• 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!

Only property owners should vote

Should owning property be a requirement to vote

  • yes, only property owners should vote

    Votes: 6 7.3%

  • no, let everyone vote

    Votes: 76 92.7%
  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
haymarket said:
and there is no income tax to pay if one has no income. So there is no difference.

Right wing fringe wacko's want to restrict the discussion to the income tax - but that is not going to happen.
Click to expand...

thank you, no income, no vote. Left wing moonbats want to deflect instead of discussing the topic at hand

barking_moonbat3.jpg
 
haymarket said:
Terrific. Now provide me with the formula to determine both of those calculations.
Click to expand...

why? that is not relevant to the point. its the pandering that matters

some might think they are net payers and will vote that way even if they are consumers and there might be some on the other side as well

the fact is-a system that panders to net tax consumers will go bankrupt as they constantly vote themselves more and more wealth of others
 
Rocketman said:
thank you, no income, no vote. Left wing moonbats want to deflect instead of discussing the topic at hand

barking_moonbat3.jpg
Click to expand...

Your position is losing 80 to 5. Deal with that reality. That is the freaking topic at hand.
 
Rocketman said:
thank you, no income, no vote. Left wing moonbats want to deflect instead of discussing the topic at hand

barking_moonbat3.jpg
Click to expand...

excellent-is it wearing a purple tutu?
 
TurtleDude said:
why? that is not relevant to the point. its the pandering that matters

some might think they are net payers and will vote that way even if they are consumers and there might be some on the other side as well

the fact is-a system that panders to net tax consumers will go bankrupt as they constantly vote themselves more and more wealth of others
Click to expand...

The point is what it has been for the last two years Turtle - you throw around this NET TAXPER BS but you are impotent to provide any formula to apply it to people.

Let us take the case of a couple - the Smith family - who have an income of $120K per year. This is far more than average and places them in the supposed desired class of the net taxpayer according to the logic of Turtle as they pay far more than the average. However, any such determination that does not examine the actual government services used by the Smith family is extremely incomplete and flawed.

Let us say that the Smith's over all tax payments are in the range of 30%. This means they have paid about $37K in taxes to all levels of government in a year. Now let us say that the Smith's have four children ranging in ages from seven to sixteen years of age and are in the local public school. If they live in a state like New Jersey, where Governor Christie says it costs over $20K per year for one students education if they are in the Newark pubic school system, that is a cost of over $80K for the children of the Smith family. Now please keep in mind that I cannot find any source which says Christie is right. Sources I can locate say the expenditure is closer to $17K per pupil in his state. But let us assume that the governor of that state knows more than the rest of us and we will use his figure. IOf we use the lower figure it is still $68K for the Smith's education. And if they live in a lower cost state like where the per pupil cost is only half of that, the cost of education for the Smith children is still over $40K per year. Not even taking into account any other single government service, they already are tax vampires sucking up far more than they contribute. Despite their above average income and the taxes they pay on it and for other things, they are nowhere near being a net taxpayer.

And this illustrates the absolute folly and impossibility of identifying who and who is not a net taxpayer. If you cannot accurately define it and identify the rubric being used, the methodology being used and the information necessary to make the judgment, how can you then apply this to anyone with any degree of accuracy at all? Obviously you cannot.

The Smith family would be different than a childless couple and both couples would be different than a couple with six children in school. Everyones situation is individual and different and that is a key point.
Now take all aspects of taxation and all aspects of government service and every American and come up with your determination of who is and who is not a net taxpayer and who is a tax vampire. it simply cannot be done with any accuracy or specificity.

And the real nightmare here is the political power grab behind this bogus idea has been floated in right wing circles and on this board that people who are not net taxpayers should be disenfranchised and stripped of their citizens right to vote in public elections. That is staggering and one of the most anti-democratic and anti-American ideas I have ever heard. And when you see that is is based on a fiction that cannot be identified or quantified, its even more of an outrage and abomination.

If I am wrong, if you are wrong, and there is a precise definition of the net taxpayer I would certainly like to see it, all the information which goes into it, the methodology used to make that judgment, the formula for applications, and other specifics which are important to have to understand the concept. I await such information.
 
haymarket said:
Your position is losing 80 to 5. Deal with that reality. That is the freaking topic at hand.
Click to expand...

LOL, using that guideline all the anti gun crap that the DEm party supports gets routinely thrashed on polls on DP. I didn't vote because there should have been more questions since some non property owners pay tons of income tax
 
haymarket said:
Your position is losing 80 to 5. Deal with that reality. That is the freaking topic at hand.
Click to expand...

My position will be front and center at the next election. America is waking up the con job we are suffering through now.
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL, using that guideline all the anti gun crap that the DEm party supports gets routinely thrashed on polls on DP. I didn't vote because there should have been more questions since some non property owners pay tons of income tax
Click to expand...

that is the damn point Turtle. This is a site dominated by the right and your position is getting its collective ass handed to them by a lopsided margin of 16 to 1.
 
Isn't post number 563 about the same as 580

same response
tl dr
 
haymarket said:
that is the damn point Turtle. This is a site dominated by the right and your position is getting its collective ass handed to them by a lopsided margin of 16 to 1.
Click to expand...

oh the poor boohoo we are outnumbered

it was a poorly written poll

I love the appeal to the masses when it suits the left
 
TurtleDude said:
Isn't post number 563 about the same as 580

same response
tl dr
Click to expand...

and you were impotent to speak to the issues raised in it.... both times. Just like you were six months ago. Just like you were a year ago. Just like you were two years ago.
 
haymarket said:
and you were impotent to speak to the issues raised in it.... both times. Just like you were six months ago. Just like you were a year ago. Just like you were two years ago.
Click to expand...

you don't like the answers and you don't like the obvious point

this country has way too many people who suck on the public teat and vote for those who give them milk paid for by others.
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't like the answers and you don't like the obvious point

this country has way too many people who suck on the public teat and vote for those who give them milk paid for by others.
Click to expand...

You have provided no answers to like or not like.

And you certainly have provided no formula to identify your previous NET TAXPAYER.

But maybe this will help you clarify your thinking

Let us take the case of a couple - the Smith family - who have an income of $120K per year. This is far more than average and places them in the supposed desired class of the net taxpayer according to the logic of Turtle as they pay far more than the average. However, any such determination that does not examine the actual government services used by the Smith family is extremely incomplete and flawed.

Let us say that the Smith's over all tax payments are in the range of 30%. This means they have paid about $37K in taxes to all levels of government in a year. Now let us say that the Smith's have four children ranging in ages from seven to sixteen years of age and are in the local public school. If they live in a state like New Jersey, where Governor Christie says it costs over $20K per year for one students education if they are in the Newark pubic school system, that is a cost of over $80K for the children of the Smith family. Now please keep in mind that I cannot find any source which says Christie is right. Sources I can locate say the expenditure is closer to $17K per pupil in his state. But let us assume that the governor of that state knows more than the rest of us and we will use his figure. IOf we use the lower figure it is still $68K for the Smith's education. And if they live in a lower cost state like where the per pupil cost is only half of that, the cost of education for the Smith children is still over $40K per year. Not even taking into account any other single government service, they already are tax vampires sucking up far more than they contribute. Despite their above average income and the taxes they pay on it and for other things, they are nowhere near being a net taxpayer.

And this illustrates the absolute folly and impossibility of identifying who and who is not a net taxpayer. If you cannot accurately define it and identify the rubric being used, the methodology being used and the information necessary to make the judgment, how can you then apply this to anyone with any degree of accuracy at all? Obviously you cannot.

The Smith family would be different than a childless couple and both couples would be different than a couple with six children in school. Everyones situation is individual and different and that is a key point.
Now take all aspects of taxation and all aspects of government service and every American and come up with your determination of who is and who is not a net taxpayer and who is a tax vampire. it simply cannot be done with any accuracy or specificity.

And the real nightmare here is the political power grab behind this bogus idea has been floated in right wing circles and on this board that people who are not net taxpayers should be disenfranchised and stripped of their citizens right to vote in public elections. That is staggering and one of the most anti-democratic and anti-American ideas I have ever heard. And when you see that is is based on a fiction that cannot be identified or quantified, its even more of an outrage and abomination.

If I am wrong, if you are wrong, and there is a precise definition of the net taxpayer I would certainly like to see it, all the information which goes into it, the methodology used to make that judgment, the formula for applications, and other specifics which are important to have to understand the concept. I await such information.
 
TurtleDude said:
the point is


the left panders to net tax consumers
Click to expand...

the point is that you are impotent to identify the term with any applicable formula.

I will come back in the morning and see if you have used your two years wisely to finally producve what you have been unable to produce since the first time you mentioned this nonsense about NET TAXPAYERS.
 
haymarket said:
the point is that you are impotent to identify the term with any applicable formula.
Click to expand...

and that doesn't matter. it has no relevance to the point. the point being the people each party panders to

its self defining.
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't like the answers and you don't like the obvious point

this country has way too many people who suck on the public teat and vote for those who give them milk paid for by others.
Click to expand...

I see changes coming. There are a lot of farmers in my area, the EWG website is catching on and many people here are realizing that our government is making millionaires out of average people. Our jailer elminated our jail tax a decade ago and now our municipality costs are dropping thanks to all the jail labor that is at our disposal.
 
I voted no because we have enough of a problem with a "rental" culture instead of an "ownership" one.

Add a political incentive to limit home ownership and damn near everybody who doesn't already own will spend their lives on the rent treadmill.
 
TurtleDude said:
Income taxes are the ones that are most relative for buying votes and being important in an election

you don't hear much about excise taxes on alcohol or ammo
Click to expand...
You don't hear people complain as much about excise taxes because people don't see them when paying them. Out of sight, out of mind. Works as intended, and why excise taxes are often chosen, so that fewer people will complain.

Same concept behind income tax withholding... if you don't see the money, don't have to write a check, you won't be as upset as you would if you did have to write a check... though it cannot be hidden as efficiently, and not at all for self-employed people.

Regardless, no federal tax is more or less a federal tax based on the collection method.
 
radcen said:
No, federal taxes was the question. It was narrowed down to income taxes when the inconvenient fact regarding all federal taxes was brought out.
Click to expand...

Federal income taxes
 
It is interesting and ironic that most of the people who support the taking of people's ability to vote are also usually those who decry too much government involvement and too much government bureaucracy. Yet, the kind of bureaucracy that it would take to enforce these limitations... especially if we started issuing exceptions for things like current military service as some have suggested... would be exactly the kind of intrusion into people's lives that they abhor.

Apparently, government bureaucracy and intrusion is ok as long as the end result is what we want individually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom