Representation Without Taxation
posted at 2:45 pm on April 9, 2010 by Doctor Zero
A correspondent recently raised the question of reforming the American electoral system so that only those who pay income tax are allowed to vote. It’s a provocative notion, even though it Ain’t Gonna Happen… at least, not on this side of a systemic breakdown that puts everything on the table.
Let’s explore the idea as a thought experiment. If taxation without representation was an outrage that sparked the Revolution, why is representation without taxation acceptable? It’s logical to suggest that only those who pay for government benefits should have a vote in selecting our representatives. Allowing net tax consumers to vote seems like an inherently dangerous practice, given their numbers – we’ve reached the point where 47% of American households pay no income tax – and their strong motivation to support politicians who promise endlessly increasing benefits. When politicians loaded with vast public funds to purchase votes meet up with a population eager to sell its votes for benefits, a grim marketplace will inevitably develop.
This is a formula not only guaranteed, but designed, to produce an unsustainable entitlement state. The high-rolling politician secures victory by defeating the productive, and creating a dependency class large enough to smother taxpayer revolts at the ballot box. Restricting the vote to those who pay into the system would break this fiscal short circuit. It would also tend to cut down on voter fraud, since the IRS puts a great deal of effort into tracking people who owe taxes.
Americans are understandably queasy about removing anyone’s voting rights. The Left has long wanted to extend the franchise, to include constituencies with a reliable appetite for increased government spending, such as convicted felons and illegal immigrants. If a damaged, desperate future America placed restrictions upon voting, the effort to repeal them would begin immediately, in a blaze of savage intensity… which would continue into a state of permanent civic unrest. It wouldn’t be hard to keep the dependency class whipped into a violent frenzy with daily reminders of the nation’s outrageous refusal to let them vote.
Beyond the ethical and political considerations, there’s another deep flaw behind the theory of requiring taxation for representation: it wouldn’t solve our problem. It’s not welfare, as conventionally understood, that is killing us. How much of that 47% who don’t pay income taxes are living in desperate poverty? The truth is that middle-class entitlements are the unsustainable tumor which fills the beds of Hospice America.
Social Security, Medicare, and now ObamaCare will swell to consume the entire federal budget, along with much of the wealth produced by the entire planet, within the next two decades. That’s the fearful nature of the deficit tornado spinning over Washington D.C. Charity for the destitute is not unsustainable, even when it’s pumped through the corrupt and wasteful digestive system of the federal government.
ObamaCare isn’t a system of health-care vouchers for the poor, financed by a tax on the middle and upper classes. It’s a complete takeover of the insurance industry, designed to ensnare both the middle and lower classes, with the ultimate goal of directly controlling fifteen percent of our economy. The old system of tax-and-spend welfare isn’t good enough for the Left any more, and the public long ago soured on it anyway. Both liberals and conservatives have always understood that massive entitlements for the middle class, such as the left-wing Holy Grail of socialized medicine, were the endgame. They only disagree in their perception of which game would be ending.
Our method of selecting representatives is less important than the rules they live under, after they’re elected. What is the wise choice between a Constitutionally-limited hereditary monarchy, and a democratically-elected Congress with effectively unlimited taxation, spending, and regulatory powers? Our reverence for the Republic is only returned in full when our democratically elected representatives exercise limited powers, within the boundaries of laws they cannot break, or redefine to serve their ambitions.
The way our politicians reach Congress and the White House is important. What they do after they get there is even more important. The illusion that we can control them with the threat of future elections should have died forever in the squalid back-alley birth of ObamaCare. Its birthing cries drowned out the objections of sixty percent majorities, and shattered the eardrums of business managers, from Caterpillar to AT&T. Insulation from electoral consequence is purchased daily in that grim marketplace I mentioned earlier, where votes and piles of taxpayer money change hands.
Representation without taxation is not our fatal problem. People from every income group should accept the responsibility to vote wisely, and insist on absolute fidelity to the Constitution – that mighty covenant between free men and the lawful republic they defied the guns of empire to raise. Our legislators and President are meant to be the guardians of our freedom, not the engineers of our lives… or merchants who trade entitlements for power. The thick web of puppet strings which spread from our titanic State reach deep into the 53% who still pay taxes. Ignorance and ideology led us to this moment, not just the selfish votes of our permanent dependency class. The government needs to shrink, not the electorate.
Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I would go further than that. I would give each taxpayer votes proportional to the amount of taxes they PAY.
Why should someone who pays $10,000.00 in taxes per year have the same vote as someone who pays $100.00 ?
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 5:13 PM
You are correct. I am fuzzy on all this capital gains crap along with depreciating assets & crap, which is why we pay an accountant to do our taxes.
Hopefully, w/ my husband commercially trucking on the side, we will actually be able to join the ranks of the ‘Income Tax Payer’ next year, if all goes well!
Awww.. baby lambs are cut-but then they are ugly when they grow up!
I can still appreciate a cow’s beauty when she grows up.
But my favorites are the bulls.
I love when breeding season comes around & they start calling out with their bugles & get to fighting.
I love when you’re moving them on horseback & as they plod along, they mutter & moan.
I may be poor,& have stuff, but at least I am happy!
Badger40 on April 9, 2010 at 5:15 PM
That’s a very despicable idea.
So the guy who busts his ass working as a plumber gets less votes than the Fortune 500 CEO?
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 5:15 PM
The single mom who is putting kids through college gets less votes than Tom Hanks?
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Oh come on. Can we really stop w/ the diarrhea mouth already?
This is just silly nonsense.
Badger40 on April 9, 2010 at 5:17 PM
Michael Moore gets more votes than I do?
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 5:17 PM
We often vote on foreign policy, as seen in 2004, with terrorism and everything.
Some of us get to vote on who we think makes us safe, and some of us don’t get to at all?
We all are supposed to be protected by the federal government.
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 5:17 PM
This whole eligibility through production is eerily similar to the case for healthcare rationing.
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 5:20 PM
You might want to read Doc’s entire post (maybe just the last sentence would do it for you). I don’t think it says what you think it says…
SnowSun on April 9, 2010 at 5:12 PM
I know he doesn’t Doc identifies the problem and shrinks from the solution. A change in our collective values and moral sense would fix this problem, is how I read his conclusion. But this turns cause and effect on its head. The way to change the nation’s values and sense of entitlement is to change the voting requirements to reflect what is just basic fairness: you have earned your right to vote through your responsibility and contribution. That would do more to foster pride in the have-nots than the everyone-gets-an-award mentality that has miserably failed to do so.
Venusian Visitor on April 9, 2010 at 5:23 PM
90 percent of Americans have jobs and work.
It isn’t their fault the feds are royally phucking up the tax code.
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 5:23 PM
Yes, I agree that lower-income people should pay taxes, too.
Venusian Visitor on April 9, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Mmmm… veal!
DarkCurrent on April 9, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Easy. Get rid of entitlement programs so that everyone has to work. Reduce the size of the Fed Govt.
Start raising your kids correctly.
Make Civics & Citizenship a requirement for HS graduation.
I could go on here.
Poor people are good people too.
You & I could talk til we’re blue, LOL! But sad to say there are some sick elitists out there on BOTH sides of the political spectrum who wish to set up their own priviledged caste system.
Badger40 on April 9, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Your math is wrong…
100% – Unemployment Rate != Employment Rate
HebrewToYou on April 9, 2010 at 5:28 PM
To each his own. But I personally cannot bide by eating that.
They keep them in small cages before slaughter.
I just can’t stand seeing that.
I love my baby calves.
But yeah, I could eat them.
Cows in general can be quite tasty……
Badger40 on April 9, 2010 at 5:29 PM
Heinlein was right!
El Coqui on April 9, 2010 at 5:29 PM
Flat tax?
I can go with this.
Badger40 on April 9, 2010 at 5:30 PM
How about Count’s idea? It’s checks and balances we need, not proportional representation.
petefrt on April 9, 2010 at 5:32 PM
Of course you are entitled… but as long as we are talking about unfair. It is unfair to run up all this debt.
I think if more people had children to consider they would not be so quick to push off on the next generation the bills of this generation.
It really is not fair that those who are too young to vote or who are even not born yet. They are the ones who will be paying for all this. So much spent with so little to show for it.
If that is true… and I truly don’t know… Some days I think it will work itself out.
It wasn’t just the baby boom. It was the decline of the family. It was people who decided they wanted to travel or have fancy cars instead of having children. It was the baby boomers who decided that life was only for their entertainment and not about the next generation.
