Would you vote for the compromise?

from Hallam

First that amendment prevents actually taxing voting. That is not what we are suggesting and you are referencing it incorrectly.

Click to expand...

Not at all. The 24th Amendment expressly prohibits or forbids "any poll tax or other tax" connected with the right to vote. this entire proposal is linked to the supposed non payment of income taxes by the 47% who would see their voting rights denied or abridged. You should read your Constitution. Getting proper information is the first step toward making a logical argument.

However, I take direct umbridge against you counter argument

Click to expand...

.

Which is both your right and indicative of the radical right wing who strongly resents and screams FOUL everytime their racist tendencies are brought to the light of day.

This compromise is not against minorities.

Click to expand...

Because African Americans and Hispanics have incomes below most Whites and they disproportionately find themselves in the targeted 47%, it is a simple fact of reality that it would impact them far harder and disenfranchise them at far greater rates than Whites. It is what it is and you can resent it. You can take umbrage because of it. You can bristle at it. But it is what it is. And what it is is highly discriminatory against minorities.

this will help you with the hard and cold facts of income distribution in the USA and how race falls along the different income levels

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

a small selection for you

Race

personal and household incomein the United States Census in 2005


Percent of households with six figure incomes and individuals with incomes in the top 10%, exceeding $77,500.
Despite advances minorities have made to exit poverty and with many Black Americans and Latino Americans joining the middle class, there is still an uneven racial distribution among the income quintiles. While White Americans made up roughly 75.1% of all persons in 2000,[17] 87.93% of all households in the top 5% were headed by a person who identified as being White alone. Only 4.75% of all household in the top 5% were headed by someone who identified him or herself as being Hispanic or Latino of any race,[18] versus 12.5% of persons identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino in the general population.[17] Overall, 86.01% of all households in the top two quintiles with upper-middle range incomes of over $55,331 were headed by a head of household who identified him or herself as White alone, while only 7.21% were being headed by someone who identified as being Hispanic and 7.37% by someone who identified as being African American or Black.[18] Overall, households headed by Hispanics and African Americans or Blacks were underrepresented in the top two quintiles and overrepresented in the bottom two quintiles. Households headed by persons who identified as being Asian alone, on the other hand, were overrepresented among the top two quintiles. In the top five percent the percentage of Asians was nearly twice as high as the percentage of Asians among the general population. Whites were relatively even distributed throughout the quintiles only being underrepresented in the lowest quintile and slightly overrepresented in the top quintile and the top five percent.[18]

Click to expand...

The bottom two quintiles is the lower 40% of income earners - just the folks in that 47% that the right wing is targeting to lose their Constitutional rights to vote.

more from hallam

The fact that you think minorities are not net taxpayers is slightly racist in the first place. Further to think that minorities are the only ones who are on welfare and government support is sickening. White people utilize these resources more than anyone other subset group. So your entire argument is fallacious. You have the same biases that Regan had and I would ask you to reevaluate. But I have never know Dems to actually evaluate themselves when they hold clearly false racial beliefs.

Click to expand...

Do you really truly believe that Turtle and the radical right wingers who are backing this daffy idea do not for one minute understand the racial implications of their crusade? That is the worst sort of willful Ostrich like behavior and a complete denial of income figures from the US Census bureau.

Who the heck is talking about welfare other than the right wingers here? All I am doing is taking your proposal, your measurements, your rubrics and applying them to modern American society as measured by the census. What you are attempting to do, and not even doing it well or subtly, is the right wing tactic of screaming " call me a racist will you, that proves that you are one yourself" or other wacky illogic. It is a right wing attempt to remove the charge of racism from the table and protect themselves and their motivations from criticism. And you are doing that right here.

TurtleDude said:

speculation--I suspect (and neither one of us can prove it) those who are paying taxes are usually the ones engaged in civic charity.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not really true. People in lower tax brackets are more likely to give a higher percentage of their earnings to charity and more likely to not deduct those contributions from their taxes.

Low-income working families are the most generous group in America, giving away about 4.5 percent of their income on average.

Click to expand...

A Nation of Givers — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

hallam said:

What we have and what this compromise fixes is the inequity under the laws currently. Equality is not allowing those to game the system for their entire life and direct other people's money to themselves when they are not a net taxpayer. You are fighting for inequality.

Click to expand...

How many people actually do spend their entire lives on assistance though? It certainly isn't that entire "47%". In fact, I'd be willing to bet that many of that number have paid taxes in the past. And many of those will pay income taxes within the next 5 years, if not this year.

Plus, this argument never takes into account someone who may be self-sufficient. A person/family who provides their own food, water, shelter by their own hard work. Perhaps they sell their excess for just enough money to get anything else they may need or want. Perhaps they had money from an inheritence. Maybe they make good investments. Whatever the case, not everyone takes or even applies for government assistance even if they might fit into the brackets to receive it.

hallam said:

What we have and what this compromise fixes is the inequity under the laws currently. Equality is not allowing those to game the system for their entire life and direct other people's money to themselves when they are not a net taxpayer. You are fighting for inequality.

Click to expand...

No what this compromise does is take peoples right to vote away. If you want equality then get rid of the tax system as it stands now and create one without any loopholes/tax breaks and then put in a flat tax based either on your income or your consumption. Taking peoples right to vote away does nothing except enslave those people to your way of thinking. There is a HUGE potential for abuse with such a system. Which is why we got rid of it a long time ago.

TurtleDude said:

If you really believed in true equality it would flow both ways.

Click to expand...

Hence my support of a flat tax. But there is no way in hell that I would ever support the compromise in the OP. I would actually rather we kept it the way it is now than even think of supporting such a compromise.

Kal'Stang said:

No what this compromise does is take peoples right to vote away. If you want equality then get rid of the tax system as it stands now and create one without any loopholes/tax breaks and then put in a flat tax based either on your income or your consumption. Taking peoples right to vote away does nothing except enslave those people to your way of thinking. There is a HUGE potential for abuse with such a system. Which is why we got rid of it a long time ago.

Click to expand...

I am not taking their rights away. I am discussing enhancing the voice in the government to those who support that government. If they want to vote support the government, it is as easy as that. There is no abuse here. It is just a limitation on voting rights just like we currently do.

hallam said:

I am not taking their rights away. I am discussing enhancing the voice in the government to those who support that government. If they want to vote support the government, it is as easy as that. There is no abuse here. It is just a limitation on voting rights just like we currently do.

Click to expand...

you have just redefined what it means to be an American by repealing the basic rights of being a citizen. Congratulations.

Its amazing how your last post was shredded and flushed and you can act like nothing at all has happened.

hallam said:

I am not taking their rights away. I am discussing enhancing the voice in the government to those who support that government. If they want to vote support the government, it is as easy as that. There is no abuse here. It is just a limitation on voting rights just like we currently do.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what words you use or how you try to explain it. When you strip it down to its essence you are taking peoples right to vote away.

And do you really think that it is that easy to become a net contributing tax payer? In order to do so you must attend some sort of college or university. In order to do so you must qualify for a loan or grant or be able to afford it yourself. And then you have to be intelligent enough to pass all of your classes in order to get your degree and then find a job in the area that you got your degree in. What about the people that are not able to get those loans/grants? Of course there is always the possiblity that if such a "compromise" was made that the rich would get rid of grants and loans period so that they didn't have to pay as much into the system. Which brings us to being able to afford college. Not everyone has the 40k to get through one year of college...much less 4-6 years required depending on what you are going after. In which case you condemn those people to not being able to vote.

And then there are the effects that implementing such a "compromise" would cause. Who would work as a waiter/waitress in a restaurant with such a policy? If a restaurant doesn't have servers then it has no business. Unless it only seats up to 10 people, then the owner could do it I suppose. But wait...what about cooks? Not all cooks makes 15-20 bucks an hour. There are those that work for minimum wage also. Can the owner cook and serve people also? Probably not since the owner also has to do lots of other things that is required of any business. Dishwashers? Guess the owner would have to do that too huh?

And there are many many many other fields of lower wage labor that would be negatively affected. Face it, if it wasn't for the lower wage earners which you seem to look down upon this country would not be running.

haymarket said:

you have just redefined what it means to be an American by repealing the basic rights of being a citizen. Congratulations.

Its amazing how your last post was shredded and flushed and you can act like nothing at all has happened.

Click to expand...

are children not citizens?

Kal'Stang said:

It doesn't matter what words you use or how you try to explain it. When you strip it down to its essence you are taking peoples right to vote away.

And do you really think that it is that easy to become a net contributing tax payer? In order to do so you must attend some sort of college or university. In order to do so you must qualify for a loan or grant or be able to afford it yourself. And then you have to be intelligent enough to pass all of your classes in order to get your degree and then find a job in the area that you got your degree in. What about the people that are not able to get those loans/grants? Of course there is always the possiblity that if such a "compromise" was made that the rich would get rid of grants and loans period so that they didn't have to pay as much into the system. Which brings us to being able to afford college. Not everyone has the 40k to get through one year of college...much less 4-6 years required depending on what you are going after. In which case you condemn those people to not being able to vote.

And then there are the effects that implementing such a "compromise" would cause. Who would work as a waiter/waitress in a restaurant with such a policy? If a restaurant doesn't have servers then it has no business. Unless it only seats up to 10 people, then the owner could do it I suppose. But wait...what about cooks? Not all cooks makes 15-20 bucks an hour. There are those that work for minimum wage also. Can the owner cook and serve people also? Probably not since the owner also has to do lots of other things that is required of any business. Dishwashers? Guess the owner would have to do that too huh?

And there are many many many other fields of lower wage labor that would be negatively affected. Face it, if it wasn't for the lower wage earners which you seem to look down upon this country would not be running.

Click to expand...

do you see any danger when we reach a point where there is a majority of voters who are not federal income tax payers?

roguenuke said:

Actually, that's not really true. People in lower tax brackets are more likely to give a higher percentage of their earnings to charity and more likely to not deduct those contributions from their taxes.



A Nation of Givers — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

Click to expand...

ancedotal evidence doesn't really cut it but those people tend to be tax payers.

Kal'Stang said:

It doesn't matter what words you use or how you try to explain it. When you strip it down to its essence you are taking peoples right to vote away.

And do you really think that it is that easy to become a net contributing tax payer? In order to do so you must attend some sort of college or university. In order to do so you must qualify for a loan or grant or be able to afford it yourself. And then you have to be intelligent enough to pass all of your classes in order to get your degree and then find a job in the area that you got your degree in. What about the people that are not able to get those loans/grants? Of course there is always the possiblity that if such a "compromise" was made that the rich would get rid of grants and loans period so that they didn't have to pay as much into the system. Which brings us to being able to afford college. Not everyone has the 40k to get through one year of college...much less 4-6 years required depending on what you are going after. In which case you condemn those people to not being able to vote.

And then there are the effects that implementing such a "compromise" would cause. Who would work as a waiter/waitress in a restaurant with such a policy? If a restaurant doesn't have servers then it has no business. Unless it only seats up to 10 people, then the owner could do it I suppose. But wait...what about cooks? Not all cooks makes 15-20 bucks an hour. There are those that work for minimum wage also. Can the owner cook and serve people also? Probably not since the owner also has to do lots of other things that is required of any business. Dishwashers? Guess the owner would have to do that too huh?

And there are many many many other fields of lower wage labor that would be negatively affected. Face it, if it wasn't for the lower wage earners which you seem to look down upon this country would not be running.

Click to expand...

Am I supposed to be convinced by this silliness? Seriously, we can't do this because people will quit their jobs.....oh the chaos. This is so irrational and so unsupported that I frankly have no idea what you are talking about. Btw way that waitress will still work because this doesn't take away her rights. That waitress will still work because bills still exist. Further, it is complete shenanigans to think it takes a collage education to become a net taxpayer.

this is nothing but pseudo-intellectual BS.... /sarcasm I look down on the poor when I have made statements that the poor can be net taxpayers too. When I have made statements that the rich will be more effected by this with the current tax structure.

