• 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
hallam said:
This again is referencing the Amendment incorrectly with this conversation. The compromise does not place a tax onto voting. It simply states that you have to pay your regular taxes inorder to get a full vote.
Click to expand...

You are being intentionally obtuse.

The 24th Amendment clearly states that there can be no restriction of voting by reason of failure to pay any tax. That does not just mean a tax for voting as a poll tax. It clearly specifies a poll tax or any other tax. The income tax is "any other tax".
 
well, as i tried to point out to you, this is a theoretical exercise, not a political one.
Click to expand...

No, its real all right. This is an attempt by the radical right wing to float an idea and see how far they can push it into reality. I am reminded of a recent exchange between Bill O'Riley and Sarah Palin in which she was asked if you can be too far right win and she replied NO.

This is an attempt to run an idea up the flag pole to see who is saluting. And some here are saluting and the salute is vaguely familiar but has been banished from polite society for quite a while now.

But like Palin says, you just can't be too far right wing.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
And I do not believe that for a minute. This is an attempt to set the stage - to see how far something can be pushed. This is running an extremist idea up the flag to see who will salute. And we see some hands raised and the salute is vaguely familiar but has not been seen in some time in polite company.
Click to expand...

:lol: and people call Glenn Beck a conspiracy theorist.
 
haymarket said:
You are being intentionally obtuse.

The 24th Amendment clearly states that there can be no restriction of voting by reason of failure to pay and tax. That does not just mean a tax for voting as a poll tax. It clearly specifies a poll tax or any other tax. The income tax is "any other tax".
Click to expand...

That is clearly not what the 24th says. The amendment states that you can't directly tax voting. That is where it stops. It has no bearing on what we are talking about as the we are not taxing the vote. We are talking about restricting full voting rights to net taxpayers. It is a subtle but massive distinction.
 
hallam said:
That is clearly not what the 24th says. The amendment states that you can't directly tax voting. That is where it stops. It has no bearing on what we are talking about as the we are not taxing the vote. We are talking about restricting full voting rights to net taxpayers. It is a subtle but massive distinction.
Click to expand...

Its interesting that you fail to quote the Amendment.

It says quite clearly - ".... ANY POLL TAX OR ANY OTHER TAX."

The phrase "any other tax" takes in every single tax you can think of and that includes the income tax. You are connecting the right to vote with the paying of the income tax. And that is clearly unconstitutional.

But please put this before the American people as a proposal and put your name on it for all to see. It might be a crazy right wing idea but you know what Sarah says

“Can you be too far right in this country?” asked O’Reilly.
“At this point in time with the state of the union? No!” exclaimed Palin.
Click to expand...

You already have an ally.
 
cpwill said:
:lol: and people call Glenn Beck a conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...

Even five years ago I would not have thought this possible. But here we are actually discussing this blatant political power grab scheme as if it had some intellectual merit.

We are actually entertaining the idea that tens of millions of voters, most admittedly Democratic and minority, could be stripped of their Constitutional right to vote because they do not pay enough in some arbitrary tax. This is beyond anything I could have believed just a few years ago.

Of course, that is before America elected who they elected and before the census tolled the death bell for certain power holders in this country. So now they must find a way and this apparently is it.

So yes, I will believe almost anything coming from the right wing these days.
 
Last edited:
hallam said:
This again is referencing the Amendment incorrectly with this conversation. The compromise does not place a tax onto voting. It simply states that you have to pay your regular taxes inorder to get a full vote.
Click to expand...

So if I do not pay a direct poll tax - I cannot vote.
And If I do not pay enough income tax - I cannot vote.

Both involve the paying of a tax. In both cases the end result is identical.

Which is why the 24th Amendment specifies both the "poll tax" by specific name and then the broader term "other tax" which includes any other tax.
 
haymarket said:
And If I do not pay enough income tax - I cannot vote.
Click to expand...

I would argue that if you do not pay ANY income tax - you should not vote. no need for any complex calculations or proratings. just a very simple rule. If you don't pay any income tax (ie you get back all of what was withheld, or you have zero withheld) you don't get to vote.
 
Which is still the same violation of the 24th Amendment which forbids connecting voting to any OTHER TAX.

And it ignores what so very many people have said in this thread and others - lots of people pay lots of taxes other than your precious income tax.

But by all means get this ball rolling - get publicly behind it with your party and lets see who salutes as it goes up the flag. You will have just written the Democratic party ads for the next ten years.
 
haymarket said:
You will have just written the Democratic party ads for the next ten years.
Click to expand...

yeah, because most of the freeloaders who don't pay income tax vote for democrats. which is why most of them cry like little girls about how evil rich people are.
 
It's a good thing that the conservatives in this thread that support this supposed "compromise" (and it's not even really a compromise..more of a blatant power grab) don't represent even 1% of the conservatives that are out there.
 
lol, voted against of course. I would never agree to diminish my voting power or give up my vote just because I ended up unemployed or underemployed, nor would I allow the wealthy to explicitly have more than one vote just because their increased earning power. I don't give a damn for anyone's reasoning behind it, it isn't going to happen peacefully. Glad to see the vast majority here are sensible (at least on this issue).
 
CompSciGuy said:
lol, voted against of course. I would never agree to diminish my voting power or give up my vote just because I ended up unemployed or underemployed, nor would I allow the wealthy to explicitly have more than one vote just because their increased earning power. I don't give a damn for anyone's reasoning behind it, it isn't going to happen peacefully. Glad to see the vast majority here are sensible (at least on this issue).
Click to expand...

do you think 10 people who pay no income tax should be able to vote away all of the wealth of one person who makes more than 100K
 
haymarket said:
So if I do not pay a direct poll tax - I cannot vote.
And If I do not pay enough income tax - I cannot vote.

Both involve the paying of a tax. In both cases the end result is identical.

Which is why the 24th Amendment specifies both the "poll tax" by specific name and then the broader term "other tax" which includes any other tax.
Click to expand...

These are not the same. One is outlawed, the other is not. The words "or other tax" directly relate to paying a tax for voting. It isn't the same at all. To think "or any other tax" is separated out form the phrases that come before it is wrong and an unsupported interpretation of the Amendment.
 
against of course that is beyond dumb and goes against just about everything
are there ideas Id entertain on way a person shouldnt get to vote, im sure there are but this insanity isnt it
 
TurtleDude said:
do you think 10 people who pay no income tax should be able to vote away all of the wealth of one person who makes more than 100K
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

One absurd post deserves another.
 
hallam said:
These are not the same. One is outlawed, the other is not. The words "or other tax" directly relate to paying a tax for voting. It isn't the same at all. To think "or any other tax" is separated out form the phrases that come before it is wrong and an unsupported interpretation of the Amendment.
Click to expand...

And what exactly is the connection between the income tax and voting in this proposal? It is clear and unmistakable and beyond dispute: if you do not pay enough income tax then you lose the right to vote. That is 100% prohibited by the 24th Amendment since it not only mentions a poll tax but then goes one step farther and speficially uses the phrase "OTHER TAX".

You are stripping someone of the vote and barring them from voting because of the tax issue and the non payment of it. There is absolutely no difference in any way between a traditional poll tax since the end product is 100% identical, the same and reaches the same result.

Of course Hal, you will simply come back and say "no it does not" asking us if we believe our own eyes and what we read in the COnstitution or do we believe your simplistic responses attempting to pass as fact.

But by all means if you believe what you write, go ahead and back something like this and see what would happen.

While you are doing so you can answer the following questions about this scheme

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?

Such a system would make a Mandarin bureaucrat proud.
 
Last edited:
I think this is an excellent thread to split between normal people and idiotic people. Please post some more!
 
haymarket said:
And what exactly is the connection between the income tax and voting in this proposal? It is clear and unmistakable and beyond dispute: if you do not pay enough income tax then you lose the right to vote. That is 100% prohibited by the 24th Amendment since it not only mentions a poll tax but then goes one step farther and speficially uses the phrase "OTHER TAX".
Click to expand...

Go back and read the compromise, everyone votes. None lose their right, the weight to the vote is different but everyone can vote.
 
hallam said:
Go back and read the compromise, everyone votes. None lose their right, the weight to the vote is different but everyone can vote.
Click to expand...

Are you completely oblivious to the irony of this "compromise"..... ie: 3/5ths? I suspect that it has gone right over your head and you have been taken in without even realize you were being toyed with.

On election day, officials at each polling place separate out the net taxpayers. Those individuals would be permitted to use the voting machines as usual. Everybody else would be lined up, then counted off in groups of 5 people. Each group would be handed a paper ballot and given time to discuss amongst themselves how they would like to cast their ballot. When they reach some kind of agreement, each group would then fill out their ballots, casting a total of 3 votes in each race, after which they all sign the ballot and turn it in to be counted.
Click to expand...

Do you think the formula was a coincidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_fifths_compromise

Did you really not get that?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Are you completely oblivious to the irony of this "compromise"..... ie: 3/5ths? I suspect that it has gone right over your head and you have been taken in without even realize you were being toyed with.
Click to expand...

It didn't go over my head. I understand that the number has some history. But I don't base this compromise on slavey. There is no one here saying that this would only apply to Blacks. You are making this illogical leap.
 
hallam said:
It didn't go over my head. I understand that the number has some history. But I don't base this compromise on slavey. There is no one here saying that this would only apply to Blacks. You are making this illogical leap.
Click to expand...

An I think you simply did not get it. Really Hal, do you think the number 3/5s compromise here is merely a weird coincidence? The whole thing is intended to show how absurd the basic idea really is by comparing to a historical atrocity.

I guess when some consider the original to be fine and dandy a similarly named sequel would be just as fine.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
An I think you simply did not get it. Really Hal, do you think the number 3/5s compromise here is merely a weird coincidence? The whole thing is intended to show how absurd the basic idea really is by comparing to a historical atrocity.

I guess when some consider the original to be fine and dandy a similarly named sequel would be just as fine.
Click to expand...

Just like last time, you are showing your own latent racism here. 3/5 has historical context but it is just a number.
 
hallam said:
Just like last time, you are showing your own latent racism here. 3/5 has historical context but it is just a number.
Click to expand...

This is actually becoming quite funny. Look, I get it that you don't like being the butt of the joke. Nobody does. But everytime you deny the painfully obvious it just keeps you in the spotlight all the longer.

btw- do you know of any other historical Three-Fifths Compromises?

Get real Hal - you were taken in and bamboozled. Its okay and happens to all of us at one time or the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom