NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking about the original United States of America. The right to vote was not universal, it was limited to land-owners. This was because land was the basis of tax payment.

It got me to thinking about our current system, where 50% of the voters pay 96% of taxes. (Meaning that almost half of voters pay virtually no taxes at all)

So what we have here is almost a majoriy of voters do nothing to contribute to the support of the government. We already deny the right to vote to convicted felons - regardless of if they have been rehabilitated. Why should people who provide no contribution to the government be allowed to vote on the direction of (and spending of) the government? By diluting the vote of taxpayors we have, nearly by default, taxation without representation.

Here is my suggestion - the right to vote should be augmented by government participation. Each citizen receives one vote, but those who pay taxes get an additional vote for each tax bracket they break through.
(Important line, read again before you post - too many people are missing this important point)

This would cause two effects, one - more citizens would demand the right to pay taxes so that they could cast additional votes (causing them to pay much more attention to government spending.) Two - the 'rich' would not be so eager for tax cuts as it could erode their political clout. Three - Tax fraud would be discouraged. Four - Lower tax brackets would likely narrow and become more fairly distributed, while there would likely be additional higher tax brackets for the super-rich.

Then we'd finally have a system where representation and taxation are more or less contingent upon each other. That is fair.

Yes. Let us guarantee that poor people never have a voice.

I understand where you're coming from, but disenfranchising people based on their income is heinous. Democracy is not "for the taxpayers, by the taxpayers".

Oh yes, such a great system. And, while we're at it, why don't we only give civil liberties to a small portion of the population? :rolleyes:

Oh, and...

*streaks thread*

The rich bastards who don't pay taxes merely pay theirs directly to the officials of their choice, and extract concessions in return. The extremely wealthy already own all the government officials and are overly represented. You propose to make a bad problem worse.

You really think getting more than one vote would encourage people to pay more taxes?

No way... people are greedy bastards. Now, 100 votes they might be willing to pay for, but 1?
And if you let that happen, why not go back to a Constitutional Monarchy? I'm sure it would suit George W.

The rich bastards who don't pay taxes merely pay theirs directly to the officials of their choice, and extract concessions in return. The extremely wealthy already own all the government officials and are overly represented. You propose to make a bad problem worse.
I actually may have to agree with you for a change....*shower scene from the Crying Game*...

1 The rich already have too much influence over US politics by virtue of political donations and expensive lobbyists. Your plan would only corrupt our government further.

2 The middle class and poor may not pay as much in income tax, but their purchases drive the economy and help supplement taxes through sales taxes, increased profits for stores and companies (which pay sales tax), and creating new wealth through their labor.

3 One man one vote is fair. Allocating votes based on income is unfair. It's also counterproductive because what the rich want and what the country needs are often two different things. Look at NAFTA. It fattened the wallets of many companies, but it cost us many jobs and increased the US trade deficit.

All fine except:

One man one vote is fair.

Change that to person, and we're good.

Change that to person, and we're good.

*agrees*

I'd have to say I am apparently the only person who agrees here. Something that alot of the people who are simply looking for a reason to gripe missed here is the fact that the poor aren't being "removed". Every person (excepting felons) would still get a vote, and since most people pay at least some tax, most people would have at least 2. However, it would shift more power to the middle class (people with both money and numbers) as opposed to the upper class (who already have alot) and the lower class (who really don't deserve it).

But then, I am a compassionless wandering misanthropic ass-goblin/rat-bastard/horrible meanhead, so what would I know?

Every person (excepting felons) would still get a vote, and since most people pay at least some tax,
You are leaving out a sizeable amount of people who are under the poverty line, and therefore do NOT pay taxes. Now, if you are talking about goods and services taxes, that's another issue altogether. So yes, it WOULD be taking the vote away from the poor.

For "participation" based voting, read Heinlein's "Starship Troopers". You get to vote for performing public service, of any kind.

Base it off money and people like George Soros will run this country.

You are leaving out a sizeable amount of people who are under the poverty line, and therefore do NOT pay taxes. Now, if you are talking about goods and services taxes, that's another issue altogether. So yes, it WOULD be taking the vote away from the poor.
Except:
Each citizen receives one vote
So the poor would have one vote. It is the same theory that stocks are based on. Everyone here (here being the U.S., as opposed to the internets) has some stock in the government, but the wealthier have put more power in the government, and should get a greater return.

<sarcasm>
I totally agree - low-income families don't really contribute to society enough to deserve a vote. The world should really be completely run by the less-than-1% who have made it really great.

But let's take it further. Why bother giving anyone who makes less than a million a vote at all? They're just feeding off the system anyway.
</scarcasm>

But seriously - where do we draw the lines? Who makes the call as to who gets 3 votes and who gets 4? What's to stop those who get 6 votes from voting that anyone with less than 6 votes loses their votes? It just doesn't seem right.

So the poor would have one vote.
You're right. I did misread that. Still don't agree though, but I concede that particular point.

Edit: LOVE the name!

All fine except:



Change that to person, and we're good.
Remember, it was only after women got the right to vote that WWII took place, nuclear weapons were invented, and Islamist terrorists began to target the USA.

Ok, one person one vote.

Except:

So the poor would have one vote. It is the same theory that stocks are based on. Everyone here (here being the U.S., as opposed to the internets) has some stock in the government, but the wealthier have put more power in the government, and should get a greater return.
That's obscene. Government isn't a corporation. It's a non-profit. People shouldn't be given more power because they've ammased more wealth, whether they've earned it or inherited it. Citizens are all supposed to be treated equally by the government.

Remember, it was only after women got the right to vote that WWII took place, nuclear weapons were invented, and Islamist terrorists began to target the USA.

Ok, one person one vote.
/me falls over laughing

That's obscene. Government isn't a corporation. It's a non-profit.
If it is a non-profit how many so many people are getting obscenely rich off of it? Government is, at its purist form, a corporation, the question is whether it is a mutual protection/insurance agency (where everyone pitches in to provide protection for the others) or a slave ship (where the Dictator runs off with all the cash and the rest of us are left like . . . er, you get the idea).

People shouldn't be given more power because they've ammased more wealth, whether they've earned it or inherited it.
Except the system (as I read it) would only count your income tax, so once you have been taxed on that dollar, and received your vote(s) for it, it doesn't count anymore.

Citizens are all supposed to be treated equally by the government.
And it would treat them equally. The question, who would control it.

Remember, it was only after women got the right to vote that WWII took place, nuclear weapons were invented, and Islamist terrorists began to target the USA.

Ok, one person one vote.
Only if YOU remember that it was only after women got the vote that the sex got good. That's right. Keep us happy, we keep you happy. Best reason ever for doing the dishes!

Best reason ever for doing the dishes!
Wrong. The best reason for doing the dishes is being able to walk into the kitchen and not have it smell like something died in the sink.

:p

Wrong. The best reason for doing the dishes is being able to walk into the kitchen and not have it smell like something died in the sink.

:p
I think Sinuhue wins this one. Great sex definately trumps good smells.

I think Sinuhue wins this one. Great sex definately trumps good smells.
You're assuming the partner is capable of providing good sex.

Good smells > dead fish sex anyday.

:p

You're assuming the partner is capable of providing good sex.

Good smells > dead fish sex anyday.

:p
Good sex is a two (or three:)) way street buddy...it isn't just 'provided'...and walk carefully when you start making fish comments....

Being a citizen of a nation is already compulsory based on birth. Making them follow the laws without being able to vote is even more like slavery.

Only if YOU remember that it was only after women got the vote that the sex got good. That's right. Keep us happy, we keep you happy. Best reason ever for doing the dishes!
Err... are you trying to say that sex was awful all through history because women couldn't vote? Hell, men couldn't vote through most of it. But I get the impression that the biological rewards for having sex were the same then as now.

Or should I be posting this to the "twist my words" thread next door? ;-)

Yes. Let us guarantee that poor people never have a voice.

I understand where you're coming from, but disenfranchising people based on their income is heinous. Democracy is not "for the taxpayers, by the taxpayers".

Nope, the poor still get to vote. I was pretty clear on that.

1 The rich already have too much influence over US politics by virtue of political donations and expensive lobbyists. Your plan would only corrupt our government further.

2 The middle class and poor may not pay as much in income tax, but their purchases drive the economy and help supplement taxes through sales taxes, increased profits for stores and companies (which pay sales tax), and creating new wealth through their labor.

3 One man one vote is fair. Allocating votes based on income is unfair. It's also counterproductive because what the rich want and what the country needs are often two different things. Look at NAFTA. It fattened the wallets of many companies, but it cost us many jobs and increased the US trade deficit.


Ah, but you are going under a flawed assumption. Votes are not allocated by income or assets, but by tax bracket. The person paying the greater portion of the bills has the right to have a greater influence over how their money is spent.

Ah, but you are going under a flawed assumption. Votes are not allocated by income or assets, but by tax bracket. The person paying the greater portion of the bills has the right to have a greater influence over how their money is spent.
How is tax bracket determined? Currently it's done by income.

You are leaving out a sizeable amount of people who are under the poverty line, and therefore do NOT pay taxes. Now, if you are talking about goods and services taxes, that's another issue altogether. So yes, it WOULD be taking the vote away from the poor.

Nope, they still get one vote. The truth of the matter, which you have ignored, is that the people footing the bill would get more influence on how it is spent. That is fair.

Nope, the poor still get to vote. I was pretty clear on that.
Keep reading...I retracted that statement:).

For "participation" based voting, read Heinlein's "Starship Troopers". You get to vote for performing public service, of any kind.

Base it off money and people like George Soros will run this country.

Please, try to keep in context of what I proposed. It is not based on money, or even amount paid (directly) it is based on tax BRACKET.

Frankly, if Soros is paying more than the same share of taxes as me, then he SHOULD be able to have more influence than me.

So the worth of one's political voice is to be determined purely in financial terms?

Keep reading...I retracted that statement:).

Oh, sorry, I am catching up still.

<sarcasm>
I totally agree - low-income families don't really contribute to society enough to deserve a vote. The world should really be completely run by the less-than-1% who have made it really great.

But let's take it further. Why bother giving anyone who makes less than a million a vote at all? They're just feeding off the system anyway.
</scarcasm>

But seriously - where do we draw the lines? Who makes the call as to who gets 3 votes and who gets 4? What's to stop those who get 6 votes from voting that anyone with less than 6 votes loses their votes? It just doesn't seem right.

We draw the line with the same people who arbitrarily determine tax brackets. Then there is a give as well as take when they set the brackets.

So the worth of one's political voice is to be determined purely in financial terms?

Yes. Unless you propose a government which runs on happy thoughts alone there is no reason why the people paying the bills should not have a voice proportional to their share of the bill.

That's obscene. Government isn't a corporation. It's a non-profit. People shouldn't be given more power because they've ammased more wealth, whether they've earned it or inherited it. Citizens are all supposed to be treated equally by the government.

No, the government is not a charity either. This is not about 'giving' anyone more power - it is about taxation and representation. If there was concern, tax brackets could be narrowed or reduced to limit the weight of the vote of high-earners. For example, in a flat tax system everyone who pays tax would get two votes, those who do not would get one.

If you feel citizens are to be treated equally by the government then you agree with this plan. The current system is state-sponsored extortion. You pay or you go to jail. