NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I understand that voting ages differ around the world, but what do people think of this:

If you pay taxes then you should be given a vote.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...don't you have to pay taxes once you become a citizen?

.....aaaaaaaaaand.....don't you have to be a citizen in order to vote?

<cough cough>

As a rule anyone of voting age is of tax paying age, so the two go hand in hand. Even if you don't declare your income you're still paying sales tax, VAT etc.

Shall we then change it to "direct taxation"

Democracy is defined by all men voting.

Why would you wish to disenfranchise the sick, the pensioners, students and the unemployed?

Why would you wish to disenfranchise the sick, the pensioners, students and the unemployed?

:wink: you should know by now Smeagol.

You could go further and say only land owners can vote.

Why would you wish to disenfranchise the sick, the pensioners, students and the unemployed?

:wink: you should know by now Smeagol.

The D-Day veterans who were being praised days ago are about to be disenfranchised as they are no longer working then?

Typical Conservative hypocricy.

Democracy is defined by all men voting.

"Persons" voting please.

"by all humankin"

There, happy? :p

You could go further and say only land owners can vote.

gawd that would suck.

"by all humankin"

There, happy? :p

Nope.

Original thread title:

"ONE MAN ONE VOTE: AS LONG AS HE PAYS TAXES"

Not happy?

Tough :p.

I use "humankin" and I'm not a sexist pig-dog.

Democracy is defined by all men voting.

"Persons" voting please.

No...just men.

It seems Smeagol that you just don't get it.

The only people who should vote are:

(a) those who are traditionally conservative
(b) men

Why would you wish to disenfranchise the sick, the pensioners, students and the unemployed?

:wink: you should know by now Smeagol.

One would not wish to infer that another poster was a troll.

Not happy?

Tough :p.

I use "humankin" and I'm not a sexist pig-dog.

Not complaining at you, but at the original poster, who has since come out and confirmed his own misguided prejudices.

Ooh, Athenian democracy!

That eats it's own babies, you know. Speaking as a taxpayer, of course.

The only people who should vote are:

(a) those who are traditionally conservative
(b) men

How is it to be determined if people are sufficiently 'traditionally conservative' to be enfranchised?

Why having vote at all? Just give me the power ans shut the hell up.

Pheonix...you are a filthy american pig-dog from hell!

Actually, I've just wanted to say that for quite some time to anyone, and you fit the bill :)

Oh, but you are a sexist jerkoff. I mean, common, think of it this way. Women's sufferage ended prohibition.

'Cause after they all got to vote, all the men said "Crap, hold on, I need to sit down and have a drink"

**plays a rimshot**

The only people who should vote are:

(a) those who are traditionally conservative
(b) men

How is it to be determined if people are sufficiently 'traditionally conservative' to be enfranchised?

Is that really relevent?

Democracy is defined by all men voting.

"Persons" voting please.

No...just men.

It seems Smeagol that you just don't get it.

The only people who should vote are:

(a) those who are traditionally conservative
(b) men

But traditional conservative white middleaged men don't pay taxes - they fiddle their returns through their companies ... so they wouldn't get the vote either ... :roll:

Pheonix...you are a filthy american pig-dog from hell!

<looks across the water and gazes up towards the Sydney Harbour Bridge>

Yes...American indeed.

The only people who should vote are:

(a) those who are traditionally conservative
(b) men

How is it to be determined if people are sufficiently 'traditionally conservative' to be enfranchised?

Is that really relevent?

Yes - you just described it as a condition for getting the vote. Pay attention.

It is easy to determine if they are male or female, and according to your propsed system the females don't get to vote. How are you going to determine which of the males are 'traditionally conservative' enough to be given the vote.

Oh no, the insult wasn't relevent at all, I've just been wanting to call someone that. Unfortunatly, the town I live in is 99% rich-middle class conservative white, so they'd take it as a compliment.

Still, kinda sucks you arn't american, it makes the comment...lacking, somehow. I'll have to find another oppurtunity to use it.

Pheonix...you are a filthy american pig-dog from hell!

Actually, I've just wanted to say that for quite some time to anyone, and you fit the bill :)

Oh, but you are a sexist jerkoff. I mean, common, think of it this way. Women's sufferage ended prohibition.

'Cause after they all got to vote, all the men said "Crap, hold on, I need to sit down and have a drink"

**plays a rimshot**

Unfortunately, he is, or claims to be, Australian.

I would not choose to dispute any more of your description.

Kindly do not judge all Australians by this person.

just about everybody pays taxes, somehow or another. I thought it was bullshit when I was fifteen, paying payroll taxes and sales taxes and all that and still couldn't vote. taxation without representation! so I vote yes.

Pheonix...you are a filthy american pig-dog from hell!

Actually, I've just wanted to say that for quite some time to anyone, and you fit the bill :)

Oh, but you are a sexist jerkoff. I mean, common, think of it this way. Women's sufferage ended prohibition.

'Cause after they all got to vote, all the men said "Crap, hold on, I need to sit down and have a drink"

**plays a rimshot**

Unfortunately, he is, or claims to be, Australian.

I would not choose to dispute any more of your description.

Kindly do not judge all Australians by this person.

Yes...they aren't all as handsome and smart as I am :wink:

You kidding? I've got some great buds who live down in Australia and New Zealand. I'm not a stupid bigot :p

Lord Phoenix Benicius, if that really is your name, answer my question about determining whether people are sufficiently conservative to be given the vote, or I will consider you as just a weak attempt at trolling.

Lord Phoenix Benicius, if that really is your name, answer my question about determining whether people are sufficiently conservative to be given the vote, or I will consider you as just a weak attempt at trolling.

Why don't you grow up and stop accusing people before you are DEATED. I explained my point on the last page.

Lord Phoenix Benicius, if that really is your name, answer my question about determining whether people are sufficiently conservative to be given the vote, or I will consider you as just a weak attempt at trolling.

Why don't you grow up and stop accusing people before you are DEATED. I explained my point on the last page.

I never accused you of being a troll, I just said that I would consider you to be one. Different thing entirely, I could consider you to be an elephant wearing pants, but that doesn't mean I am accusing you of being one.


Anyhow...


At which point in your complete postings from the last page (reproduced below) do you answer my question: how is it to be determined if somebody is sufficiently traditionally conservative to be given the vote:

Well I understand that voting ages differ around the world, but what do people think of this:

If you pay taxes then you should be given a vote.

***

Shall we then change it to "direct taxation"

***

you should know by now Smeagol.

No...just men.

***

It seems Smeagol that you just don't get it.

***

The only people who should vote are:

(a) those who are traditionally conservative
(b) men

If you cannot see the reasoning then that is not my problem. I will not explain myself twice.

If you cannot see the reasoning then that is not my problem. I will not explain myself twice.

Calling other readers, anybody else understand the reasoning?

I think Benicus is being tongue-in-cheek.

At least I hope so. :P

What about stay-at-home mother who earn no income, and therfore pay no taxes. Should they be denied a vote?

Well I understand that voting ages differ around the world, but what do people think of this:

If you pay taxes then you should be given a vote.

So in exchange for not being able to vote I don't have to pay taxes?

What about stay-at-home mother who earn no income, and therfore pay no taxes. Should they be denied a vote?

ah but you forget single mothers are evil and should be forced to work 14 hours a day as well as raising their children all for geting pregnant out of wedlock!

What about stay-at-home mother who earn no income, and therfore pay no taxes. Should they be denied a vote?

ah but you forget single mothers are evil and should be forced to work 14 hours a day as well as raising their children all for geting pregnant out of wedlock!

"Stay-at-home" does not neccessarily equate to "single"

Personally I think everyone should get the vote if they're aged 16 or over, heh, I'd like to see an end to felons being denied the vote in the US as well, I'm not sure why that happens tbh, it's not the case here, however the 16-25 group seems to be the most politically motivated and likely to actually pay attention to the policies rather than just vote how they've voted all their lives... also, since you can leave home, work full time and get married here at 16, it seems a little out of place having to wait until you're 18 to put a cross on your ballot!

You never know, if that actually happened (Perhaps combined with compulsory voting and proportional representation) maybe we could get rid of Neo-Labour and have someone other than the tories in power, I can only hope...

Only slight fly in the ointment is that if we have proportional representation, there's a worrying chance of the BNP or UKIP getting some seats, especially with Neo-Labour propaganda doing most of their work for them :|

As for the thread of denying women and non-taxpayers the vote, I'm not sure we need to be taking a step backwards of that magnitude!

--
Adam <yuuichi@fusionchat.net> http://www.fusionchat.net

What about stay-at-home mother who earn no income, and therfore pay no taxes. Should they be denied a vote?

ah but you forget single mothers are evil and should be forced to work 14 hours a day as well as raising their children all for geting pregnant out of wedlock!

"Stay-at-home" does not neccessarily equate to "single"

Nor does 'single' neccessarilly equate to 'out of wedlock' - there are such things as young widows...

Of course, if you live somwhere with sales taxes - then that first time you tottered into the corner store to buy candy with your allowance you became a taxpayer.....

I can see it now - the Barney party winning the government after a massmarketting campaign to area nurseries.....

Is 18 the right age? I don't know. I don't think it is far off though. I mean, I started working and paying taxes at 13, but I sure as hell don't think I was politically aware enough then to be ready to vote at that age.

Is 18 the right age? I don't know. I don't think it is far off though. I mean, I started working and paying taxes at 13, but I sure as hell don't think I was politically aware enough then to be ready to vote at that age.

Judging by what seems to be passing without a second thought by most people lately, I'd say most people OVER 18 aren't politically aware enough to be ready to vote, maybe there should be a test o.o

National ID cards, Loss of the right to silence, no right to peaceful assembly, people locked up for years without charge or trial, 1984 anyone?

--
Adam <yuuichi@fusionchat.net> http://www.fusionchat.net

No representation without taxation...

Is 18 the right age? I don't know. I don't think it is far off though. I mean, I started working and paying taxes at 13, but I sure as hell don't think I was politically aware enough then to be ready to vote at that age.

Judging by what seems to be passing without a second thought by most people lately, I'd say most people OVER 18 aren't politically aware enough to be ready to vote, maybe there should be a test o.o

National ID cards, Loss of the right to silence, no right to peaceful assembly, people locked up for years without charge or trial, 1984 anyone?

--
Adam <yuuichi@fusionchat.net> http://www.fusionchat.net
The newest one two faced Tony is putting through, the right of Debt collectors to us force to enter your home and recover goods.
Also he legalised the illegally held DNA records of criminals and anyone who ever agreed to give a DNA sample.

The newest one two faced Tony is putting through, the right of Debt collectors to us force to enter your home and recover goods.

! Do you mean bailiffs or any old debt collection agency? I thought bailiffs had always been able to do that, or do you mean they can break in while you're out and just take stuff?

Also he legalised the illegally held DNA records of criminals and anyone who ever agreed to give a DNA sample.

Oh lovely, they've got mine then, heh, got nicked for possession of weed 2 or 3 years ago and they took my DNA then, I did ask if I was required to give it given that it could be of no use in that particular situation but I was told it wasn't optional, heh -.-

I've heard of a fair number of errors in this supposedly foolproof DNA testing, I think it's something to do with although only 1 in 4 billion people will share your exact DNA, they don't compare all of it, could be way off though, it's not really my area -.-

Ah well, seriously considering a move to Holland!

--
Adam <yuuichi@fusionchat.net> http://www.fusionchat.net

What about stay-at-home mother who earn no income, and therfore pay no taxes. Should they be denied a vote?

ah but you forget single mothers are evil and should be forced to work 14 hours a day as well as raising their children all for geting pregnant out of wedlock!

"Stay-at-home" does not neccessarily equate to "single"

Nor does 'single' neccessarilly equate to 'out of wedlock' - there are such things as young widows...Ah war-widows, would you deny the wife of a partiot the right to vote because her husband died fighting for his country?

No representation without taxation...

That would work fine with me!

If you cannot see the reasoning then that is not my problem. I will not explain myself twice.

Calling other readers, anybody else understand the reasoning?

Do not attempt to obtain logic, reasoning, or a source for flaky figures from our self-appointed "Lord", as refusal may offend.

Look at the reply I got :

Smeagol-Gollum wrote:
Why would you wish to disenfranchise the sick, the pensioners, students and the unemployed?

Lord Pheonix Benicius : "you should know by now Smeagol."

A poster who proposes apparently ludicrous suggestions, then refuses to elaborate or defend such a position appears troll-like to me.

Well I understand that voting ages differ around the world, but what do people think of this:

If you pay taxes then you should be given a vote.
Totally UNdemocratic to say the least.

You would disenfranchise all retirees, students, and those unfortunate enough to be without work.

You could go further and say only land owners can vote.
You mean like the old Feudal system? Yup that is Middle Ages stuff.

Well I understand that voting ages differ around the world, but what do people think of this:

If you pay taxes then you should be given a vote.
Totally UNdemocratic to say the least.

You would disenfranchise all retirees, students, and those unfortunate enough to be without work.

You just don't get it!

That's the whole idea!

The newest one two faced Tony is putting through, the right of Debt collectors to us force to enter your home and recover goods.

! Do you mean bailiffs or any old debt collection agency? I thought bailiffs had always been able to do that, or do you mean they can break in while you're out and just take stuff?

Also he legalised the illegally held DNA records of criminals and anyone who ever agreed to give a DNA sample.

Oh lovely, they've got mine then, heh, got nicked for possession of weed 2 or 3 years ago and they took my DNA then, I did ask if I was required to give it given that it could be of no use in that particular situation but I was told it wasn't optional, heh -.-

I've heard of a fair number of errors in this supposedly foolproof DNA testing, I think it's something to do with although only 1 in 4 billion people will share your exact DNA, they don't compare all of it, could be way off though, it's not really my area -.-

Ah well, seriously considering a move to Holland!

--
Adam <yuuichi@fusionchat.net> http://www.fusionchat.net

They can currently enter business premises but not your home. They need and invitation to enter your home, even with a court order they need the police present to force entry into your home. But all that will change, soon with a court order they can do it by them selves. yet more freedoms and rights removed by Tory Blair.

There were soem good articles in New Scientist abot DNA fingerprinting. The old system that was used you had a 1 in 60 million chance of it being matched to someone else ( or there abouts) now it is 1 in serveral hundred million. But there is nothing to stop them in future getting a description of a suspect (i.e. ginger, 6ft etc) and as technology allows searching the DNA records they have and knowing on your door to ask where you were. Two faced Tony is bring 1984 to realisation faster than menacing Maggie managed!