NationStates Jolt Archive

I think if you do not pay taxes you should NOT have the right to vote. If you do not pay taxes to the goverment should NOT have a say in how it operates.

I think if you do not pay taxes you should NOT have the right to vote. If you do not pay taxes to the goverment should NOT have a say in how it operates.
This would work if the only function of government were to collect taxes and distribute the monies. But unfortunetely it isn't the only thing government does. If I don't pay taxes and am not allowed to vote and I am then free from arrest for, say, bank robbery - after all as a disenfranchised person with no say in operation of the government I have no obligation to obey the laws passed by those who do control the government. I might be willing to accept that those who do not pay the taxes owed to the government shlould be disenfranchised as not fufilling thier obligations to the government, but as long as one fufiils one's obligations one should have a say in it. Hmm, no taxes, no vote, exempt from draft too, right?

Actually this is pretty pointless as there are effectively no people who don't pay taxes to the government in some form or the other, be it a telephone tax, property tax, gasoline tax, electricity tax, sales tax, G&S tax, VA tax, cigateete tax, income tax or such directly and excises, tarrifs and most of the other indirectly - basically if you ever pay for anything on the white or grey markets you've paid taxes.


p.s. sorry for my poor spelling, but you would be better served if you were to correct the spelling in the title to "voting". While I'm not usually one to criticise spelling when the intent is clear, when you present an argument you want it to seem that you are intelligent and well spoken. I accept that some will doubt my intelligence because i don't bother to correct my typos, but are you?

I think if you do not pay taxes you should NOT have the right to vote. If you do not pay taxes to the goverment should NOT have a say in how it operates.
So...the unemployed and the people going through college on scholarships alone don't get a say in how the country is run? Which means the problem of unemployment gets worse and some of the brightest people in our nation don't get to vote?

I think if you do not pay taxes you should NOT have the right to vote. If you do not pay taxes to the goverment should NOT have a say in how it operates.
I second that.

This would work if the only function of government were to collect taxes and distribute the monies. But unfortunetely it isn't the only thing government does. If I don't pay taxes and am not allowed to vote and I am then free from arrest for, say, bank robbery - after all as a disenfranchised person with no say in operation of the government I have no obligation to obey the laws passed by those who do control the government. I might be willing to accept that those who do not pay the taxes owed to the government shlould be disenfranchised as not fufilling thier obligations to the government, but as long as one fufiils one's obligations one should have a say in it. Hmm, no taxes, no vote, exempt from draft too, right?

Actually this is pretty pointless as there are effectively no people who don't pay taxes to the government in some form or the other, be it a telephone tax, property tax, gasoline tax, electricity tax, sales tax, G&S tax, VA tax, cigateete tax, income tax or such directly and excises, tarrifs and most of the other indirectly - basically if you ever pay for anything on the white or grey markets you've paid taxes.

No, obeying the lawing and the draft is the obligation of a citizen, but if you want to vote and you don't pay taxes you should have to pay a poll tax. We need poll tax for everyone.

No, obeying the lawing and the draft is the obligation of a citizen, but if you want to vote and you don't pay taxes you should have to pay a poll tax. We need poll tax for everyone.
How can I be considered a citizen if I don't have the rights of a citizen ( the right to vote). Since I have no say in which acts are illegal and which are legal, I have no obligation to obey the capricous whims of those who do have a say in the government. Of course you could ague that government has nothing to do with the governed, for instance it stems from from the divine appointment - but why should tax paying be the deciding factor in control of government? How about instead limiting the vote to those with over $1,000,000US in real asessts, through gaining or maintaining wealth they have dermonstrated that they are the most capable of governing the rest of us?

Who thinks there should be a poll tax. I do who else does.

Who thinks there should be a poll tax. I do who else does.Ah a poll tax. Just a few questions about this poll tax, will it be a nominal tax (say $10US) or substantial (say $1,000US)? If I pay multiple poll taxes can i get multiple votes?

Who thinks there should be a poll tax. I do who else does.
that was abolished oh what, 50 years ago? i do believe its actually unconstitutional ..yup Amendment 24, Clause 1

that was abolished oh what, 50 years ago? i do believe its actually unconstitutional ..yup Amendment 24, Clause 1Fine if you're in the US and don't want to ammend the consitution. We should confine ourselves to the desirability of a poll tax, not the legality of it in one particular country.

