• 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
haymarket said:
People contribute to society in many different ways. I refuse to allow one narrow definition to decide what or what is not a contribution to America and its people.
Click to expand...

This is what I've been saying for pages.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
So you're saying that you are presenting an extreme position out of anger and lack of fairness?
Click to expand...

I don't get angry here. this board is nothing more than entertainment to me. You cannot do the job I have if you get angry over something like this board.

its not an extreme position-its consistent with the founders' desires but its mainly an alternative to my preferred solution-a tax code where the many cannot vote up-endlessly-the rates of others based on promises made to them by greedy politicians

and I would bet that a nation wide poll of those who actually pay federal income taxes would find a great deal more support for limiting voting to federal income tax payers than is exhibited on this board
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And who do you believe are those who are most likely to make informed and responsible decisions?
Click to expand...

those who have incentive to do so. as pointed out earlier; those with 'skin in the game'
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't get angry here. this board is nothing more than entertainment to me. You cannot do the job I have if you get angry over something like this board.

its not an extreme position-its consistent with the founders' desires but its mainly an alternative to my preferred solution-a tax code where the many cannot vote up-endlessly-the rates of others based on promises made to them by greedy politicians

and I would bet that a nation wide poll of those who actually pay federal income taxes would find a great deal more support for limiting voting to federal income tax payers than is exhibited on this board
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight: you are suggesting if we took a poll of only those who are baseball fans and live in New York City that the Yankees would come out as the favorite team?

And I disagree with you again in this regard. I am one of those people you would proudly call a net taxpayer. And I oppose it completely.

But it has been suggested to you before, if you believe as you do that there would be support for this, by all means campaign for it. Get Republicans of prominence and start talking this up and get it to the campaign trail. The American people will give it a hearing and pronouncet judgment upon both it and those who advocate it.
 
Turtledude apparently hates the United States, hates why it was created, and wants to find reasons to not allow people to vote so that the system can be one sided.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't get angry here. this board is nothing more than entertainment to me. You cannot do the job I have if you get angry over something like this board.
Click to expand...

I would imagine you couldn't do your job if you easily angered. You present angry, at times.

its not an extreme position-its consistent with the founders' desires but its mainly an alternative to my preferred solution-a tax code where the many cannot vote up-endlessly-the rates of others based on promises made to them by greedy politicians
Click to expand...

But what you are saying, basically, is that you present an alternative position, one that I'm certain you know is not only ridiculous, but not possible in this day and age, just to antagonize. What do you think this is accomplishing? I know that you believe that what people say on this board is meaningless to anyone but the person posting... and you know that I completely reject that. What I see as an indirect outcome of what you are doing is (1) making those who are either on the fence of unaware of the "flat-tax" option far less likely to consider it, and (2) causing people to outright reject what you say because of your presentation. Just an observation.

and I would bet that a nation wide poll of those who actually pay federal income taxes would find a great deal more support for limiting voting to federal income tax payers than is exhibited on this board
Click to expand...

I doubt that most assuredly.
 
cpwill said:
those who have incentive to do so. as pointed out earlier; those with 'skin in the game'
Click to expand...

And as I said, those who have "skin in the game" can take many forms.
 
I haven't slogged through the entire slew of postings here, but I think the entire notion of tying voting to taxation is silly, especially inasmuch as income taxes are all that is being considered here. Not being considered are all the other taxes everybody pays as well as the fact that the wealthiest people are the ones who are best able to protect huge portions of their income from taxation in the first place.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Turtledude apparently hates the United States, hates why it was created, and wants to find reasons to not allow people to vote so that the system can be one sided.
Click to expand...