It was the promotion of the “virtues” of “zero population growth” as a goal of this society. That was wrong. It may well bring down this whole society rather than save it.
The entire government is now financed by a ponzi scheme!
That is what this whole thread is about! That is what conservatives are so mad about!
It is so dishonest, all this spending of money we don’t have.
petunia on April 9, 2010 at 5:32 PM
My point is this: there are people voting who don’t know who the Vice President is. Who are convinced that Elvis is still alive. Who can’t find the US on a map or read. They don’t understand economics, have never held a job, use drugs daily and watch 15 hours of reality TV a day.
These are the votes that swing elections to one side or the other. How is that fair? Did the founders imagine that our beautiful country would be guided by the votes of these slackers and idiots?
You should have to earn your right to vote.
DrW on April 9, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Only apply the rule to the House, where spending bills must originate. Your vote is proportional to your contribution: the sum of taxes paid + (hours of uncompensated public service * the U.S. average hourly income)
agmartin on April 9, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Not to worry, the guy who scores on weekends would get an extra vote.
:)
petefrt on April 9, 2010 at 5:34 PM
I absolutely agree, which is why I believe everyone should be able to earn the right to vote by spending time doing meaningful public service. Taxpayers give months of their time to the government. Time is money, and the money spent in taxes was earned by long hours spent at work. Why should nontaxpayers who want to vote also spend some time working for free?
Venusian Visitor on April 9, 2010 at 5:35 PM
Absolutely. The people who pull the wagon ought to be deciding where the wagon is going, not the people who ride in the wagon.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Hell, I’ll go you one better Zero. Not only do you have to PAY taxes in order to vote; you also must have SERVED the country a minimum of TWO YEARS in some capacity.
I see NO reason why EVERYONE can’t kick in $1 in taxes each year no matter how damned POOR they are. I’ve seen POVERTY in several places around the world. The “POOR” in the US don’t know what real POVERTY is.
GarandFan on April 9, 2010 at 5:41 PM
You may close your mouth at any time.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 5:41 PM
I even eat raw horse. Dogs too, but only if cooked ;)
DarkCurrent on April 9, 2010 at 5:42 PM
I like it. It would have to be set up to avoid partisan sabotage. You know, like, you can vote if you donate 1000 hours to ACORN.
petefrt on April 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM
We forget our history. Originally, only land owners were permitted to vote. Why? Because it was felt at the time that only someone with a vested interest in the well being of the Nation would guide it properly.
This effectively translated to the concept of excluding the franchise to non-taxpayers. This concept is completely in agreement with the original intent of the founders.
Only my idea of making the vote proportional to the contribution is new, as far as I know. (Mayhap it was discussed before at the constitutional convention. Who knows?)
In any case, this is how REAL LIFE works. What’s wrong with making government conform to REAL LIFE ?
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 5:46 PM
That’s right. You can disagree with it, but you can’t say it’s inconsistent with the Founding Philosophy.
petefrt on April 9, 2010 at 5:50 PM
In order for any system to be stable, it must have some means of negative feedback. Requiring Taxes to vote is an effective means of having a negative feedback system. Allowing non-taxpayers to vote is positive feedback, for they will continue to vote in the direction that increases their ability to suckle on the government teat.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 5:50 PM
I’ve actually thought along the same lines, but then BB brought up Michael Moore
DarkCurrent on April 9, 2010 at 5:52 PM
I know, that was a real killer, wasn’t it.
petefrt on April 9, 2010 at 5:55 PM
Entirely right.
I did misspeak. Didn’t check, sorry!
Of our workforce, 90 percent are working.
Why should so many people in that 90 percent be denied the right to vote?
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 5:56 PM
Why are you creating a false quote?
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 5:57 PM
That’s bullsh!t.
You are forgetting foreign policy and protection.
So in sum, you’re saying people with less money have less of a say in the national defense. That’s disgusting to me.
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 5:57 PM
We are all equally “killable” by a terrorist.
Why do the wealthy have more say?
What sort of gentrification of the Constitution are you suggesting?
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 5:58 PM
From “Starship Troopers”, synopsis (cont.)
There is an explicitly-made contrast to the democracies of the 20th century, which according to the novel, collapsed because “people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.” Indeed, Colonel Dubois criticizes as unrealistic the famous U.S. Declaration of Independence line concerning “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. No one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but life and liberty are said to exist only if they are deliberately sought and paid for.