Seriously, you and haymarket really should check yourselves out of the 80 sterotypes.

Against.


I have no problem limiting the franchise along sensible measures; frankly I'd like to see us bring back poll tests. simple stuff like "name the three branches of government" and "who are you voting for".

HOWEVER, it would require a Constitutional Amendment. the States were Constitutionally charged with determining voter qualifications; but the 14th Amendment removed that authority from them. well, it removed it from them as far as race was concerned, but it has since been held to have secretly mean all kinds of fascinating things that the Judges just discovered just this last minute.... i digress.

this compromise is similarly structurally weak. a tweaking that I think would better inform its' goals would contain the following:


1. get rid of tax witholding and have tax day and election day on the same day. currently they are about as far apart in the year as they can get. this is not a coincidence.

2. allow those who qualify not to be net taxpayers two options: 1. they can either take the tax code with all of the holes, and options, and end up getting back more than they paid in (in which case they forgoe the franchise for that year) OR 2. they can simply pay the percent of their income that they owe, with no deductions, and then go vote. That way, even the poor are offered the option to exercise the franchise, so long as they prove willing to bear the costs of governance along with everyone else.

3. make this day a federal holiday so that the people can go about their business. it's already a shame that election day isn't; and surely tilts the scales away from those whose employment makes getting to the polls on time more difficult.

taxation and voting are therefore linked; both of them a of the patriotic duty of those citizens who choose to take part in running this great nation. those who wish to avoid the responsibility that comes with power, are free to do so.


upside: everyone who votes will have just cut the government a check for a hefty percent of their income. methinks this will provide great incentive for the American voters to ensure that that money is spent wisely and is only what is needed.

TurtleDude said:

do you see any danger when we reach a point where there is a majority of voters who are not federal income tax payers?

Click to expand...

With what you are argueing for in this thread that is irrelevant. If the tax system is screwed up then fix it. You can do that and still keep peoples rights.

I noticed you didn't comment on anything else in my post.

haymarket said:

you have just redefined what it means to be an American by repealing the basic rights of being a citizen.

Click to expand...

the franchise is not a right. it is a power, exercised by some of the citizenry of the United States. throughout our history we have seen fit to limit those who can exercise its' power. felons, for example, are currently forbidden to wield it, as are children. immigrants, too, though held to be 'persons in the United States' and thus subject to our rights (for example, they must receive Miranda Warnings), are forbidden to use this power. half our citizenry do not exercise the vote, and it no more strips them of their citizenship than the other half are made citizens by the act of voting.

the franchise =/= citizenship

TurtleDude said:

ancedotal evidence doesn't really cut it but those people tend to be tax payers.

Click to expand...

wow...he gives the results of a study and you call it ancedotal? Remind me to do the same next time you post the results of a study in one of your posts ok?

hallam said:

Am I supposed to be convinced by this silliness? Seriously, we can't do this because people will quit their jobs.....oh the chaos. This is so irrational and so unsupported that I frankly have no idea what you are talking about. Btw way that waitress will still work because this doesn't take away her rights. That waitress will still work because bills still exist. Further, it is complete shenanigans to think it takes a collage education to become a net taxpayer.

this is nothing but pseudo-intellectual BS.... /sarcasm I look down on the poor when I have made statements that the poor can be net taxpayers too. When I have made statements that the rich will be more effected by this with the current tax structure.

Seriously, you and haymarket really should check yourselves out of the 80 sterotypes.

Click to expand...

And just how can someone making minimum wage meet your requirement of "net tax payer contributer"?

And no it is not "sillyness" or any of the other things that you called it. Do you seriously think that people will want to do jobs that will not pay enough to allow them to vote? What about that gal that I posted a link to about that helps with charities a few pages ago? She works at a restaurant 2 days a week, goes to school full time and still helps with Meals on Wheels and helps children learn to read. Do you think that she would be able to do all that plus make your requirement? As far as bills go what about people that live with their folks and have no bills? Yet do charity work?

And since you admit that you have no idea what I am talking about how can you call it sillyness?

And btw, I never said that she wouldn't work. I just said that she will not even bother to become a waitress but will instead try to get a job that actually makes her a net taxpayer. A waitress job will not do that. And if you think that it does then you have NO idea what it means to subsist on minimum wage.

TurtleDude said:

are children not citizens?

Click to expand...

Sure they are. However children have slightly different basic rights from an adult. For valid reasons. Which I am sure that you are aware of and hence already know how lame using children in your argument is.

Kal'Stang said:

wow...he gives the results of a study and you call it ancedotal? Remind me to do the same next time you post the results of a study in one of your posts ok?

Click to expand...

those people aren't tax payers?

Kal'Stang said:

Sure they are. However children have slightly different basic rights from an adult. For valid reasons. Which I am sure that you are aware of and hence already know how lame using children in your argument is.

Click to expand...

I find it just as lame to suggest that people who don't contribute income taxes have say in income tax rates

in either case its a question of responsibility

Kal'Stang said:

And just how can someone making minimum wage meet your requirement of "net tax payer contributer"?

Click to expand...

they probably can't; which is why if we are going to impose some kind of system as this we need to offer them the option to become so.

TurtleDude said:

I find it just as lame to suggest that people who don't contribute income taxes have say in income tax rates

in either case its a question of responsibility

Click to expand...

You want to talk of responsibility and yet you want to strip people of the right to vote? Seriously?

cpwill said:

they probably can't; which is why if we are going to impose some kind of system as this we need to offer them the option to become so.

Click to expand...

Thank god at least you recognize this. Now, what option would that be? We'll get to the more obvious questions later after you answer.

post #138:

cpwill said:

1. get rid of tax witholding and have tax day and election day on the same day. currently they are about as far apart in the year as they can get. this is not a coincidence.

2. allow those who qualify not to be net taxpayers two options: 1. they can either take the tax code with all of the holes, and options, and end up getting back more than they paid in (in which case they forgoe the franchise for that year) OR 2. they can simply pay the percent of their income that they owe, with no deductions, and then go vote. That way, even the poor are offered the option to exercise the franchise, so long as they prove willing to bear the costs of governance along with everyone else.

3. make this day a federal holiday so that the people can go about their business. it's already a shame that election day isn't; and surely tilts the scales away from those whose employment makes getting to the polls on time more difficult.

taxation and voting are therefore linked; both of them a of the patriotic duty of those citizens who choose to take part in running this great nation. those who wish to avoid the responsibility that comes with power, are free to do so.

Click to expand...

We have fallen down the right wing rabbit hole and are fast approaching the bottom. And what is at the bottom for us? The Brave New World of folks like Turtle and Hallam where they intentionally come up with a fraudulent scheme to disenfranchise tens of millions of minority persons for the sole purpose of installing their own right wing allies in positions of political power.

People who support this sort of extremism should go to the Holocaust Memorial in Washington DC. One of the first rooms there is an exhibit of far right propaganda which was designed to set the stage for what was to come later. Right wing propaganda designed to teach that there was a difference in some citizens and others who were less than full citizens. Right wing propaganda designed to change the thinking so that the reader began accepting in his mind that you could take away rights from some people because they were actually less a full person that they were. Right wing propaganda that set the stage for taking away of peoples rights.

That is what something like this scheme has as its motivation. Right wing extremists in this land have read the census projections and have read voting trends. They know that American is becoming less White and more minority. And what scares them to death is the knowledge that such persons tend to vote Democratic. So they are frightened that they will not be able to outvote their enemies in a decade or two. The answer to their problems - make sure they can't vote. Thus we get this inane net taxpayer bull and the idea that we are going to connect voting with paying of income taxes.

Recognize this for what it is and recognize those who are pushing it for who they are. This is nothing to be polite about. This is nothing to be soft spoken about. This is something that should scare the living daylights out of all people who believe that every citizen should enjoy the rights that are now contained in the US Constitution.