JohWOlin apparently doesn't know his history ;) what Turtledude is suggesting is actually an expansion of the franchise beyond that which the Founders utilized.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And as I said, those who have "skin in the game" can take many forms.
Click to expand...

no, you have suggested that many people contribute to society, which is not the same thing at all. others have suggested that those who don't have skin in the game at the national level might still pay imbedded local taxes; which is closer, but still no cigar.

the vote should cost those who exercise it something, their decisions should have a direct impact upon themselves, and that impact should generally mirror the impact it has on the nation. in that manner we will get an electorate who has incentives to make informed and responsible decisions.

think of it as bringing market pressure to bear on the government. most people spend several factors more time weighing their options and doing their homework when purchasing a car. why? because they will percieve a direct cost to themselves for this car, and the car's quality relative to cost will directly impact them. when people vote for government, however, the cost is often indirect (sometimes several times removed), their marginal effect is small, and often the quality relative to cost has no effect on them whatsoever; they thus lack incentive. let us make those who are deciding about government into purchasers of government, so that they will begin to bring that same effort that they put into choosing an automobile into choosing a representative.

what does congress fear most? an informed electorate.
 
cpwill said:
JohWOlin apparently doesn't know his history ;) what Turtledude is suggesting is actually an expansion of the franchise beyond that which the Founders utilized.
Click to expand...

This is what exactly? Newspeak?

Nice try but no cigar since Turtle has already publicly conceded that the scheme would disenfranchise Democrats taking away their right to vote. Now how you can twist that to an "expansion" is a mystery to me.
 
no, it is accurate. the simple "net taxpayer" standard that Turtle wants is less restrictive than the property qualifications placed on the franchise by the Founding Fathers. so to accuse him of somehow betraying our founding ideals is... well, i'll go with 'inaccurate'.

and of course this plan would reduce Democrat votes. i've been saying the same thing:

cpwill said:
in that manner we will get an electorate who has incentives to make informed and responsible decisions.
Click to expand...

this is the thrust of Turtle and mine's claims here; that our current incentive structure encourages voters to make uninformed and irresponsible decisions, and that at least one major party and a significant portion of another take advantage of this.
 
Last edited:
It is a betrayal of the right of every adult American citizen to vote. That is the important thing.

this whole "net taxpayer'' thing reminds me of the scene in FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH where Spicolli and a teacher exchange ideas about whether an idea is half assed or is fully assed. In this case it just might be both.

Just what it is the exact definition of a "net taxpayer"?
How is it measured?
When is it measured?
For what period of time are we measuring?
Which taxes are we considering and why?
Which taxes are we not considering and why not?
Are all levels of government considered?
Can you bounce back and forth between classifications of being a "net taxpayer" and not being one?
How often can you bounce back and forth?
Who will make this determination?
Is there an appeals process?
Is it regularly reviewed?
Is it a violation of the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment?
Is it a violation of the 24th Amendment?
How many people would be stripped of the right to vote at any given time?
Could they still vote in purely local elections?
How would you manage such a system?

and on and on and on it goes.

from cpwill

this is the thrust of Turtle and mine's claims here; that our current incentive structure encourages voters to make uninformed and irresponsible decisions, and that at least one major party and a significant portion of another take advantage of this.
Click to expand...

Simply because a person has money and meets some criteria for being a net taxpayer does NOT make them either informed or responsible in terms of being able to cast the intelligent vote that you seem to feel they will then cast. Nobody here advocating such a scheme has established and connection between those things.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
It is a betrayal of the right of every adult American citizen to vote. That is the important thing.
Click to expand...

felons?

Simply because a person has money and meets some criteria for being a net taxpayer does NOT make them either informed or responsible in terms of being able to cast the intelligent vote that you seem to feel they will then cast.
Click to expand...

automatically no; but it creates incentives for them to become so. i'm a ''good structure' guy more than a 'perfect result' guy. and, if you will note, how much money someone had or earned was irrelevant under my plan.
 
cpwill said:
those who have incentive to do so. as pointed out earlier; those with 'skin in the game'
Click to expand...

Except, every citizen has some "skin in the game". Every citizen is affected by federal laws. Every citizen has to pay some form of taxes, even if it is just state sales taxes. Every male citizen has the chance of being drafted. And everyone pays indirectly for some of the corporate taxes that corporations have to pay. (Unless you believe that most companies would not let the amount of taxes they have to pay affect at all the price of their goods.)

Even if a person is only paying state taxes (and I am referring to all forms of state income), they can still be contributing indirectly to the federal government. The more money the state takes in, the less money the federal government has to spend to help that state out. Along with this, there are even state policies that can affect how much money our federal government has to pay to the state, including laws that are in contention with federal laws or laws that might affect who lives in that state.
 
roguenuke said:
Except, every citizen has some "skin in the game".
Click to expand...

not insofar as costs, no, they don't. it costs paul nothing to support a candidate who promises to take from peter and give to paul.

Every citizen is affected by federal laws. Every citizen has to pay some form of taxes, even if it is just state sales taxes.
Click to expand...

dealt with this already; what we are discussing is a federal policy.
 
Gardener said:
I haven't slogged through the entire slew of postings here, but I think the entire notion of tying voting to taxation is silly, especially inasmuch as income taxes are all that is being considered here. Not being considered are all the other taxes everybody pays as well as the fact that the wealthiest people are the ones who are best able to protect huge portions of their income from taxation in the first place.
Click to expand...

Part of this is the point Gardener. Those rich who are protecting huge portions of their income would not be considered net taxpayers because they would be sheltering their money either as a deductions or credits. They would be minimized in representation too.

edited for you Hay
 
Last edited:
hallam said:
Part of this is the point Gardener. Those rich is protect huge protions of their income would not be considered net taxpayers because they would be sheltering their money either as a deductions or credits. They would be minimized in represation too.
Click to expand...

What does that mean

Those rich is protect huge protions
Click to expand...

If you are trying to say that some rich persons are rich enough to protect portions of their income and they too would lose the right to vote, its a novel approach but silly in the extreme. Unless of course you have some applicable facts and figures to show this and how it would work? Normally however, you are loathe to actually back up any of your claims or analysis with real world facts and applicable evidence. We are simply expected to take your word as the authority on these matters.

And I am still awaiting your explanation for that 500 page report and what you think it proves and what it has to do with taking away the vote from people.

Since you are an eager supporter of stripping people of their vote, perhaps you could answer some questions about the process since Turtle seems reluctant to do so.

Just what it is the exact definition of a "net taxpayer"?
How is it measured?
When is it measured?
For what period of time are we measuring?
Which taxes are we considering and why?
Which taxes are we not considering and why not?
Are all levels of government considered?
Can you bounce back and forth between classifications of being a "net taxpayer" and not being one?
How often can you bounce back and forth?
Who will make this determination?
Is there an appeals process?
Is it regularly reviewed?
Is it a violation of the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment?
Is it a violation of the 24th Amendment?
How many people would be stripped of the right to vote at any given time?
Could they still vote in purely local elections?
How would you manage such a system?
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
not insofar as costs, no, they don't. it costs paul nothing to support a candidate who promises to take from peter and give to paul.



dealt with this already; what we are discussing is a federal policy.
Click to expand...

First of all, the entire premise is wrong, because I would bet that the majority of people do not vote on any based just on one issue. And the amount of federal taxes a person pays is one issue out of probably hundreds that come up during any election.

Second of all, I addressed as well how paying state taxes can affect how much money a person is saving the federal government. Heck, even just buying things helps to pay taxes, since many businesses include federal taxes they have to pay as a part of the cost of a good.

I've also covered how someone may have paid a crapload in taxes the year before and then not made as much during one particular year.

Also, something not covered by this "compromise", not everyone votes in person. Many people send in absentee ballots for many reasons. How exactly do you deal with those people?
 
roguenuke said:
First of all, the entire premise is wrong, because I would bet that the majority of people do not vote on any based just on one issue. And the amount of federal taxes a person pays is one issue out of probably hundreds that come up during any election.

Second of all, I addressed as well how paying state taxes can affect how much money a person is saving the federal government. Heck, even just buying things helps to pay taxes, since many businesses include federal taxes they have to pay as a part of the cost of a good.

I've also covered how someone may have paid a crapload in taxes the year before and then not made as much during one particular year.

Also, something not covered by this "compromise", not everyone votes in person. Many people send in absentee ballots for many reasons. How exactly do you deal with those people?
Click to expand...

state taxes-vote on state government issues

but what if we change the issue from one where people are disenfranchised to a system where everyone gets a vote but the more taxes you pay the more votes you get/ we will assume the Captain is correct and everyone has some stake in the game so everyone is akin to owning one share of stock. Those who pay more are treated as owning more shares since they have more at stake.
 
TurtleDude said:
state taxes-vote on state government issues

but what if we change the issue from one where people are disenfranchised to a system where everyone gets a vote but the more taxes you pay the more votes you get/ we will assume the Captain is correct and everyone has some stake in the game so everyone is akin to owning one share of stock. Those who pay more are treated as owning more shares since they have more at stake.
Click to expand...

one man - one vote.

Its pretty basic.

Its pretty American.
 
haymarket said:
one man - one vote.

Its pretty basic.

Its pretty American.
Click to expand...

Accept that this isn't how we have it now. It isn't one citizen-one vote. It is one citizen- one vote with caveats on who can vote like age and felon status. We are just calling for one more caveat which forces participation in supporting our government.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No you haven't. You have consistently dismissed that point.

This conversation is only limited because of your presentation. I'm not the one presenting only one option. That's you. This is your logical fallacy of the false premise. And yes, since contrabution is not limited to only tax, your definition is incorrect. It is too narrow as we are discussing a broader issue. The definition is only part of the whole. It mirrors what you are doing in the debate. You are narrowing the definition because the other parts don't support your argument... you are trying to disenfranchise certain members of the population because they don't support your polices. You feign that it's about equity, but it's all about eliminating competition.



You have failed to present any kind of logical argument at all. Thus far, everything you've presented has been based on a false premise. An illogical beginning means that anything that stems from it is invalid or at least is not proven because of it. The only other thing you've attempted, completely unsuccessfully btw, is to project the lack of logic and failures of your position onto me. What you fail to understand... along with the fact that your entire position is based on a false premise, is that when you limit voting on an arbitrary factor based on elitism, you head towards fascism. This is what you are proposing, and it is completely silly to pretent that no one's rights are being taken away. That's just dishonest.



Not at all. The fact is that you don't have a logical argument to begin with. When you do, I'll be happy to debate it. Until that happens, I'll just keep pointing out how your position has no logic behind it.
Click to expand...


You have misrepresented my argument again. This is intellectually dishonest. Until you actually read my argument instead of wishing it to be something else and actually produce a counter argument of any merit, you are just pulling for emotion. An emotional argument that claims something that doesn't even exist today (one citizen one vote) is not a counter argument. It is just a ploy just like your call for fascism. It has not substantial logical basis. It is more sad than anything else.
 
TurtleDude said:
state taxes-vote on state government issues

but what if we change the issue from one where people are disenfranchised to a system where everyone gets a vote but the more taxes you pay the more votes you get/ we will assume the Captain is correct and everyone has some stake in the game so everyone is akin to owning one share of stock. Those who pay more are treated as owning more shares since they have more at stake.
Click to expand...

Due to the legal bribery of campaign contributions, this pretty much already happens on the back end.
 
hallam said:
Accept that this isn't how we have it now. It isn't one citizen-one vote. It is one citizen- one vote with caveats on who can vote like age and felon status. We are just calling for one more caveat which forces participation in supporting our government.
Click to expand...

Well the US Supreme Court disagrees with you.

One man, one vote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom