• 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 voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax


  • Total voters
    54
Currently 40% of Americans pay no income tax, should these financial failures be permited to influence the country?

absolutely.

if they have to obey the law, then they should also have some influence in making the law.
 
absolutely.

if they have to obey the law, then they should also have some influence in making the law.

but harry reid says income tax is voluntary.
 
Tucker is always interjecting jokes into debates I'm enjoying, ruining the entire thread.

I'm glad to see I could get him back :cool:

Come on. We both do this to each other all the time. ;)

No folks, I don't actually support revoking women's right to vote. It's a nice theory to toy with, and the data on voting trends of married-vs-single women are true, but it's just not going to happen.

I understood that, hence my menstruation comments.
 
From your own source:


Now that's asinine.

SCOTUS agreed and an amendment had to be passed to allow women the civil right to vote. A right inconsistent with the Constitution, and is just as easily removed.


And the reason for the passage of that amendment, and subsequent ones, was that the fundamental right to vote was being infringed upon and had to be protected constitutionally from those who would construe that certain rights, retained by the people, that were not enumerated in the constitution were therefore denied or disparaged.


;)
 
I would agree with this if we voted on a budget. But we vote for representatives who, in turn, make policies that affect everyone. There is no sound argument for disenfranchising sectors of the population based on ability to buy the vote.
Agree....
We already have the rich buying the time and attention of our elected representatives using "campaign contributions", often at the expense of the rest of us. What is a poor or middle class person to do to be heard?
I submit that we alre already disenfranchised to a large extent.

What happened to the battle cry of "No taxation without representation"?
Has it been replaced by "Representation based on taxation"?
Or is it the new version of the golden rule? as in, those who have the gold make the rules....That is a dangerous path.
 
Currently 40% of Americans pay no income tax, should these financial failures be permited to influence the country?

Also should people on government assistence be permited to vote?

I understand the "right" to vote can not be removed ... but what if?

No.
We should abolish the income tax and replace it with something else.
At worst a flat tax.

I do believe the voting age should be raised to 25 except for those in the military, or have served a minimum of three years.

Also, seventy-five years and older should have their political driving licenses revoked.

They can run for office, but not vote.
 
whoisthis.jpg

Um... Ray Comfort?
 
Agree....
We already have the rich buying the time and attention of our elected representatives using "campaign contributions", often at the expense of the rest of us. What is a poor or middle class person to do to be heard?
I submit that we alre already disenfranchised to a large extent.

What happened to the battle cry of "No taxation without representation"?
Has it been replaced by "Representation based on taxation"?
Or is it the new version of the golden rule? as in, those who have the gold make the rules....That is a dangerous path.

Every time this has happened in history, bloodshed followed.
 
Do you believe you are a 'representative sample' of women per-se?

I've heard too many women (family and friends) say that they voted for so and so because he was cuter than the other guy. I don't look for physical beauty when I vote...hell, I don't even look for physical beauty in guys I may sleep with, but that's going off topic!:lol:
 
I will concede that there have been times when I've wished women couldn't vote. aside from the issue of objectivity I think they(we) can be way too compassionate for their(our) own good, to the point that it gets very pricey. while I know there are women like me and invayne out there who aren't afflicted with this "compassion" phenomenon, I would personally be willing to take one for the team, or rather, throw the game--but if I'm going to give up my suffrage I want to see a lot of men far stupider than me lose theirs too. I suggest an IQ requirement.

AMEN!:2wave:
 
I don't know, that makes sense when considering how women vote in regards to themselves, but a lot vote policies and systems into place for the benefit of those less fortunate, and never really expect to take advantage of them personally. and you are right, it's men too.

Not me. I don't vote for a welfare state.
 
The US had this once, as did most of Europe. Only white men over a certain age and of a certain standard (wealth) were allowed to vote... do you want to go back to those days?
 
The US had this once, as did most of Europe. Only white men over a certain age and of a certain standard (wealth) were allowed to vote... do you want to go back to those days?

If I'm not mistaken, I think they had to be land owners. Since there's no such thing as private property anymore, the subject is moot!
 
The US had this once, as did most of Europe. Only white men over a certain age and of a certain standard (wealth) were allowed to vote... do you want to go back to those days?

Stop trying to convince me I'm already ok with it. j/k
I think it would be better to restrict it based on objectivity.

If you look at the numbers you will see that once universal voting privileges were established government grew exponentially.
 
Stop trying to convince me I'm already ok with it. j/k
I think it would be better to restrict it based on objectivity.

If you look at the numbers you will see that once universal voting privileges were established government grew exponentially.

Yea because instead of catering for the few rich privileged, it actually had to cater to every citizen, regardless of economic standing, race, sex or age.

The right to vote should not be limited or restricted by law based on race, religion, economic standing or in fact age (with the exception of the legal age of course.. cant have 3 year olds voting..). I simply can not believe that people would even contemplate such a thing after the hundreds of thousands of American's that fought wars to defend democracy, and now they are willing to throw those principles out the door... scary as hell.

The OP question is just another tired example on how people, especially on the right in the US, want to limit the "opposition" in voting, so to precipitate a political victory at the polls at a some point. I would wager, that the people that would be hit by such a law, would more likely vote Democrat than Republican.

Many of these "voter limiting" proposals are just that, a partisan attempt to limit the opposition (political) turnout on election day and are no different than the sorry attempts of white racist southern states in demanding extreme "proof" of black American's mental capacity before giving them the right to vote.
 
Yea because instead of catering for the few rich privileged, it actually had to cater to every citizen, regardless of economic standing, race, sex or age.

Voting being withheld based on race, sex or age is not ok in my opinion because it is arbitrary.

Economic standing on the other hand may or may not be ok with me.

The right to vote should not be limited or restricted by law based on race, religion, economic standing or in fact age (with the exception of the legal age of course.. cant have 3 year olds voting..). I simply can not believe that people would even contemplate such a thing after the hundreds of thousands of American's that fought wars to defend democracy, and now they are willing to throw those principles out the door... scary as hell.

That wasn't one of the principals our nation was founded on.

The OP question is just another tired example on how people, especially on the right in the US, want to limit the "opposition" in voting, so to precipitate a political victory at the polls at a some point. I would wager, that the people that would be hit by such a law, would more likely vote Democrat than Republican.

Your right it would most likely limit democrat voters more than republicans.

I'm not happy with the quality of voters we have. They make their voting choices based on complete foolishness.

Many of these "voter limiting" proposals are just that, a partisan attempt to limit the opposition (political) turnout on election day and are no different than the sorry attempts of white racist southern states in demanding extreme "proof" of black American's mental capacity before giving them the right to vote.

I never understood why it was bad to limit voting because someone can't read.
I mean if you can't read and your an adult how the hell are you supposed to understand what government is supposed to do.

Government is not about what you want it to do but what it is supposed to do.
 
Voting being withheld based on race, sex or age is not ok in my opinion because it is arbitrary.

Economic standing on the other hand may or may not be ok with me.

Okay lets put it this way. Is it the 40% or whatever number of people who dont pay taxes, fault that the US tax system is hopeless and allows so many people not to pay even a symbolic tax? Does that also mean that the multi billionaire that avoids paying taxes also cant vote? And what if the state has sales tax? What then? If the requirement is "has to pay taxes" then he or she is!. Or do you want the rule to be based on yearly earnings? Everyone under say 20k a year cant vote? That would cut out most young people in college, and effectively raise the voting age to what.. 22+?

Fact is, discrimination based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age or economic standard, is just that.. discrimination.

That wasn't one of the principals our nation was founded on.

No, those principles included slavery, the buying and selling of women and child labour. But you as a nation has evolved away from that like most 21st century societies. Using the "principles of our nation at its founding" argument is not not only brain dead but hopeless and highly subjective since that would mean you support slavery, support not giving women the vote and so on.

I'm not happy with the quality of voters we have. They make their voting choices based on complete foolishness.

Welcome to democracy. Yes voters vote for strange things, they elected GWB twice for god sake. That is why having a free as possible media is important in the democratic process, because that is where a majority of people get their information and form their opinions from. So if anything, if you want better informed voters who dont do "stupid things", free your media from the corporate and partisan shackles that have been formed over the last decade plus.

I never understood why it was bad to limit voting because someone can't read.
I mean if you can't read and your an adult how the hell are you supposed to understand what government is supposed to do.

Government is not about what you want it to do but what it is supposed to do.

Again we are back to the elitist pre mid to late 20th century ideal of society. It was wrong then, and still is wrong. The argument to deny the black population and women the vote, was that they did not have the intellectual capacity to understand the political process. The argument to deny poor people the vote was again, because they were too dumb because they were poor. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It is nothing but a power grab by a minority...

As for the way the south prevented the black population in some areas from registering to vote and voting. Sure many blacks could not read, but that was because they were denied the same educational choices as the white population or at best the same quality education. But even if the black person could read, the standard the voting board set for said black person to get the right to vote was far far far higher than a similar white person. Where a white person was required to spell the word Cat or Dog, the black person had to spell emancipation or other very long and semi complicated words (relatively speaking of course). And that was the problem with having such a requirement in a time where racism was ripe and flourishing in certain areas of society.
 
Okay lets put it this way. Is it the 40% or whatever number of people who dont pay taxes, fault that the US tax system is hopeless and allows so many people not to pay even a symbolic tax? Does that also mean that the multi billionaire that avoids paying taxes also cant vote? And what if the state has sales tax? What then? If the requirement is "has to pay taxes" then he or she is!. Or do you want the rule to be based on yearly earnings? Everyone under say 20k a year cant vote? That would cut out most young people in college, and effectively raise the voting age to what.. 22+?

I'm not sure if I would be in favor just based on economics alone.

But someone who contributes nothing and only takes from the state coffers has an unethical advantage in voting.

Fact is, discrimination based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age or economic standard, is just that.. discrimination.

Not all discrimination is bad. Again I'm not in favor of doing it based on arbitrary reasons but on a persons ability to evaluate candidates and policies based on a rational and objective manner.

No, those principles included slavery, the buying and selling of women and child labour. But you as a nation has evolved away from that like most 21st century societies. Using the "principles of our nation at its founding" argument is not not only brain dead but hopeless and highly subjective since that would mean you support slavery, support not giving women the vote and so on.

They were not founding principals.

That is just a blatant emotional red herring.

They founded our country on individual liberty.

Yes I support slavery. :roll:

Welcome to democracy. Yes voters vote for strange things, they elected GWB twice for god sake. That is why having a free as possible media is important in the democratic process, because that is where a majority of people get their information and form their opinions from. So if anything, if you want better informed voters who dont do "stupid things", free your media from the corporate and partisan shackles that have been formed over the last decade plus.

These ill informed voters do things that have negative effects on your and my life, I'm not ok with excusing that based on emotional grounds of everybody needs a voice.

Not everyone knows what is or is not good for me.

Again we are back to the elitist pre mid to late 20th century ideal of society. It was wrong then, and still is wrong. The argument to deny the black population and women the vote, was that they did not have the intellectual capacity to understand the political process. The argument to deny poor people the vote was again, because they were too dumb because they were poor. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It is nothing but a power grab by a minority...

Address now, if you do not know how to read, how can you possibly make an informed decision on who should lead a country?

As for the way the south prevented the black population in some areas from registering to vote and voting. Sure many blacks could not read, but that was because they were denied the same educational choices as the white population or at best the same quality education. But even if the black person could read, the standard the voting board set for said black person to get the right to vote was far far far higher than a similar white person. Where a white person was required to spell the word Cat or Dog, the black person had to spell emancipation or other very long and semi complicated words (relatively speaking of course). And that was the problem with having such a requirement in a time where racism was ripe and flourishing in certain areas of society.

You know who else repressed people based on arbitrary reasons?

The whole FREAKING world! My gosh will the bashing of the south ever end.

This is about having people make educated decisions based on objective facts and not on "he's cuter", "he talks good", or "he's the one in my party".
 
I'm going to stand behind it, with my slaves of course.

wow that will be a nice change in a politician, a backbone. I think the american public will really appreciate it.
 
Just call them your "entourage". :mrgreen:

think how little funding he'll need if he doesn't have to pay his campaign workers or speech writers. it's foolproof.
 
Back
Top Bottom