• 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!

Should people on welfare be allowed to vote?[W:504]

Should be on welfare be allowed to vote?

  • Yes

    Votes: 99 82.5%
  • No

    Votes: 15 12.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 5.8%
  • Welcome To Costco I Love You

    Votes: 11 9.2%

  • Total voters
    120
What did they say about taxes and voting?

That people who pay taxes should be able to vote, and that people who don't have to pay taxes but can vote themselves benefits from the treasury will signal the end of the Republic.
 
Are you contemplating whether I might be of the opinion that only men should be able to vote? Don't get too excited. To the extent that a person, woman or man, is an autonomous adult, subject to taxes collected by a government, such a person must be allowed to vote in elections to that government (taxation with representation).
Right, like under the French monarchy all over again.
 
Women generally didn't pay taxes back then either. They were regarded as dependents. Dependents don't vote. This isn't even coherent.It's not myopic. There are adults with varying degrees of dependence on others for survival. On the extreme end of the spectrum, consider profoundly physically and mentally disabled adults. Some are unable to even express a preference in voting. If an adult is adjudicated disabled and has no rights or responsibilities because of that dependence, why do you regard this disabled person's right to vote so essential? And then there are many more adults who are less dependent, but still somewhat dependent on society's other adults to get by. Where on this spectrum should the right to vote be drawn? Or should no such line be drawn? Should we regard voting rights as sacrosanct such that being 18+ years from birth means you absolutely can vote?It's a philosophical argument. I am of the opinion that what underlies the voting privilege is being subject to the mandatory contribution to public goods and services provided by the level of government for which one would vote. I am not subject to New York taxes and similarly cannot vote in New York elections.
I'm not following you down your rabbit hole, Alice. The topic....and I am having to remind you once again...is:

Should people on welfare be allowed to vote?



I'm not going into some other convoluted justification of disenfranchisement by equating all welfare recipients to the mentally ill, or that since you don't live in a certain state you cannot vote there (!?).
 
That people who pay taxes should be able to vote, and that people who don't have to pay taxes but can vote themselves benefits from the treasury will signal the end of the Republic.

Um, it's already been established that the wealthiest among us vote themselves subsidies.
 
I'm not following you down your rabbit hole, Alice. The topic....and I am having to remind you once again...is:

Should people on welfare be allowed to vote?

I'm not going into some other convoluted justification of disenfranchisement by equating all welfare recipients to the mentally ill, or that since you don't live in a certain state you cannot vote there (!?).

Any government to whose taxes I am subject, I can vote in those elections. People on welfare are in some cases not subject to those taxes because they are very poor and very dependent on society to get by. They don't pay taxes, rather they only receive benefits from those taxes. This is the essence of dependence. Minors are dependent and they don't have the voting privilege. Never have had it. Voting is (or should be) more of a function of being subject to that government's taxes than simply be some universal privilege you receive when turning 18.
 
That people who pay taxes should be able to vote, and that people who don't have to pay taxes but can vote themselves benefits from the treasury will signal the end of the Republic.
But you have already argued that those with a "conflict of interest" (Seniors) should not vote.....but they do STILL pay taxes.

Oh noes.....you are once again going to have to contort your extremist Founders argument around yet another modern conundrum!
 
Um, it's already been established that the wealthiest among us vote themselves subsidies.

Campaign contributions are different than voting. David Koch, as an example, only wields one vote. He can use that one vote for the candidate he believes will help his business, but he also is subject to the taxes of that government. He can also donate his money to basically anyone he wants. If he was adjudicated disabled and had no means for caring for himself, he would not be subject to the financial burden of producing a tax for the government, and thus would not be able to vote.
 
Any government to whose taxes I am subject, I can vote in those elections.
No. People work out of state, pay taxes to that state, yet cannot vote in that state....it is not thier residence.
People on welfare are in some cases not subject to those taxes because they are very poor and very dependent on society to get by. They don't pay taxes, rather they only receive benefits from those taxes.
Most able bodied adults on SNAP work and pay taxes, yet under your convoluted extremist one size fit, they should not vote.
This is the essence of dependence. Minors are dependent and they don't have the voting privilege. Never have had it.
I have no idea why you think their not voting is based on "dependence", this is a false premise.
Voting is (or should be) more of a function of being subject to that government's taxes than simply be some universal privilege you receive when turning 18.
And you go hopping down your convoluted extremists Founders rabbit hole again, to hell with amendments!
 
Campaign contributions are different than voting. David Koch, as an example, only wields one vote. He can use that one vote for the candidate he believes will help his business, but he also is subject to the taxes of that government. He can also donate his money to basically anyone he wants. If he was adjudicated disabled and had no means for caring for himself, he would not be subject to the financial burden of producing a tax for the government, and thus would not be able to vote.

So, basically only people with money can vote themselves handouts?
 
So, basically only people with money can vote themselves handouts?

I haven't even taken a firm position on this, actually, I've merely offered the theoretical explanations for why dependents and net-recipients of tax dollars (who don't pay taxes) could justifiably be considered ineligible to vote, or still eligible but with their vote weighted to account for their dependency.

If what I've said is so outrageous, you must be beside yourself with outrage that children can't vote. Are you?
 
I haven't even taken a firm position on this, actually, I've merely offered the theoretical explanations for why dependents and net-recipients of tax dollars (who don't pay taxes) could justifiably be considered ineligible to vote, or still eligible but with their vote weighted to account for their dependency.

If what I've said is so outrageous, you must be beside yourself with outrage that children can't vote. Are you?

Great red herring. This isn't about children voting. It's about those you don't want to have a right to vote due to special interest.
 
I read the article, and many others by Walter Williams on the subject. Also I have read many other qualified historians who have written on the subject. And all who approach it from the actual results rather than theory agree that by and large, poverty is not the cause of crime.

You keep repeating this but it isn't proven true by your links nor your statements. It's a simple truth. Taxes ensure that people generally don't engage in the revolutions we saw at the beginning of the century.

I grew up during a period when, by modern standards, most people were poor. But there was virtually no crime more serious than somebody swiping a donut off the counter at the drug store or stealing corn or watermelons from a farmer's field. (Most of us didn't steal the donut but did steal the corn and watermelons.) Of course in those days, corn sold for a penny an ear and you could buy a huge watermelon for a dime.

Did you grow up in the 1930s? Cause that's about the only way your statement is true and even then, it ignores quite a few events going on around the world which disprove your claim. The system we have today ensures we don't fall back into the dark ages of bread riots, armed rebellions and major struggles within our societies.

If you think I'm wrong tell me the last time we had a violent populist movement in the US. When was the last time France saw a violent populist movement? When it was suddenly unable to fulfil the promises the state had made. Even then, it disappeared within a year. Granted, if the system fails we'll the riots anyways, but my statements aren't anything out of this world. Taxes ensure a social stability that a low taxation and a small or non-existent social net simply can't. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
I grew up during a period when, by modern standards, most people were poor. But there was virtually no crime more serious than somebody swiping a donut off the counter at the drug store or stealing corn or watermelons from a farmer's field. (Most of us didn't steal the donut but did steal the corn and watermelons.) Of course in those days, corn sold for a penny an ear and you could buy a huge watermelon for a dime.

And here I thought Mayberry wasn't a real place.
 
I disagree. The politicians enrich themselves greatly while in office. And those who promise lots of freebies, goodies, and gratuitous money get the vote from those who hope to receive it. No politician who depends on the welfare vote and/or low income vote to keep his seat is going to stop promising those freebie or delivering on at least some of his/her promises.

No politician relies on those on welfare though. They almost always make up the lowest percent of the voters. The lowest income brackets, which would be the ones on welfare, vote the least.

Voting Statistics | Statistic Brain

Take for example President Obama. In the 2012 election, according to at least one calculation, only about 3% of the votes Obama got were from those on welfare.

Welfare Recipients Are a Tiny Part of Obama's Base | Daniel Altman
 
What is the reason children don't (can't) vote?
Because they lack "maturity, judgment, and stability for responsible exercise of the franchise", they are not legally adults, they cannot be drafted.
 
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Did you forget what thread you're in? What is it about minors that renders them unable to vote, contract with others, etc.? What is it about being a minor that precludes this?

Because they lack "maturity, judgment, and stability for responsible exercise of the franchise", they are not legally adults, they cannot be drafted.

So they are substantively different from autonomous taxpaying adults in such that they do not have the same social, political and legal rights and responsibilities as autonomous taxpaying adults.

What do we say about adults who are not autonomous, taxpaying, those who lack maturity, judgment and stability for responsible exercise of the franchise? According to you, it would seem we pretend they don't lack such things, rather you'd pretend they have them even when they demonstrably don't.
 
Did you forget what thread you're in? What is it about minors that renders them unable to vote, contract with others, etc.? What is it about being a minor that precludes this?.

A minor is not at all the same as an adult. There are lots of things adults are allowed to do that children can't. Hint: it has nothing to do with paying taxes
 
So they are substantively different from autonomous taxpaying adults in such that they do not have the same social, political and legal rights and responsibilities as autonomous taxpaying adults.

What do we say about adults who are not autonomous, taxpaying, those who lack maturity, judgment and stability for responsible exercise of the franchise? According to you, it would seem we pretend they don't lack such things, rather you'd pretend they have them even when they demonstrably don't.
I imagine you are trying to say something, and when you have it worked out, let me know.
 
Back
Top Bottom