Who thinks there should be a poll tax. I do who else does.
Hmm, the two times (well four if you want to split hairs) that a Poll Tax was introduced in Britain there was fighting on the streets. With the first nearly leading to a complete collapse of the status quo and with many heads on pikes.

"Whan Adam dalf, and Eve span;
Wo was thanne the gentilman?"

Your argument is invalidated by the large amount of taxes which make it almost impossible to not pay taxes.

The poll tax is a bad idea, as they who are unable to pay it wouldn't be able to vote, thus making voting an income-based enterprise.

The poll tax is a bad idea, as they who are unable to pay it wouldn't be able to vote, thus making voting an income-based enterprise.
gee I think that is the whole point. Voting is not a right, but a privillege. Enodscopia doesn't want to make any defense of it as a right, so we have to assume it is a privillege. I wish Enodscopia would respond to my query about why choose tax-paying as the basis for deciding who gets a say in the operation of government rather than ability, though.

Actually, "the right to vote" is in Enodscopia's initial post.

I am not talking about a big tax something like a $50 tax that is not that much and it would generate a good amount of money and it would also make the people just voting to raise welfare not be so eager.

gee I think that is the whole point. Voting is not a right, but a privillege. Enodscopia doesn't want to make any defense of it as a right, so we have to assume it is a privillege. I wish Enodscopia would respond to my query about why choose tax-paying as the basis for deciding who gets a say in the operation of government rather than ability, though.

Because people who pay taxes are like investors in the government so they have say over what is done, but if you don't give to money to support the government why should you have a say in what happens to people who pays taxes money.

I am not talking about a big tax something like a $50 tax that is not that much and it would generate a good amount of money and it would also make the people just voting to raise welfare not be so eager.

So then you're saying that a person has to make at least $50 to vote. Why not make it $1,000,000?

In Drakkonya, voting franchise is based on military service. Since military service is compulsory in our nation-state, all adults have voting rights.

I am not talking about a big tax something like a $50 tax that is not that much and it would generate a good amount of money and it would also make the people just voting to raise welfare not be so eager.How about multiple votes though? Can Bill Gates literally buy an election?

I am not talking about a big tax something like a $50 tax that is not that much and it would generate a good amount of money and it would also make the people just voting to raise welfare not be so eager.If this is your intent, you've got me thinking.

Instead of tying the privillege to vote to taxpaying, instead reverse it and take the right to vote away from those recieving government funds? Instead of raising taxes, cut expense, if the price of going on welfare is the loss of the vote presumably some will decide they can manage without it. This would have the advantage of affecting rich people who recieve a far greater federal subsidy than any nominal tax would cost them - Ted Turner can either forgo the federal funds he gets for his beefalo herd or give up his vote.

Fine if you're in the US and don't want to ammend the consitution. We should confine ourselves to the desirability of a poll tax, not the legality of it in one particular country.
well its not legal for avery good reason, its stupid and oppressive

it allows the upper class the ability to deny the lower class of their right to vote

I am not talking about a big tax something like a $50 tax that is not that much and it would generate a good amount of money and it would also make the people just voting to raise welfare not be so eager.
or we could jsut legalize prostitution and marijuana and tax the bajeezus out of them instead of making sure the rich upper class controls the government

Because people who pay taxes are like investors in the government so they have say over what is done, but if you don't give to money to support the government why should you have a say in what happens to people who pays taxes money.Well there is stakeholder theory, in which everyone who has an interest (not just financial) has a sayin what is done. If for instance I were a customer buying jet engines from GE, I would not have to be a financial investor to have a significant say in how GE makes jet engines and and which type of jet engines they build.

But aside from stakeholder theory, the simple fact is that governments are not corporations. A corporation can make any policy it wants to, like banning marijuana use, and if I want to smoke a joint I still can. If the govenment decides to ban marijuana use, if I smoke a joint I can go to jail - big difference. Givernments have the power to use force to enforce their decisions and corporations don't. Bill Gates, powerful as he is, cannot hold a gun to your head and force you to use windows on your computer. The US government can pass a law which says all computers must use the windows operating system, and effectively hold a gun to your head and force you to use windows.

The poll tax is a bad idea, as they who are unable to pay it wouldn't be able to vote, thus making voting an income-based enterprise.
i agree

to reiterate
EVERYONE PAYS TAXES
so liming the vote to citizens over age 18 who pay taxes would be the same number as citizens over age 18

in the past, in the united states, such "tests" were use to keep certain people from voting. like black people in the south. poll taxes and tests of education were used to make sure that no black person got to vote.

do we really want to go back to those days? or start them if you never had that kind of thing in your country?

i dont think so. the universal vote has been a postive thing. lets not mess it up.

I think if you do not pay taxes you should NOT have the right to vote. If you do not pay taxes to the goverment should NOT have a say in how it operates.

I don't know how it is in the US, but in Canada people living on the Native reserves do not have to pay taxes, sort of as a way of repaying them for stealing their land I guess. Should they still get to vote?

They also don't have to sing the anthem in the morning like we do (which I don't mind doing at all by the way), and that has always bothered me since they do get to vote.

What do you people think about that?

I don't know how it is in the US, but in Canada people living on the Native reserves do not have to pay taxes, sort of as a way of repaying them for stealing their land I guess. Should they still get to vote?

They also don't have to sing the anthem in the morning like we do (which I don't mind doing at all by the way), and that has always bothered me since they do get to vote.

What do you people think about that?My goodness, and you folks up north pick on the US. Heck, here in the fascist US of A we cannot even force students in schools to pledge alligance to country, and you guys have to sing the anthem. Are you sure you have to sing "Oh Canada" in the morning?

So then you're saying that a person has to make at least $50 to vote. Why not make it $1,000,000?

No a $50 poll tax you pay to vote.

I think if you do not pay taxes you should NOT have the right to vote. If you do not pay taxes to the goverment should NOT have a say in how it operates.
Would your proposed system still keep the one vote, one person solution, or would it have votes count more if one has a higher tax bracket?

My goodness, and you folks up north pick on the US. Heck, here in the fascist US of A we cannot even force students in schools to pledge alligance to country, and you guys have to sing the anthem. Are you sure you have to sing "Oh Canada" in the morning?
maybe if we stopped stuffing religion into things we could force it on people

My goodness, and you folks up north pick on the US. Heck, here in the fascist US of A we cannot even force students in schools to pledge alligance to country, and you guys have to sing the anthem. Are you sure you have to sing "Oh Canada" in the morning?

Well we don't have to sing but we have to stand up for it, every morning, unless you are native or it's against your religion, since the anthem has the "God" in it. Mostly the Native and Jehova's Witnesses are the ones who don't stand for it, but they are still expected to sit quietly while we do. I'm sure that if someone else didn't want to stand for it they wouldn't have to, but I've never encountered that...

We also used to sing it until I got into grade 6 or so.

maybe if we stopped stuffing religion into things we could force it on people

Yes, you're quite right, that's exactly why.

maybe if we stopped stuffing religion into things we could force it on peopleMaybe, but I doubt it. The idea of loyalty oaths is anathema to enough people that I am sure other sufficent grounds can be found for preventing it from being mandatory, if necessary. Religion is a pretty good reason (after all we cannot ban all knves from public schools because of religion), so there is no need to look further.


I am wondering if anyone has considered my counterpoposal, that instead of requiring taxes to vote government can suspend the right to vote of those recieving money subsidies from the government. Since virtually everyone gets some sort of subsidy from the government (education at least) I think it should confined to those who recieve cash payments, although small busiiness loans might count too until they're paid off. Any thoughts on my counter=proposal?

Religion is a pretty good reason (after all we cannot ban all knves from public schools because of religion), so there is no need to look further.

Really? Haha, we did. GO CANADA!

Really? Haha, we did. GO CANADA!
Well the US, cannot ban all knives from public schools. Sihk males who have reached the age of puberty are allowed to carry knives into public schools (as required by their religion). It is still up in the air about whether or not that can carry knives onto airplanes in light of enahnced security, but pre-9/11 they were permitted to by custom instead of law.

Darn Canadians, tramping all over people's rights. Why cannot you just learn to be tolerant of other peoples? Fascist Canadians.