizen- one vote with caveats on who can vote like age and felon status. We are just calling for one more caveat which forces participation in supporting our government.

  8. #298
    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
    No you haven't. You have consistently dismissed that point.

    This conversation is only limited because of your presentation. I'm not the one presenting only one option. That's you. This is your logical fallacy of the false premise. And yes, since contrabution is not limited to only tax, your definition is incorrect. It is too narrow as we are discussing a broader issue. The definition is only part of the whole. It mirrors what you are doing in the debate. You are narrowing the definition because the other parts don't support your argument... you are trying to disenfranchise certain members of the population because they don't support your polices. You feign that it's about equity, but it's all about eliminating competition.



    You have failed to present any kind of logical argument at all. Thus far, everything you've presented has been based on a false premise. An illogical beginning means that anything that stems from it is invalid or at least is not proven because of it. The only other thing you've attempted, completely unsuccessfully btw, is to project the lack of logic and failures of your position onto me. What you fail to understand... along with the fact that your entire position is based on a false premise, is that when you limit voting on an arbitrary factor based on elitism, you head towards fascism. This is what you are proposing, and it is completely silly to pretent that no one's rights are being taken away. That's just dishonest.



    Not at all. The fact is that you don't have a logical argument to begin with. When you do, I'll be happy to debate it. Until that happens, I'll just keep pointing out how your position has no logic behind it.

    You have misrepresented my argument again. This is intellectually dishonest. Until you actually read my argument instead of wishing it to be something else and actually produce a counter argument of any merit, you are just pulling for emotion. An emotional argument that claims something that doesn't even exist today (one citizen one vote) is not a counter argument. It is just a ploy just like your call for fascism. It has not substantial logical basis. It is more sad than anything else.

  9. #299
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    state taxes-vote on state government issues

    but what if we change the issue from one where people are disenfranchised to a system where everyone gets a vote but the more taxes you pay the more votes you get/ we will assume the Captain is correct and everyone has some stake in the game so everyone is akin to owning one share of stock. Those who pay more are treated as owning more shares since they have more at stake.
    Due to the legal bribery of campaign contributions, this pretty much already happens on the back end.

  10. #300
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,839

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by hallam View Post
    Accept that this isn't how we have it now. It isn't one citizen-one vote. It is one citizen- one vote with caveats on who can vote like age and felon status. We are just calling for one more caveat which forces participation in supporting our government.
    Well the US Supreme Court disagrees with you.

    One man, one vote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

    The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote".
    Last edited by haymarket; 12-01-10 at 10:53 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

Page 30 of 41 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... 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
  •