[Dr. Sivana]

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.

[freedomfiter2]

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.