Starship Troopers is also widely-regarded as a vehicle for Heinlein’s anti-communist views, best summed up by Rico’s (and his Federation’s) belief that “correct morals arise from knowing what man is—not what do-gooders and well-meaning old Aunt Nellies would like him to be.”
mechkiller_k on April 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM
What a straw man, that only land owners have a vested interest. We ALL do. Politicians make FOREIGN POLICY decisions that determine the safety of ALL AMERICAN LIVES.
EVERYONE has a vested interest.
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 6:00 PM
There’s a simple cure. It can’t happen right now, but it’s the right thing: take all the taxes that are hidden by taxing American businesses (thus driving jobs overseas) and turn them into a very visible national sales tax.
njcommuter on April 9, 2010 at 6:02 PM
For every Michael Moore, we have hundreds of people who will pay as much as he does.
Apart from that, what is likely to be the first thing that those Who pay the most taxes would likely vote on ?
To LOWER THEIR TAXES. This reduces their power and influence and increases the power and influence of others. As a result, the system reaches a quiescent point of dynamic stability!
The Nation should be governed by the Middle class, and the bulk of taxes ought to come from them. The economic extremes of the Rich and the Poor simply do not yield sensible people who have reasonable sympathy for the poor, and understand the value of work and money.
Were this idea implemented, the Government would never have become so huge, nor intrusive. It would have been exactly as big as those who supports the burden of it feel it should be.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 6:03 PM
So the feds phuck up the tax code, and we’re supposed to strip the rights of Americans as a result?
Are you folks that insecure about the conservative ideal?
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 6:04 PM
It bothers me not at all that it is “Disgusting to you.” You’ve obviously given the idea about 1/2 seconds worth of thought, (meaning none) and popped off about it.
How much value ought I to put in your reactionary opinion?
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 6:06 PM
Reactionary?
So what you’re saying is, only some people have a right to vote on what they think about national defense?
The rest of us can just suck it?
The point is, smart ass, that there’s more to land owning that makes one “vested” in politics and voting. Everyone has at least one area in which they are vested, and that is the safety of all Americans.
But you’re the type who wants to denigrate the Constitution and gentrify it. That is, in it’s very heart, anti-thetical to conservatism.
Someone gets laid off. They can’t vote anymore, because they aren’t working?
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 6:08 PM
This, too, is incorrect.
Ezra Klein has a handy graph that documents the broad unemployment rate. As such, your quote should be amended to read:
And there is good reason to believe that number is actually closer to 78%…
HebrewToYou on April 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM
i appreciate the correction
(no snark intended)
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 6:12 PM
The Wealthy already have more rights and privileges than the non-wealthy. If you do not understand this, how can you contribute anything meaningful to this discussion?
Of course the rights aren’t “Official”, but we know they exist. Many’s the time I see examples of some prominent person flouting the law with impunity, and getting away with it. (Eliot Spitzer and Timothy Geitner come to mind.)
The same with privilege. Of COURSE the wealthy have privilege.
The Wealthy will vote to lower their taxes, and therefore lower their voting ability.(Which results in everyone else’s voting ability increasing.) If not, I don’t mind them paying for the excesses of the Government they want.They can blow their entire fortunes in taxes and I won’t care.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 6:12 PM
The people that do our dry cleaning
The people that provide services
Clean our office buildings
Mine our coal
They all aren’t worth the same as the wealthy of this nation?
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 6:13 PM
An interesting article, but a cart and horse problem. Let’s try to make everyone shoulder some of the tax burden. The most effective strategy for broadening the tax base is something that contains at least these items:
1. A minimum “surcharge” if you will that all citizens of the U.S. are required to pay into income tax. Or even better, a flat tax or national sales tax (fair tax). The goal is that everyone pays income tax as an acknowledgement of their responsibilities as citizens.
2. If we do not do the necessary, i.e. the flat or fair tax which, by their nature, structurally reform the system, then a summary tax withholding certificate must be signed at delivery of a scheduled paycheck which explains that the salaried employee understands and acknowledges that this deduction of earned income from his/her pay is required to finance on-going USG expenditures mandated by Congress and the President. Further, non-taxpayers should AT LEAST be required to sign a form – let’s call it FORM 1041EZ – that states that while the signatory may not be paying income tax, he/she recognizes that his/her working neighbors are paying out of their earnings for the services of the USG, including national defense, entitlements, farm subsidies and the like, from which the signatory is benefiting. If a signed Form 1041EZ is not received by the IRS, the individual (and family) are not eligible for government benefits.
The above may not immediately cause a change in attitude, but, hey, it may create a atmosphere for a productive consensus regarding proper levels and sources of public sector taxation, spending and borrowing.
boqueronman on April 9, 2010 at 6:13 PM
I’m really, truly disappointed with a lot of the ideas proposed on the last three pages.
It truly shows how insecure some of you people are about the conservative ideology; that you need to support the denigration of suffrage to change the political system, instead of spreading the conservative ideology to change the structure.
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 6:15 PM
No worries. I wasn’t trying to be a douche about it, either. I actually think this intellectual masturbation over “Representation Without Taxation” is rather silly. You can’t take a giant step backwards and only allow “first class” citizens to vote. Every citizen gets a vote; that’s all there is to it.
We need to fix the tax code. We need to drastically shrink the size of the Federal [and most State's] government. And we need to work to elect politicians that are truly driven to accomplish those goals. Anything other than that is simply a pipe dream — and that pipe was likely laced with something a little stronger than what Mohammed Al-Madadi was smoking.
HebrewToYou on April 9, 2010 at 6:17 PM
It’s all so very depressing.
This advocating for gentrification and the creation of a tiered-system of rights is typical of the leftist.
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 6:17 PM
I just wanna sit Madadi and say
“Was it worth it?”
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 6:18 PM
You can stop being an elitist, pompous, class-baiting a$$ anytime soon.
Badger40 on April 9, 2010 at 6:18 PM
In Eskimo culture, the Hunter eats first, because if the Hunter cannot hunt, no one eats. The Ugly truth is that some people are more important to the Nation than others.
Yes, we may all be concerned about foreign policy, and terrorism, and disease, etc. But the vested interests of the people who supply the goods and services that we all need to live are more valuable to the nation than is the interest of those people who provide the entertainment, etc.
It’s ugly but true. Children may not want to believe it, but Adults must acknowledge it.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 6:20 PM
And the collective campus of UC Santa Cruz [my alma mater] screams out, “Oh Hell Yeah!”
To be quite frank, considering how awful an experience flying is these days can you really blame him for needing some form of inebriation to get through it? Someone needs to get the man some edibles…
HebrewToYou on April 9, 2010 at 6:22 PM
That’s right.
When your support for tyranny is clearly misguided, just fall back to calling your detractor a child.
Eskimo culture isn’t the American Constitution.
People, aside from defense, have a vested interest in jobs, even if some of those people don’t pay income taxes. They work and contribute to a services/goods economy.
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 6:23 PM
Not at all. We are simply supposed to maintain them consistent with the intent of persons who created this nation and knew far more about human social dynamics than most people do today.
Remember, the 24th Amendment (Which created this whole mess) was only created in the Early 60s. Not so long ago as nations count their age.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 6:23 PM
That sounds eerily like a pro-eugenics rationale…
…Stay classy, San Diego.
HebrewToYou on April 9, 2010 at 6:24 PM
What a world you live in, Diog.
Your line of thinking is scarily similar to the Euthanasia State.
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 6:24 PM
Jinx muthaphucka!!!!
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 6:24 PM
Umm.. not Constitution related ‘rights’ & ‘priviledges.
That has nothing to do with how much $$ you have.
So you think you are more entitled to certain inalienable rights than I am if you have more $$ than I do?
That your voice means more in an election than mine if you have more $$ than I do?
That is the most anti-American thing I have ever heard.
I know rich people who think this way & they are pricks.
I own a lot of property, so I guess I am allowed to vote by your standards except perhaps I’m not bcs I do not pay income taxes.
Tell me what class of citizen am I according to you?
Badger40 on April 9, 2010 at 6:30 PM
A flat tax would solve the problem.
LtBarnwell02 on April 9, 2010 at 6:32 PM
Not at all. If they want a seat at the table, they need to put some food on it. Simple as that.
I don’t want to Gentrify it at all. I want to De-Gentrify, and De-Freeload it. The “Gentry” will either foot all the bills, or share the load. If they foot all the bills, what does anyone care where they take us? If they shift the load, they lose power, and the Middle class acquires it.
I believe the country is safest when the Middle Class steers it’s course. I likewise believe that the Middle Class attaining supremacy is the direct result of my idea.
If they are laid off for an entire year, so as to pay no taxes, what is wrong with not giving them a vote? The solution to their problem will not come from them unless they are industrious, and if so, they won’t remain in that situation long.
You stand aghast at an idea that was all too common in the founders era.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 6:32 PM
Need I bring up the subject of slavery to rebut this silly thought?
HebrewToYou on April 9, 2010 at 6:35 PM
The people who mine our coal are more important than the people who clean our office buildings, and do our dry cleaning. The people who grow our food and supply our water are more important than the people who mine our coal.
We can live without coal, we cannot live without food and water. It’s not really a complicated concept. The Government, (and society) values the work of some, more than the work of others.
People die. Innocents suffer. Injustice occurs. These are facts of life. It benefits us not at all to hide from them and claim they aren’t true.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 6:39 PM
Have you ever read “The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy” books?
One of the stories told is about the planet Golgafrincham:
The point of this little story is that often when a certain subset of the population is considered less important, something happens to make their importance become crystal clear.
You could learn something from this…
HebrewToYou on April 9, 2010 at 6:42 PM
I am simply suggesting an idea. It may actually not be a very good idea, but unless the idea is discussed, the worth of it is not known. It might happen that others can see a fault in this idea which I myself have overlooked. It may in fact be a BAD idea. That is what discussions are for. Different perspectives may discern different faults.
At the moment, the idea merely represents an adjustment to the “system gain” of negative feedback. The idea of restricting voting only to taxpayers IS a negative feedback system to control government growth. Requiring the vote to be represented by the taxes paid, results in the exact same effect, but much faster. It does in effect, decrease the system response time.
The need for some sort of negative feedback is obvious. The gain value, not so much. Just food for thought.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM
OK. Since I am a rancher & I contribute to the production of the food that you eat, I have more rights than you?
This is sick thinking.
And not all ideas need to be vocalized.
Badger40 on April 9, 2010 at 6:50 PM
Obviously It is racist when the Eskimos do it.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 6:51 PM
Eugenics isn’t necessarily about race… Early eugenicists were mostly concerned with perceived intelligence factors that often correlated strongly with social class.
HebrewToYou on April 9, 2010 at 6:54 PM
Really? Care to explain?
I have no qualms about society protecting the helpless, and the downtrodden. It is a necessary part of a Just state. There will always be among us unfortunates, and we should do what we can to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
That being said, why should we listen to the counsel of those who cannot even care for themselves?
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 6:57 PM
Why are you creating a false quote?
blatantblue on April 9, 2010 at 5:57 PM
Man, it was there when I cut & pasted it. Spooky. I wish I could edit my posts!
Venusian Visitor on April 9, 2010 at 6:58 PM
I saw it as a brainstorming, think out-of-the-box thread too. I enjoyed it. BB’s comments were instructive, as usual. I’d like to see more threads like this. Gets to core principles, which we need to do more of, I think.
petefrt on April 9, 2010 at 7:01 PM
Nope. Just ACTUAL “rights and privileges.”
The constitution guarantees equal protection of the law, but we don’t even get that. The Rich buy lawyers that get them out of most troubles without breaking a sweat. The poor have to rely on public defenders who often just want off the case, and advise their clients to plead guilty to a charge than any lawyer could beat.
Are you trying to tell me this isn’t true? *I* didn’t cause this. I’m merely pointing out the reality. *I* personally think the Legal system of this country is the ONLY part of it that ought to be socialized, that way the rich could have equally bad lawyers as the poor. After all, equal application of the law *IS* a constitutional right.
Are you TRYING not to understand? I’m simply asserting this is the world we really live in, not that I like it.
Not anymore than every other aspect of American life, where the Rich decide this, or that, and it affects everyone. Why should voting be any different. The Rich already control the vote now, by controlling the Television Networks, and the Entertainment industries. If you think they don’t, you’re problem is not with me, but with reality.
I ASSURE you that Katie Couric’s vote matters FAR more than yours does, because she votes with her megaphone, not her ballot. So does the rest of the Media.
Well, from you’re writing so far, one that doesn’t think an idea through thoroughly before opining on it in an antagonistic manner.
I don’t mind critique of the idea. That’s why I put it out there, ( I want to know if there’s anything wrong with it too.) but i see no point in dismissing it out of hand.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 7:10 PM
I had the same thought as this title when the story came out about the numbers paying/not paying…then right on the heels of that I realized that this just makes a clear argument for The Fair Tax! It’s time!
Minorcan Maven on April 9, 2010 at 7:12 PM
As you are the source of this illusion, the dispelling of it resides with you.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 7:12 PM
The implication being, that if the founders were wrong about this, they must be wrong about everything else?
Yeah, try that line of argument.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 7:15 PM
OK. Since I am a rancher & I contribute to the production of the food that you eat, I have more rights than you?
This is sick thinking.
And not all ideas need to be vocalized.
Bcs of course, you are the well of all wisdom & posess the power to wow us with your intellect.
You sir, have presented ideas here that are totally at odds to what America stands for.
But of course, it is lucky for me that your ideas are not the rule of law, or I would be relegated to some sort of servitude, with no hope of rising upward.
I disagree with your assessment of who should vote.
And that is all.
Badger40 on April 9, 2010 at 7:15 PM
Not at all. I was simply rebutting the notion that you can’t approve of something simply because it was seen as acceptable during the time of the founding fathers. It’s not that cut & dry.
HebrewToYou on April 9, 2010 at 7:17 PM
Incentive inspires people to work and be responsible so long as the rules are fair. People work if they can get good stuff for their work and if there allowed to keep it. That’s not just capitalism, that’s Natural Law. Chickens will keep pushing a button if the corn keeps coming out.
Incentives work. They are real. In contrast, ideology is a plaything for people with too much time on their hands. You can’t teach anyone an ideology that will not serve their own perceived interest. You can’t persuade chickens to push the grain button by engaging in dialectics with them. I don’t have any ideology except the observation that people require an incentive to change their behavior.
If you believe ideology is superior to incentive, you are a Marxist and you can’t be helped. Your faith will trump empirical evidence every time.
Venusian Visitor on April 9, 2010 at 7:18 PM
Exactly.
Why should Madonna and Rush Limbaugh – 2 people who made it luckily by happening to be precisely in the right place at the right time – get more rights than a plumber or a coal miner?
What would you do with the millionaire with a good NY – LA Tax Attorney and so many tax shelters they hardly pay any taxes anyway?
AprilOrit on April 9, 2010 at 7:27 PM
And better yet – what will you tell the stay at home soccer mom home schooling her children?
That she isn’t allowed to vote?
You’re nuts.
AprilOrit on April 9, 2010 at 7:29 PM
You are getting close to one of my concerns with the idea. Since I don’t want to prejudice other people’s observations, I simply didn’t mention it.
Would restricting the vote result in atrocities being committed against the people who didn’t have it?
Why should anyone fear hurting them if they have no representation? Trusting in human goodness doesn’t seem to me to be good enough. We’ve all seen what happened in the past when some “human goodness” was displayed.
This is the weak spot in the idea, and at the moment I’m not sure how to correct it. Perhaps restrict non-taxpayers to house votes? Allow everyone else to vote for Senators? Presidents?
I don’t know.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 7:30 PM
Wait till a famine and tell me the idea is sick thinking.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM
I think people at or below the stupidity level of April Orit should have to apologize to the nation in order to get 1/2 of a vote.
hillbillyjim on April 9, 2010 at 7:32 PM
Perhaps that is how it started, but the National Socialists et al seized upon the idea to justify their actions, and now the concept is inextricably linked to it.
We don’t need human population management programs (like Abortion) we simply need to look elsewhere for wisdom than from the people who cannot or will not contribute to the load.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 7:35 PM
Oh hillywilliam – I’m sorry – what upset you the most?
Me trash talking Madonna, Rush or me sticking up for all those home schooling stay at home soccer moms – who votted for George W Bush btw?
You’re nuts as well.
AprilOrit on April 9, 2010 at 7:38 PM
A final observation, by way of a question: Ignoring violence (Communism), how did the Left gain power?
OldEnglish on April 9, 2010 at 7:41 PM
I hate to burst your pretty little bubble, but I am not in the least bit upset.
I just thought since you were slinging insults, I would respond in kind.
You’re nuts.
hillbillyjim on April 9, 2010 at 7:42 PM
My apologies. I didn’t know you were so easily wowed by mundane observations.
That’s rather funny, because we started out with the idea that is the basis for this HotAir article. We modified it downward from there, and we wonder why we’re in trouble now.
You know your own worth better than I. If you feel you must ever be a servant “with no hope of rising upward”, if you are right, your counsel is probably useless anyway, and if you are wrong, your judgment will have been demonstrated to be faulty.
Noted.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 7:44 PM
I have to go. Work Beckons. I’ll come back and play in about 40 minutes.
DiogenesLamp on April 9, 2010 at 7:47 PM
I agree that the representation without taxation is a problem. I do not think people should be denied their right to vote though. People should get 1 vote for being a citizen of the correct age. They should then get 1 additional for vote for each of the following: 10% tax bracket paid, 15% tax bracket paid, 20% tax bracket paid, 25% tax bracket paid, 30% tax bracket paid, 35% tax bracket paid, 39.6% tax bracket paid, business taxes paid, investment taxes paid, any voter hit with the death tax. A benefit to this route would be that in order to vote, a person would have to bring identification in the form of tax records to the voting place. To prevent erosion of voting power by consolidating tax brackets, the law should be done with specified # of votes based on tax rate applied.
astonerii on April 9, 2010 at 7:49 PM
Right to vote?
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about having a “right” to vote?
There is no such thing.
Dave R. on April 9, 2010 at 8:30 PM
Just pass the FairTax, and this won’t be an issue, as the moochers, leeches, and ticks who dwell among us will no-longer be able to use the federal government to plunder our pockets.
Dave R. on April 9, 2010 at 8:33 PM
I disagree with the scaled vote concept. It would set up a situation where the wealthy were overrepresented. Once man, one vote is a sound and fair idea – so long as the right to vote carfries with it the responsibility to pay taxes or service in kind.
And the stay-at-home Mom? In the age of the internet, she could perfom many sorts of useful public service that would qualify her to vote. Or supervise the playground at the local school when the kids reach school-age. Or perform lunch-lady service for an hour each day. Everyone can do something.
Venusian Visitor on April 9, 2010 at 8:37 PM
I hurd that skool iz good, butt it iz hart too bee shure reedin this thred.
hillbillyjim on April 9, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Exactly. The State Legigslatures have the right under Article II to choose their own method of selecting electors to the electoral college. What we are talking about here is not a federal question.
Venusian Visitor on April 9, 2010 at 8:40 PM
For once I disagree w/ Dco Zero. Bearing in mind that the founders gave the franchise to land-owners, I think the same should apply in the here and now land-owners and those with skin in the finances of the Federal Govt. If States want to open up voting to every person, that’s their right to do so, but for Federal elections, it should only be reserved for land-owners (including those who own it but might not pay any taxes depending on circumstances) and tax-payers. If you want a vote, then do one or the other.
As the Feds re-adjust to this, the temptaion to entitle more to the lower/middle class goes away when people realize that when the net take from Feds exceeds the net give to the Feds, their right to vote is rescinded. Note the emphasis on ‘net’. When your W-2 shows the govt giving back more than you paid, you’re not voting.
To make it fair, for someone who lost their right to vote due to Congress ignoring their objections and ramming it thru, they get one more chance to vote the bum out for someone who promises to re-enfranchise them. To wit, a formula that weighs the preceding 8 years of W-2s to determine the current year eigibility. The best solution to mitigate those ups and down is to own property – there’s an incentive for land/home ownership.
I realize this is somewhat simplistic, but with serious thot given to the notion of no representation w/o taxation, a worthwhile mechanism can be fleshed out in just a few paragraphs. Then again, leave it to congress to try and tinker with the formula and bloat it out to 2000 pages of pyscho-babble.
AH_C on April 9, 2010 at 9:13 PM
Given this thread is now three pages long, I’m sure this has been mentioned already, but I’ll say it anyway. Here’s a better idea: Let’s scrap our regressive income tax, the corporate tax, the death tax and the payroll tax and instead institute an across-the-board, 20% consumption tax. Then it will be impossible for everyone not to have some skin in the game.
NoLeftTurn on April 9, 2010 at 9:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »