Skip to comments.Does paying taxes earn you something more than those who donít pay?
Posted on 02/07/2012 10:34:03 AM PST by landsbaum
We're sure there will be those who read this post and blame the messenger, yours truly. But were just passing along a suggestion from a reader. Here goes:
here is a fair idea for all us tax payers. In the investing world, shareholders get 1 vote for each share they own. . ."
(Excerpt) Read more at orangepunch.ocregister.com ...
If you allowed the 1 vote per dollar of taxes, the top 5% would control EVERYTHING. How about 1 vote if your net income taxes are positive and no vote if your net is negative.
Sounds fair to me. The folks who pay the bills should have the say.
Freeloaders should shut up and sit down.
I’ve long thought that only those people who pay net taxes should have a vote. Any government employee, retiree, or anyone on welfare of any kind should not have a say in making other people pay taxes that they don’t pay themselves.
As the article states, “It seems to harken back to the early days of our republic where voting sometimes was restricted to the landed gentry.” In other words to when voters had to have a stake in the community or society. (In actuality, the freeloaders have a stake in the community and society too. If society and the community don't thrive, they have nothing off which to freeload. They just aren't situationaly aware enough to realize that.)
But as to conditioning the right to vote on paying income tax, while not everyone pays income tax, they all pay taxes of some sort, directly or indirectly. Conditioning the right to vote on paying income tax might not be the thing to do.
“No representation without taxation” might not go as far as some think, although it sounds good.
I favor limiting voting to those who pay property tax.
Yes... Audits from the IRS.
Those who don’t pay taxes should not be allowed to vote...After all in Assclown Obama’s words “They have no skin in the game”....
Had to laugh at this one. I’ve been tossing this grenade “for discussion” for years. Guaranteed to clear the room of Democrats and other Leftists, who can’t understand the “fairness” of getting only what you pay for.
Yes, the top 5% would have a huge majority of votes initially, but power would constantly be re-balanced, as the “ins” would tend to use their power to shift the tax burden from themselves onto others. To retain power, you couldn’t protect too much of your max burden, so paying taxes would actually have an attractive aspect, up to a point. The outs would have to work and pay something, or soon lose all their “entitlements”. In practical terms, putting tax and spending policy on a roller-coaster would make investment decisions impossible and wreck the economy, but it’s fun to dream.
No, only derision and condemnation because you have “won life’s lottery” being so fortunate to earn that which you do not deserve. It’s the Democrat way.
It used to be that a person had to be a property owner to have a vote. I am all for getting back to that.
How about a plan where your vote has the power of the % of your income you pay in taxes?
My vote would have over 35% power - while Romney would have less than 15% vote power - and Kerry's vote would only have 3% power. Those who pay no taxes, or are a net recipient of tax dollars - they get no vote. That would include a lot of very wealthy people who get a lot of taxpayer support, as much as the lobbyists they pay can divert in their direction!
Anyone paying over 18% is getting a raw deal.
Guess what folks? Most of the really wealthy pay less in taxes as a % of their income than you do.
And now they want their vote to have more power - in this day and age where a vote is a paltry thing - but donations to campaign coffers are where the ‘rubber hits the road’ for almost every politician?
They already PURCHASE undue influence and have rigged the game so that working people pay a much larger % of their income in taxes than they do.
This kind of idea would make us a Plutocracy - not a Republic.
If it was done that way, I might be willing to pay a tiny bit more. For now, I got so sick of my tax dollars going toward things I morally object to, that I’ve been trying to keep my income/deductions balanced so as to keep my tax burden at $0, or as close to it as I could get. Since I don’t take government handouts, this is my way of shrugging.
1 additional vote for every $5000 in federal taxes paid. Another vote for military service, with one additional vote for every combat tour served.
“would that include the military?”
Yes. But once they retire and join the workforce then they’d be able to vote just the same as any other working person.
National Guard would be exempt because most of their incomes come from private sources.
Again, the simple and fair rule would be that if you pay more than you take then you get to vote. If you take more than you pay then you have no right to vote yourself more.
I wouldn’t mind those that pay taxes getting two votes. At least one of the votes would cancel out the uninformed votes of the welfare class.
Thanks Vintage Freeper for posting this: