Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Mitt Romney right to question representation without taxation?
The Telegraph ^ | September 19th, 2012 | Ian Cowie

Posted on 12/03/2012 1:39:01 AM PST by Smokin' Joe

Most commentators agree that Mitt Romney has committed political suicide by pointing out that 46pc of Americans pay no income tax but he may have done us all a favour by raising a fundamental weakness in many developed economies – including Britain’s – which is also one of the causes of the credit crisis.

Whether or not his candour costs the Republican candidate any hope of winning the Presidential Election in November, he has certainly demonstrated the modern meaning of the word ‘gaffe’ – that is, a statement of the bleedin’ obvious by someone in the public eye.

There can be no doubt that substantial numbers – on his estimate, nearly half – of electors who decide how a democracy spends its money no longer make any financial contribution to the taxes it must raise to do so. Bearing in mind that one of the rallying cries of America’s founding fathers was “no taxation without representation” is it really so unspeakable to ask whether some link between representation and taxation should be restored?

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Society
KEYWORDS: representation; romney; taxation
Well? The criteria once were "Free, white, 21, male, and a property owner".

I think we can eliminate the "white", "Free", and even "21" and "male".

Even now, might restricting voting to those who pay taxes (or who paid in in the past and are now retired) provide a substantial improvement?

What say ye?

1 posted on 12/03/2012 1:39:08 AM PST by Smokin' Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

How about just ... if you get a check from the governmnet, you aren’t permitted to vote.


2 posted on 12/03/2012 1:53:03 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
There can be no doubt that substantial numbers – on his estimate, nearly half – of electors who decide how a democracy spends its money no longer make any financial contribution to the taxes it must raise to do so.

Flatly untrue.

Romney's numbers referred to those who don't pay one of the many taxes, federal income tax.

This group continues to pay many other taxes, from SS to sales tax to other local and state taxes. Comparisons between US and European taxation are frequently flawed by comparing US federal taxes only, ignoring the large state and local burdens, which are generally much higher here.

Not to mention a huge amount in indirect taxes, although they are of course generally unaware of it.

3 posted on 12/03/2012 2:22:39 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
There can be no doubt that substantial numbers – on his estimate, nearly half – of electors who decide how a democracy spends its money no longer make any financial contribution to the taxes it must raise to do so.

Flatly untrue.

Romney's numbers referred to those who don't pay one of the many taxes, federal income tax.

This group continues to pay many other taxes, from SS to sales tax to other local and state taxes. Comparisons between US and European taxation are frequently flawed by comparing US federal taxes only, ignoring the large state and local burdens, which are generally much higher here.

Not to mention a huge amount in indirect taxes, although they are of course generally unaware of it.

4 posted on 12/03/2012 2:22:56 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
There are people who get checks from the government who have earned the right to vote, imho:

Active/retired military.

People who are getting Social Security who paid in all their lives (without arguing the Constitutionality of Social Security in the first place), and now draw a check as was promised. They are also likely to be property owners, and some pay taxes as well.

While older doesn't necessarily mean wiser, wisdom tends to be present more in those who have been around longer.

I would stop issuing Social Security checks to those who are not citizens (for that matter, very few and very limited benefits of any kind would be available to non-citizens).

But, generally, if the government pays you more than you pay it, you'd be excluded.

5 posted on 12/03/2012 2:28:58 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
ignoring the large state and local burdens, which are generally much higher here.

I don't know where you are, but here State and local taxes, from income, sales, and property taxes combined are a fraction of the Federal Income Tax I pay (<20%).

That does not address the Federal excise taxes, cell phone and other Federal telecommunications taxes/fees, and other hidden taxes.

As an aside, being disqualified from voting in a Federal Election would not necessarily preclude the States or Localities making their own rules about who can vote in State and Local elections, respectively.

6 posted on 12/03/2012 2:36:29 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

“No Representation Without Taxation” will be a rally cry for the 2nd American revolution.


7 posted on 12/03/2012 2:59:49 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Well? The criteria once were "Free, white, 21, male, and a property owner".

That's all nice and good but its also false.

Beating up on the people will always fail. Better to treat them like the victims and slaves of democrat policies they are.
8 posted on 12/03/2012 3:47:03 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Even now, might restricting voting to those who pay taxes (or who paid in in the past and are now retired) provide a substantial improvement?

Assuming that by "taxes" you mean Federal Income Taxes, that would have eliminated EVERYONE from before 1913. Frankly most people voted better back then.

It would have included nearly all people in the early years of the income tax.

The same people who support tax increases now supported them even when low income earners paid some taxes during the early years of the Great Society.

People have noted important exceptions. Besides people who have paid a mountain of taxes and are now living off of savings alone (these would largely be widows), wives of retired workers, self-employed who are working like crazy but have yet to see a profit, handicapped folks who can only work at low-paying jobs, a whole new mess is created with joint returns. Does the now earning spouse get to vote?

If "branding" is a problem now, wait till we try to sell ourselves as the "federal taxes for everyone" party. The original constitutional tax was tariffs. That is about as broad-based as it gets.
9 posted on 12/03/2012 3:53:36 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

I’ve often thought that changing things such that one of the houses of congress would only be elected by people who have skin in the game. Say make eligibility to vote for the Senate dependent on paying a federal income tax (or even include SS tax if you like, but make sure that net taxation after Earned Income Tax Credit is still positive). Might be better to have it be the House actually since all new taxes must start there.

This would not completely disenfranchise people who do not pay in, but it would create a stronger balance against such people.

It will never happen of course.


10 posted on 12/03/2012 4:24:42 AM PST by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Those were the criteria in Maryland.

But my goal is to provoke discussion.

Seriously, I do not think excluding people from the political process is the means to solving anything. It creates a group of second-class citizens which will eventually cause another set of problems.

Instead, let's solve the problem by making sure that an overwhelming majority of people have skin in the game.

First off, I'd repeal the 16th Amendment. No income tax.

Then, I would institute a Federal Sales tax on everything not necessary to survival (exempting food, primary residence, medical care, and the energy to heat/cool/light that primary residence). Transfers of property to relatives would not be taxed, including one's estate.

Even the underground economy would be paying taxes, and there would be no cutoff age nor income level.

I would reduce the Federal Budget by 10%/year as well, until the budget balanced.

And, though I won't discuss it on this thread (not germane), I'd eliminate entire departments not called for in the Constitution.

11 posted on 12/03/2012 4:27:11 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

If “branding” is a problem now, wait till we try to sell ourselves as the “federal taxes for everyone” party. The original constitutional tax was tariffs. That is about as broad-based as it gets.

That’s where it should have stayed. Taxing income is stupid. Complaining because only some income is taxed is even dumber. We need a no federal income tax party. We don’t need to tax the rich more, we don’t need to tax the poor more, we need the government to shrink to 10th Amendment proportions. Oh wait, Chief Justice Roberts (the Moron) says the 10th Amendment no longer matters.


12 posted on 12/03/2012 4:29:24 AM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Repeal the 17th Amendment as well.


13 posted on 12/03/2012 4:37:18 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Repeal the 17th Amendment as well.

Absolutely!

14 posted on 12/03/2012 4:42:29 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

Makes sense to me. Michael Savage has suggested if one is on the dole, he should (temporarily) lose the right to vote. Once he’s off the dole, he regains that right. However, the Dems would never go along with that since it would eliminate so much of their voting base.


15 posted on 12/03/2012 4:51:56 AM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
As I understand it, most taxes in Europe are collected at the local level, so the proportion of regional (state) and local taxes to total taxes is a lot higher "here." Could be wrong, I'm not that familiar with Europe.

That does not address the Federal excise taxes, cell phone and other Federal telecommunications taxes/fees, and other hidden taxes.

All of which the "untaxed" pay equally with the "taxed."

16 posted on 12/03/2012 5:02:59 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I'm in North Dakota. My Federal Income Taxes are well over 5 times what I pay in State Income, sales, and property taxes.

I'm not sure how Europe got into the conversation.

Do Obamaphone people pay for a universal access fee (to buy cell phones for the poor)? I doubt it. Maybe a local cable franchise fee. I'm not sure how much they shell out for excise taxes on tires, but maybe the excise taxes on liquor even that out.

17 posted on 12/03/2012 5:23:16 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

IMHO, the next best (aside from 16-17th repeal) would be to apportion the Fed budget by State based on population; then watch the States and the People finally take note when they have to write a check for the taxes for all their wants/needs and wishes


18 posted on 12/03/2012 5:29:01 AM PST by i_robot73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Let me rephrase the question somewhat: is it right to allow one class to vote themselves the fruits of another’s labors?


19 posted on 12/03/2012 5:29:14 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

I’ve sketched out a plan that would eliminate all direct federal taxes and instead allow state legislatures to collect taxes that would be used to purchase whatever services that state desires from the federal menu. That would reassert local control over taxable mandates, restore accountability for tax increases, and erase much of the redistributionist apparatus. And it would once again make the Union the servant of the State instead of vice versa.


20 posted on 12/03/2012 5:39:11 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
I'm not sure how Europe got into the conversation.

Possibly because it's an article from Europe comparing conditions between there and here?

21 posted on 12/03/2012 5:56:37 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I thought the germane part of the article dealt with the increasing number of people here who vote themselves benefits from the public trough, yet don't fill that trough.

I'd prefer for the bulk of taxes (and government) to be State and Local--they're easier to vote out, our Federal Representation is the Constitutional minimum, and one size just doesn't fit all--but that would ideally require a much smaller Federal Government, not a much larger State and Local one (with the Federal leviathan remaining the same).

22 posted on 12/03/2012 6:21:18 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

If you don’t pay federal income tax you are almost certainly a net tax consumer, which is to say that you get more than you give. Even some who pay federal income taxes are net tax consumers.

Net tax consumers pay no taxes.


23 posted on 12/03/2012 6:51:29 AM PST by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson