• 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
TurtleDude said:
fine limit the issue to tax matters
Click to expand...

Nearly all government actions involve revenues or spending to some degree. Do they get to vote on issues or tariffs, or how about spending, perhaps they vote to use all government revenues ( ie your tax dollars) on Pamela Anderson blow up dolls for all adult males. I dont think the fact they were able to vote on how the government spent your money would make you feel satisified. Or perhaps they voted to eliminate the FBI and the standing US military and use the money saved to build pyramids. I am sure you would be upset that the untaxed were determining how your tax money was being spent, despite those people not being able to vote on increasing your taxes

secondly the above would also mean the US was a direct democracy, rather then a representational one (republic it may be)

How would the various congressmen be allowed to vote. Would congressional districts have to be rated on the amount of tax each pays, preventing those that recieve a net amount of money from the federal government from voting on taxation issues, while only those districts that pay more in taxation then what they receive being able to vote on taxation issues. What about those individuals that live in one district who should have his/her vote count or not count but because of the district they are in it doesnt
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm not defining your argument. Your argument is a logical fallacy.

Oh, and I already responded. If the results of taxation impact them, they must folllow the rules that have been set. It is appropriate for them to have a say in the rules that affect them. Or, do you believe that a citizen should NOT have a say in the rules and laws that affect them?
Click to expand...

This is not a response. This relies on the assumption that citizens no matter what should get the vote. But you don't beleive this. You already limit citizens from voting such as those under 18 and those who have gone to prison. This is just one extra obligation on limits we already set. Also, I would say those who are not contributing to the overal government do not have a say in the rules and laws that affect them.
 
TurtleDude said:
no doubt-Justabubba claimed on another thread that his kid has more knowledge about the law than I do
Click to expand...

Pay no attention. Arguments like that occur when your opponent has nothing else.
 
earthworm said:
Debate politics should be a serious affair.
And a "chat room" is something for the basement.
Click to expand...


get a life seems to be the appropriate response.

serious affair is say dealing with a home invasion robber or a drunk driver coming at you the wrong way on a highway or dealing with pancreatic cancer
 
Thanks all, this was a lively discussion, a happy thanksgiving (or what is left of it) to all
 
TurtleDude said:
I actually prefer a system where all can vote and all have a duty to pay taxes. that's my preference

its an easy choice-want to vote-pay some income taxes. you want to take away wealth and labor in order to give it to others who did nothing to earn it
Click to expand...

There are plenty of folks that pay into the tax system for YEARS and then get laid off. Guess you would rather them be on streets without food than getting welfare too?

I want to do the right thing to help people and you just wanna do what is best for the rich.
 
hallam said:
This is not a response. This relies on the assumption that citizens no matter what should get the vote. But you don't beleive this. You already limit citizens from voting such as those under 18 and those who have gone to prison. This is just one extra obligation on limits we already set.
Click to expand...

I don't limit people from voting. As far as those in prison... I have no problem with them voting. Under 18? I know something about brain development in humans. Prior to this approximate age, people tend to make decisions more often on impulse and emotionality rather than rationality and information. I'd like to see some studies done, not on this age group's possible voting habits, but of their understanding of the political process and their ability to respond to that understanding.

Also, I would say those who are not contributing to the overal government do not have a say in the rules and laws that affect them.
Click to expand...

So, a government, arbitrarily defining what a contributing citizen is and taking away their rights if they do not meet the criteria that the government has set. Hmmm... sounds pretty fascist to me. I can think of a few societies/governments that put things like this in place. Many of them flourished in the '30's and early '40's.
 
hallam said:
This is not a response. This relies on the assumption that citizens no matter what should get the vote. But you don't beleive this. You already limit citizens from voting such as those under 18 and those who have gone to prison. This is just one extra obligation on limits we already set. Also, I would say those who are not contributing to the overal government do not have a say in the rules and laws that affect them.
Click to expand...

That is very Un-American:(
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I don't limit people from voting. As far as those in prison... I have no problem with them voting. Under 18? I know something about brain development in humans. Prior to this approximate age, people tend to make decisions more often on impulse and emotionality rather than rationality and information. I'd like to see some studies done, not on this age group's possible voting habits, but of their understanding of the political process and their ability to respond to that understanding.
Click to expand...

The government currently limits voting therefore you limit voting as a citizen of this country. So you do, at least indirectly, limit people from voting. Further, I don't think brain development comes into this. Whether they are developed or not (and as a psychologist I agree that they are not), if as you say "citizenship = the right to vote" then they should get the rights no matter what. Your opinion, though factual, is moot. They can vote for whoever they want for whatever motivation they want. The reality is that the people limit voting rights of other citizens currently for fairly arbitrary reasons. Adults say that the reason kids would vote are immature and therefore they are not worthy to vote. Citizens currently, with the laws they have enacted, have stated that those who have wrong society and paid their debts can not vote.

So within reality as it currently is, why is adding an extra obligation wrong here. All this compromise does is say those who are putting in get representation. those who don't put in get representation as well at a reduced capacity.



CaptainCourtesy said:
So, a government, arbitrarily defining what a contributing citizen is and taking away their rights if they do not meet the criteria that the government has set. Hmmm... sounds pretty fascist to me. I can think of a few societies/governments that put things like this in place. Many of them flourished in the '30's and early '40's.
Click to expand...

It is not arbitrary. Net taxation is a direct number. Further it isn't taking away a right. It is establishing order to a system that those whose money are being used get priority in determining the elections of those officials who will direct those monies. You can call it fascism. I call it equality. Right now, those who are not taxed get representation at a higher level. They put nothing in and get something out. Equity would be stopping this. So that those who put in, get something out; or at least get to direct the money. Instead of, right now we get those who do not put in directing money of others to themselves (which was stated in the OP).
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
speculation--I suspect (and neither one of us can prove it) those who are paying taxes are usually the ones engaged in civic charity.
Click to expand...

No it's not speculation. You've never lived in a small town huh? Anyways here's a gal that goes to school, works 2 days a week and volunteers for charity work.

Nicole Reed

Reed, 25, is a student at Trousdale School and is involved in the school’s student work program.

*snip*

Two days a week, two hours each day, you can find Reed hard at work at Beef O’Brady’s Restaurant, located at 3838 Candies Creek Lane N.W.

*snip*


Reed also enjoys volunteering. She is adamantly involved in the Meals on Wheels program, a program which delivers meals to elderly residents, and often visits students at Prospect Elementary to read.
Click to expand...

I could find more if you want.
 
Kali said:
That is very Un-American:(
Click to expand...

You are free to hold that opinion. I disagree. I think "taxation with representation" or the more familiar "no taxation without representation" is a very American statement.
 
hallam said:
You are free to hold that opinion. I disagree. I think "taxation with representation" or the more familiar "no taxation without representation" is a very American statement.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Goshin said:
This method however, is simply no good. There are people who work their butts off, and contribute to society through their hard work, who pay no income tax. This would include a good many of our young soldiers, btw.
Click to expand...

Indeed. If such a thing were implemented, then it would give the right to vote to movie stars, who produce movies that can be digitally copied with no effort and so aren't a real commodity anymore, and lawyers and lawmakers, who don't produce anything either but provide a service but can ensure their service will always be required by passing byzantine useless laws they get paid to navigate for others.

However, farm workers who labor to produce food cheap enough for our country to feed on and tradesmen who maintain our infrastructure would be disenfranchised.

It's important to remember that in these days of the Kardashians you don't have to produce a good or provide a service in order to become wealthy. Therefore, wealth is no real indicator of importance in our country.

If all the reality tv stars never worked again, I would never be able to tell the difference. If all the garbage collectors never worked again, however, I think we'd all know about it quite quickly.
 
hallam said:
The government currently limits voting therefore you limit voting as a citizen of this country. So you do, at least indirectly, limit people from voting. Further, I don't think brain development comes into this. Whether they are developed or not (and as a psychologist I agree that they are not), if as you say "citizenship = the right to vote" then they should get the rights no matter what. Your opinion, though factual, is moot. They can vote for whoever they want for whatever motivation they want. The reality is that the people limit voting rights of other citizens currently for fairly arbitrary reasons. Adults say that the reason kids would vote are immature and therefore they are not worthy to vote. Citizens currently, with the laws they have enacted, have stated that those who have wrong society and paid their debts can not vote.
Click to expand...

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.

So within reality as it currently is, why is adding an extra obligation wrong here. All this compromise does is say those who are putting in get representation. those who don't put in get representation as well at a reduced capacity.
Click to expand...

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 not arbitrary.
Click to expand...

Of course it is.
Net taxation is a direct number.
Click to expand...
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.
Further it isn't taking away a right.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. This is fascist speak for "we're just making a change."

It is establishing order to a system that those whose money are being used get priority in determining the elections of those officials who will direct those monies. You can call it fascism. I call it equality.
Click to expand...
It is now the government's job to create equality? Wait... are you a fascist or a liberal. You are confusing me.

Right now, those who are not taxed get representation at a higher level.
Click to expand...
Prove that.

They put nothing in and get something out.
Click to expand...
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.
Equity would be stopping this. So that those who put in, get something out; or at least get to direct the money. Instead of, right now we get those who do not put in directing money of others to themselves (which was stated in the OP).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
And if you think that conservatives don't erroneously think that they know what is in someone's best interest, you are fooling yourself.
Click to expand...

Correct. We think you'll figure out what's in your own best interest.
 
For a moment please, let us look at what would happen if Turtle got his way and we accepted his theory and passed appropriate laws taking away the right to vote from these nonproductive tax slackers who are enemy of the rich.

Who would be hit the most by such a restriction of the vote?

Voting studies have demonstrated that lower income voters, ie the people that Turtle hates as non productive income tax slackers, vote far more heavily for the Democratic Party than they do the Republican Party. Census data tells us that African Americans - the most heavily reliable Democratic voting group - make up the lower half of income levels in this country in far greater proportion that Whites do. The same is true for Hispanics - another group that is voting Democratic in heavy numbers.

So if the dream of Turtle comes to pass and we take away the vote because these folks are not paying enough for the privilege - the two groups who will be the hardest hit are African Americans and Hispanics. The practical result of this would be Democratic Party candidates losing tens of millions of votes and Republicans virtually given a lock on most elective offices.

This is really NOT about taxes. That is just the ruse being used to push such a plan forward. This is blatant move to enshrine the chosen political party of Turtle in power forever.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is any limit on voting arbitrary, yes. However, my argument here was against saying that net taxation is arbitrary which it isn't.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Of course it is. This is fascist speak for "we're just making a change."
Click to expand...

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


CaptainCourtesy said:
It is now the government's job to create equality? Wait... are you a fascist or a liberal. You are confusing me.
Click to expand...

This compromise promotes equality.


CaptainCourtesy said:
Prove that.
Click to expand...

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.



CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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:
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Kal'Stang said:
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".
Click to expand...

If you really believed in true equality it would flow both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom