• 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
Kali said:
Maybe we should just put em in slave labor camps. You would probably support it:shock:
Click to expand...

maybe you should actually try to state what I believe rather than making up idiotic straw man arguments to justify emotobabbling views. The worst I believe in is benign neglect--its people like you who believe in governments enslaving others or depriving people of their labor and wealth
 
TurtleDude said:
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?
Click to expand...

You are still stuck on contrabution=money. You're right... if you can't see beyond this, we have little to discuss. No frame of reference.
 
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...


Actually, Turtle, its more than just the law, its the Constitution.

We'd have to amend the Constitution to implement any such thing, and it would be a major departure from current Constitutional law, where all you have to be is 18+ to vote.

Now I have in the past, suggested that maybe universal franchise wasn't the best idea in the world. I still wonder about that sometimes. Sometimes I indulge in speculation about other methods, where everyone could EARN the right to vote, but it wasn't automatic.

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.

Even if you acknowlege that it isn't just income tax, that we'd have to look at what someone paid in SS/Medicare/FICA, property tax, sales tax, and so on, (and then we'd probably just be looking at the bottom 10% of the economic scale, for net tax nonpayers), I'm still not convinced this is a good idea.

There are other, better ways to go about doing this. I agree that the majority should not be able to raise taxes on the minority, while keeping their own negligible. There are other venues through which to pursue this aim.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...



fascism is hardly the correct term

is it fascist for a private club to prevent non members who pay no dues from having a say in how the club is run

how about corporations preventing non stock holders from voting on executive compensation or dividend rates

if you don't pay taxes and have no risk in paying higher taxes why should you have equal say in tax rates with those who do pay taxes.

lets leave it at that level in terms of contributions since you seem loathe to want to engage in the intellectual exercise of dealing with "contributions"
 
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...

I don't have to compromise on this. Taxation is a reasonable interpretation here. You may believe there are other ways for people to contribute and those can and should be for the society to decide. However, taxation is a reasonable interpretation and I don't have to clarify each and every fucntion support of the government. The argument holds water until you come up with a reasonable counter argument againsts. Just saying I don't have enough ways to contribute is not a counter agrument. Address taxation as a support and why that isn't a reasonable qualification for voting. We can take these one supports one at a time.
 
TurtleDude said:
fascism is hardly the correct term

is it fascist for a private club to prevent non members who pay no dues from having a say in how the club is run

how about corporations preventing non stock holders from voting on executive compensation or dividend rates

if you don't pay taxes and have no risk in paying higher taxes why should you have equal say in tax rates with those who do pay taxes.

lets leave it at that level in terms of contributions since you seem loathe to want to engage in the intellectual exercise of dealing with "contributions"
Click to expand...

Generally if I am not part of a private club I am not subject to the rules or regulations of that private club, so if I dont pay dues, or play on its course so I dont particularly care. But if I am forced to be under its rules and regulations, then I do care about how it is run
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
fascism is hardly the correct term

is it fascist for a private club to prevent non members who pay no dues from having a say in how the club is run

how about corporations preventing non stock holders from voting on executive compensation or dividend rates

if you don't pay taxes and have no risk in paying higher taxes why should you have equal say in tax rates with those who do pay taxes.
Click to expand...

You are talking about the difference between joining or being part of a voluntary organization or being part of the society in which you live. I would think you would know the difference.

lets leave it at that level in terms of contributions since you seem loathe to want to engage in the intellectual exercise of dealing with "contributions"
Click to expand...

You don't like being confronted on the fact that your definition of contributions is entirely inaccurate. I understand that puts a major kink in your arguments, but there is no reason to get attacking.
 
hallam said:
I don't have to compromise on this. Taxation is a reasonable interpretation here. You may believe there are other ways for people to contribute and those can and should be for the society to decide. However, taxation is a reasonable interpretation and I don't have to clarify each and every fucntion support of the government. The argument holds water until you come up with a reasonable counter argument againsts. Just saying I don't have enough ways to contribute is not a counter agrument. Address taxation as a support and why that isn't a reasonable qualification for voting. We can take these one supports one at a time.
Click to expand...

No... you don't get to define MY argumetnt. Taxation is NOT the only way to contribute to society. Your false dichotomy renders your position a logical fallacy.
 
Goshin said:
Actually, Turtle, its more than just the law, its the Constitution.

We'd have to amend the Constitution to implement any such thing, and it would be a major departure from current Constitutional law, where all you have to be is 18+ to vote.

Now I have in the past, suggested that maybe universal franchise wasn't the best idea in the world. I still wonder about that sometimes. Sometimes I indulge in speculation about other methods, where everyone could EARN the right to vote, but it wasn't automatic.

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.

Even if you acknowlege that it isn't just income tax, that we'd have to look at what someone paid in SS/Medicare/FICA, property tax, sales tax, and so on, (and then we'd probably just be looking at the bottom 10% of the economic scale, for net tax nonpayers), I'm still not convinced this is a good idea.

There are other, better ways to go about doing this. I agree that the majority should not be able to raise taxes on the minority, while keeping their own negligible. There are other venues through which to pursue this aim.
Click to expand...

true but I have yet to see any of those who want to jack up taxes on the rich while whining that non tax payers should have equal say support a NST or a flat tax or a consumption tax which would prevent the evil you and I agree exists-that being the non net tax paying voting bloc voting up through those who pander to them, the top rates of "the wealthy"

note none of the tax hikers will ever admit that the current system has no limit on how much the many can vote away from the few and none of them ever admit the end game collapse that is bound to happen with this current system
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No... you don't get to define MY argumetnt. Taxation is NOT the only way to contribute to society. Your false dichotomy renders your position a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

fine-maybe we could limit those who do not contribute in terms of taxes from having say on tax issues since you want to speculate so can we
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Generally if I am not part of a private club I am not subject to the rules or regulations of that private club, so if I dont pay dues, or play on its course so I dont particularly care. But if I am forced to be under its rules and regulations, then I do care about how it is run
Click to expand...

but is you don't pay taxes you aren't under that set of rules
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No... you don't get to define MY argumetnt. Taxation is NOT the only way to contribute to society. Your false dichotomy renders your position a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Pot and kettle here. You do not get to define my argument either. You have already stated that taxation is a reasonable contribution. So address why this limit on voting is not reasonable. Quite BSing
 
TurtleDude said:
but is you don't pay taxes you aren't under that set of rules
Click to expand...

And that is the difference between a private club and being a citizen of the USA is it not

You may not pay dues to the US government but you are subject to its rules and regulations.

Yes that person can move to another country/club but so can the person who is paying dues/taxes
 
The reason that your arguement about net tax paying citizens only being able to vote is flawed Turtle is because there are people out there that make minimum wage, work only part time hours and hence do not pay a net tax income. And yet those same people might be out helping to feed the homeless at shelters or being a Mentor at a school or something else like those. Why should they not get an equal say just because they don't give a net contribution in taxes?
 
TurtleDude said:
true but I have yet to see any of those who want to jack up taxes on the rich while whining that non tax payers should have equal say support a NST or a flat tax or a consumption tax which would prevent the evil you and I agree exists-that being the non net tax paying voting bloc voting up through those who pander to them, the top rates of "the wealthy"

note none of the tax hikers will ever admit that the current system has no limit on how much the many can vote away from the few and none of them ever admit the end game collapse that is bound to happen with this current system
Click to expand...


How about this idea. It would need a Constitutional Amendment to lock it in tight, but so would anything else if we wanted it to be a hard-wired fix:

Freeze current tax rates exactly as they are. Require future tax rate changes to affect all brackets equally.

So if you want to raise tax on the rich 5%, you have to raise tax on everyone 5%. If you want to lower tax on the rich 5%, you lower everyone's taxes 5%.

Now we'd have to word it very carefully or some bright and unscrupulous politico would find a way around the restrictions, but then that's true of anything that might be proposed. One of the worries I have about consumption tax is that they'll do that and THEN bring income tax BACK a few years later.... probably as a "temporary measure that will only affect the top 2% earners"... seems we'd heard that before yes?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
And that is the difference between a private club and being a citizen of the USA is it not

You may not pay dues to the US government but you are subject to its rules and regulations.

Yes that person can move to another country/club but so can the person who is paying dues/taxes
Click to expand...

fine limit the issue to tax matters
 
Goshin said:
How about this idea. It would need a Constitutional Amendment to lock it in tight, but so would anything else if we wanted it to be a hard-wired fix:

Freeze current tax rates exactly as they are. Require future tax rate changes to affect all brackets equally.

So if you want to raise tax on the rich 5%, you have to raise tax on everyone 5%. If you want to lower tax on the rich 5%, you lower everyone's taxes 5%.

Now we'd have to word it very carefully or some bright and unscrupulous politico would find a way around the restrictions, but then that's true of anything that might be proposed. One of the worries I have about consumption tax is that they'll do that and THEN bring income tax BACK a few years later.... probably as a "temporary measure that will only affect the top 2% earners"... seems we'd heard that before yes?
Click to expand...

actually you could limit it to the lowest bracket because that costs everyone mainly the same amount if its raised.

I'd like to see alot more people paying some income taxes because right now not enough do but I give you credit for a very good effort
 
Kal'Stang said:
The reason that your arguement about net tax paying citizens only being able to vote is flawed Turtle is because there are people out there that make minimum wage, work only part time hours and hence do not pay a net tax income. And yet those same people might be out helping to feed the homeless at shelters or being a Mentor at a school or something else like those. Why should they not get an equal say just because they don't give a net contribution in taxes?
Click to expand...

speculation--I suspect (and neither one of us can prove it) those who are paying taxes are usually the ones engaged in civic charity.
 
TurtleDude said:
maybe you should actually try to state what I believe rather than making up idiotic straw man arguments to justify emotobabbling views. The worst I believe in is benign neglect--its people like you who believe in governments enslaving others or depriving people of their labor and wealth
Click to expand...

You are the one wanting to do the depriving people of things. Not me.
 
TurtleDude said:
fine-maybe we could limit those who do not contribute in terms of taxes from having say on tax issues since you want to speculate so can we
Click to expand...

If those tax issues have an impact on them, we default to my original position.

Btw, you do know I am in favor of a flat tax, don't you?
 
Kali said:
You are the one wanting to do the depriving people of things. Not me.
Click to expand...

wrong-you want to take wealth from some and give it to others, I want to be left alone and not forced to pay at much higher rates than people like you. I want people to pay for what they use and not be forced to pay more and more and more for what others use.
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong-you want to take wealth from some and give it to others, I want to be left alone and not forced to pay at much higher rates than people like you. I want people to pay for what they use and not be forced to pay more and more and more for what others use.
Click to expand...

You wish to take away a persons right to VOTE!
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
If those tax issues have an impact on them, we default to my original position.

Btw, you do know I am in favor of a flat tax, don't you?
Click to expand...

yeah you do favor a flat tax-you have some rational thoughts:mrgreen:
 
hallam said:
Pot and kettle here. You do not get to define my argument either. You have already stated that taxation is a reasonable contribution. So address why this limit on voting is not reasonable. Quite BSing
Click to expand...

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?
 
Kali said:
You wish to take away a persons right to VOTE!
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom