at this point will go to update
Free Republic's computer system
We have the need for SPEED before the election!
Donate Just One Monthly
And Become a FR Hero
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/21/2012 6:25:22 AM PST by Why So Serious
I’ve had similar ideas myself. Voting would be proportional to the amount of taxes an individual paid. Each person gets one vote, and for every dollar in taxes paid, that person gets an additional vote. This would apply at the federal, state, and local levels. Perhaps a cap should apply as well (indexed for inflation), say a maximum of 100,000 votes per person.
i agree that only taxpayers should have a say, but if you want to give all control to the few, rich and powerful, why not just go back to feudalism?
i liek the one taxpayer, one vote system, meself
You are stone cold wrong. You suggest that I would pay more money so that I could get more from the government, but they would need my money to give it to me. You see, there is no profit [like with a company] so they desire to have more shares is the desire to pay more taxes. Ultimately, you would gain greater control over your own money if you bought more votes. Wouldn’t you have more control of your money if you just kept it?
The very same 25% is likely footing a great deal of the tax burden in the states as well considering the systems are generally similar, thus they would likely control the states as well. 87% is > 2/3’s of the Congress and > 3/4’s of the states (see, I DO know my Constitution) - IOW, more than sufficient.
For the sake of argument, lets say they do not get sufficient majorities to make constitutional changes - How can you possibly feel comfortable with a system that would give the top 10% of taxpayers ~70% of the vote (again 2009 stats)?
Indeed - but you forget that the elites could then determine that the great unwashed masses don't need such things as police or fire protection, public education (state as well as fed funded), or any other legitimate function of government and defund such trivialities and replace them with services for thier gated communities.
I agree with that..
..I can't figure out whether you are kicking my ass, or agreeing with me...
....my point is that everybody has ONE vote IF they pay in something.
Human nature is human nature...if over half of the people are living off the diminished half, they are going to vote every time for the politician who promises them more stuff...
...it's the main hazard of one man one vote.
To have the vote you had to have a certain level of “investment” - aka wealth. I guess their thought pattern was if you wanted to control where the Republic went you had to have “skin” in the game.
Unlike the author of this article, the Founding Fathers didn't increase the number of votes based on wealth. IMHO this is part of the rationale behind the 3/5ths a vote per adult male slave.
Not sure it needs to be that way exactly. I could more like a system where each person who pays into the system gets a single vote. I will tell one system that does not work .. the one where 51% pay nothing and get to vote themselves something from the government. That system is reckless.
You misunderstand the 3/5ths ... that was to determine the proportional representation of a state in the house, not the number of votes a plantation owner had.
I believe the 3/5ths rational was while figuring out the House of Representatives and the population was going to determine how many representatives each state had they figured the south would get to much power if allowed to count slaves as a full person.
Okay, so now you propose “One Tax return with a balance owed, One vote”. A bit of an improvement, but still fraught with difficulties -
What happens if I have a “bad” year and my losses are sufficient to reduce my tax burden to zero? Do I loose the franchise for the following year?
What happens to government employees? They are netto recipients, do they get to vote? If so, why?
Do married couples have two votes? If so, how is this fair to a single person?
Common law marriages, one vote? Two?
What if both spouses work?
What if I have a full time job, a wife, 5 kids, a house etc ... and would normally have to pay taxes, but due to normal deductions, I am under the limit and pay nothing - is it fair that I have no say in local, state or federal matters that concern me and the well being of my family?
Is my right to vote contingent on currently paying taxes or on having done so in the past?
Lastly, if I am denied the right to vote because I did not pay taxes, how does this reconcile with my right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” if I have no say in the government that has the power to control me?
A good line of reasoning to use with those who profess to be observant in their particular religion, but who agree with progressive taxation. If God considered a flat rate fair and equitable, who are we to argue?
What happens to government employees? They are netto recipients, do they get to vote? If so, why? Yeah, we talked about those people in an earlier post. They would need to recuse themselves [except military, they are not employees ... they are volunteers].
Do married couples have two votes? If so, how is this fair to a single person? If each has a 1099 or w2, we can make it where 1099s have to justify your life style to some degree. I have had three businesses in my life, I get the joke and I know how the system is gamed.
Common law marriages, one vote? Two? What if both spouses work? See above. Just because you have a drivers license does not mean your wife gets to drive. No siree, she needs her own. Income will work the same way.
What if I have a full time job, a wife, 5 kids, a house etc ... and would normally have to pay taxes, but due to normal deductions, I am under the limit and pay nothing - is it fair that I have no say in local, state or federal matters that concern me and the well being of my family?You won't want those nominal deductions. I will want to pay to have a vote. I can fix all of that.
Is my right to vote contingent on currently paying taxes or on having done so in the past? you will be paying, there will be no alternative. You will work, because it will be in your best interest to work.
Lastly, if I am denied the right to vote because I did not pay taxes, how does this reconcile with my right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” if I have no say in the government that has the power to control me? I did not say that we would kill you, or not let you walk the streets with a smile on your face. You will be allowed to live, roam about the place, with a smile on your face, just not vote. And if you don't like it go some place where they won't kill you for roaming around with a smile on your face.
I see. So my rights are contingent upon my ability to pay the government. Sounds a bit like a system we fought to abandon a few hundred years ago ...
I'll take my chances with the current system ....
If this sounds like a system that we fought to abandon a few hundred years ago I can appreciate the way you see it. Let me say that rather than "take your chances" with the current system why don't you embrace the one that we fought to establish a few hundred years ago while we abandoned the one you are so afraid of?
>>...You suggest that I would pay more money so that I could get more from the government...<<
I’m sure you wouldn’t. However, since the dawn of government, the very second a govt develops some system/scheme, the constituency begins looking for ways to game the system. It is selfish, human nature and there is no govt system that can overcome it. Now again, you obviously wouldn’t. Others most certainly would. Even if you eliminated the entitlement crowd from voting, then the rich would “want something for their money” when given the ability to “buy” extra votes (so to speak). Instead of welfare, the liberal rich could game the system for power & influence and/or whatever else they or some ambitious politi-slut could dream up. If “dollars-in” equals vote-multipliers, what could George Soros do with his gazillions?
In the final analysis, it’s just a mental exercise that could never be implemented. Anything that strays from “one citizen - one vote” is a pipe-dream. Fun to think about though.
Sheesh, you have to get "certified" to be a hairdresser or put on fake nails, but any idiot can have a baby and vote, and we wonder why we get Boxer, Waters, Reid, Pelosi, Frank types in public office
Do you consider yourself a limited government conservative?
Where in the Constitution do you see the enumerated power to determine who gets to reproduce?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.