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 ...
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?
How about just ... if you get a check from the governmnet, you aren’t permitted to vote.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“No Representation Without Taxation” will be a rally cry for the 2nd American revolution.
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.
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.
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment as well.
Absolutely!
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.
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."
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.
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
Let me rephrase the question somewhat: is it right to allow one class to vote themselves the fruits of another’s labors?
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.
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.