• 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

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Please read this entire post before voting in the poll. If you vote before reading the entire post, know that you are an idiot.

Turtledude thinks that you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you are not a net taxpayer (in other words, someone who pays more in taxes than they get back when they file their returns). He doesn't think it's fair that those who are not net taxpayers are permitted to vote for the politician who promises them the most goodies, since they're not feeling the bite of paying the taxes that fund those goodies.

I completely disagree with his position, but this got me to thinking. What if someone were to propose the following compromise:

The Compromise said:
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.

If you don't like paper ballots, that's fine, I'm sure an election machine could be set up to help automate and standardize the casting of these specialized ballots.



And now, the question I put to all of you!

If you were given the choice between voting FOR this compromise, or voting AGAINST this compromise, which would you choose?

This is a simple yes/no, with the obligatory nonsense option. You can explain your vote after you cast it, but this thread is not for the discussion of any option other than the compromise as described above.
 
Last edited:
Totally against. There's no way I'm ever going to agree that my privileged social status gives me the right to take someone else's rights away. I don't care if I pay more taxes than they do, I don't even care if they pay no taxes at all. I will never support the removal of the basic principle of one citizen/one vote regardless of gender, wealth, education, social class, race, sexual orientation, disability, employment or any other modifier. Every natural born or naturalized citizen has the right to participate in the political life of the country they live in. Governments make decisions about non-budget related things all the freaking time and there is no logical reason, other than a fascist mindset, to try and remove my neighbor's right to vote on any issue just because his income is too low to be taxed.
 
So...... again if you have money, your vote counts according to Turtle. That is what the founding Fathers DIDNT want!!!!!! Where is Turtle so I can smack em????
And NO! This whole idea discussed in this poll is assinine.
 
Equating paying taxes with the right to vote..... I think we passed a Constitutional Amendment in 1964 which spoke to this type of thinking. One person = one vote.
 
Equating paying taxes with the right to vote..... I think we passed a Constitutional Amendment in 1964 which spoke to this type of thinking. One person = one vote.

That doesnt include minorities and women DOES it???? :unsure13::giggle1:
 
Equating paying taxes with the right to vote..... I think we passed a Constitutional Amendment in 1964 which spoke to this type of thinking. One person = one vote.

I realize that. Assume for the sake of argument that the process you'd be casting a ballot in would supersede that. :)
 
Everyone should have one vote.
Everyone should have a horse in the race. By that I mean, that when taxes go up, everyone's taxes go up. Someone should not be able to vote for higher taxes for someone else but not themselves.
 
Please read this entire post before voting in the poll. If you vote before reading the entire post, know that you are an idiot.

Turtledude thinks that you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you are not a net taxpayer (in other words, someone who pays more in taxes than they get back when they file their returns). He doesn't think it's fair that those who are not net taxpayers are permitted to vote for the politician who promises them the most goodies, since they're not feeling the bite of paying the taxes that fund those goodies.

I completely disagree with his position, but this got me to thinking. What if someone were to propose the following compromise:





And now, the question I put to all of you!

If you were given the choice between voting FOR this compromise, or voting AGAINST this compromise, which would you choose?

This is a simple yes/no, with the obligatory nonsense option. You can explain your vote after you cast it, but this thread is not for the discussion of any option other than the compromise as described above.

Absolutely against.

I know well TurtleDude's stances on such things. After all, he takes every opportunity to state it. And while he is against tax breaks for the poor, he has no problem with tax breaks for businesses and corporations. Likewise, he is not for limitations for no-bid contracts for government contractors. At least he wasn't the last time I addressed those issues with him.

So while he is against the poor profiting off of social welfare, he seems not to be against businesses profiting off of corporate welfare. And until he campaigns as ardently against corporate welfare as he does against social welfare, I won't advocate any kind of compromise for his proposals.
 
Everyone should have one vote.
Everyone should have a horse in the race. By that I mean, that when taxes go up, everyone's taxes go up. Someone should not be able to vote for higher taxes for someone else but not themselves.

But citizens DO NOT vote for income tax hikes or decreases.

I was wondering about the poll..... if the five people getting only three votes were African American would they get three-fifths of the 3/5's vote?

Tactical - I am with you and understand that. No problem.
 
Everyone should have one vote.
Everyone should have a horse in the race. By that I mean, that when taxes go up, everyone's taxes go up. Someone should not be able to vote for higher taxes for someone else but not themselves.

Unfortunately, that happens far too often. California is falling apart, in large part to the fact that many poor California voters keep passing massive bond issues that they want free stuff, but don't actually pay any taxes so they are never responsible for paying it back. This kind of entitlement attitude is absurd, but it's rampant.
 
Unfortunately, that happens far too often. California is falling apart, in large part to the fact that many poor California voters keep passing massive bond issues that they want free stuff, but don't actually pay any taxes so they are never responsible for paying it back. This kind of entitlement attitude is absurd, but it's rampant.

Yup. But that doesn't give cause to disenfranchise referendums. What that gives cause to is for a requirement for referendums include the form of tax revenue to pay for them.
 
Everyone should have one vote.
Everyone should have a horse in the race. By that I mean, that when taxes go up, everyone's taxes go up. Someone should not be able to vote for higher taxes for someone else but not themselves.

If everyone should have one vote, there is nothing more to add. Your last sentence highly contradicts both your first statement AND the way you voted in this poll. The fact that you don't like how someone else exercises their right to vote is really of no consequence. If you agree, as you say, that everyone should have one vote, then by default you accept the probability that some people's choices will piss you off every so often.
 
Please read this entire post before voting in the poll. If you vote before reading the entire post, know that you are an idiot.

Turtledude thinks that you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you are not a net taxpayer (in other words, someone who pays more in taxes than they get back when they file their returns). He doesn't think it's fair that those who are not net taxpayers are permitted to vote for the politician who promises them the most goodies, since they're not feeling the bite of paying the taxes that fund those goodies.

I completely disagree with his position, but this got me to thinking. What if someone were to propose the following compromise:





And now, the question I put to all of you!

If you were given the choice between voting FOR this compromise, or voting AGAINST this compromise, which would you choose?

This is a simple yes/no, with the obligatory nonsense option. You can explain your vote after you cast it, but this thread is not for the discussion of any option other than the compromise as described above.

As I've often said, income tax is only one tax. There is still property tax, sales tax, value-added tax on goods, fuel tax, etc. IMO relatively few people are actually paying NO tax.

If you looked strictly at my Fed income tax returns, I'd probably be getting more back than I pay in. This doesn't mean I am not a net-tax payer. If you add in what I pay in SS/Medicare/Medicaid it is about even. I own land; I buy goods; I buy fuel; I get taxed on all these things and more. When all is said and done, I am a net tax-payer, but it doesn't sound like this would be recognized if we're only looking at Fed Income tax returns only.

I do not wish to be ruled by a gov't in which I had no say, or in which I had only 1/5 as much say as someone else, so I would oppose this compromise.
 
So...... again if you have money, your vote counts according to Turtle. That is what the founding Fathers DIDNT want!!!!!! Where is Turtle so I can smack em????
And NO! This whole idea discussed in this poll is assinine.

what the OP fails to note is that I want a tax system where those who do not pay taxes cannot vote up the taxes of those who do

that is the main point-such as a NST, a consumption tax or a flat tax. I oppose progressive income taxes so the OP is being less than honest which figures
 
No. The compromise is absurd and anti-American. As is turtle's position.

You are being dishonest too because you have seen most of what I have written on this.
 
Everyone should have one vote.
Everyone should have a horse in the race. By that I mean, that when taxes go up, everyone's taxes go up. Someone should not be able to vote for higher taxes for someone else but not themselves.

exactly my point-since many liberals oppose this THEN I suggested that only net tax payers be able to vote. I wonder why the left has such a hard time with flat taxes or a NST or consumption tax. Because their masters cannot buy the votes of people likey Haymarket etc by promising the dem masses more and more goodies paid for by tax hikes on "The rich"
 
exactly my point-since many liberals oppose this THEN I suggested that only net tax payers be able to vote. I wonder why the left has such a hard time with flat taxes or a NST or consumption tax. Because their masters cannot buy the votes of people likey Haymarket etc by promising the dem masses more and more goodies paid for by tax hikes on "The rich"

I'm poor, but I am by no means a dem. I think both dems and rep should be booted out and more independents should be brought in. And by indepenent I'm talking about people that are not affiliated with ANY party and will tell them both like it is. So sorry but poor people do not always vote dem.
 
You are being dishonest too because you have seen most of what I have written on this.

I have seen most of what you have written on this. Turtle, I will tell you what I tell everyone. PRESENTATION IS EVERYTHING. Here... get this... I AGREE with you on taxes. I think that this country SHOULD have a flat tax rate for everyone. Eliminate the loopholes, the tax shelters, everything. One percentage for everyone. Guess what? You are correct, those who make more money WILL end up paying more anyways. When you consider government assistance programs in place, I do not believe that those who are disadvantaged, economically, will be hurt by this. And, if you eliminate all loopholes for everyone, the wealthy and corporations will actually end up paying what they should.

See? I agree with you. My problem always is your presentation. It is absurd and extremist. It is ridiculous to even suggest that ANY segment of the US be disenfranchised. Yet you keep spouting this stupidity. Whether you actually believe it... which would be a scary thought, or whether you are doing it for effect, doesn't matter. When you do it, you make folks like me, those who agree with you but don't hold extreme views, look at your ENTIRE position and say, "that's idiotic... I would never go along with that," ignoring any value that it might have. This is why I rail on you so much. Your positions are usually pretty good. Your presentation is usually completely absurd.

A person can have the most brilliant idea, ever, but if that idea is presented in an absurd, idiotic fashion, no one will care or even listen. Sometimes, these absurd presentations will push those who are moderate or NOT extreme, the other way. I'll just keep pointing this out.
 
Last edited:
exactly my point-since many liberals oppose this THEN I suggested that only net tax payers be able to vote. I wonder why the left has such a hard time with flat taxes or a NST or consumption tax. Because their masters cannot buy the votes of people likey Haymarket etc by promising the dem masses more and more goodies paid for by tax hikes on "The rich"

This is precisely what I mean in my previous post. You start off fine... and then you digress into absurdity. Maybe you do it to make it a point. The only point you are making, though, is that what you are saying is absurd.
 
This is precisely what I mean in my previous post. You start off fine... and then you digress into absurdity. Maybe you do it to make it a point. The only point you are making, though, is that what you are saying is absurd.

this is a frigging chat board dude

you take this place WAY too seriously
 
Everyone should have one vote.
Everyone should have a horse in the race. By that I mean, that when taxes go up, everyone's taxes go up. Someone should not be able to vote for higher taxes for someone else but not themselves.
In federal elections we vote for representatives not initiatives, we are a constitutional limited democratically elected republic. We vote for people, not taxes or any other laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom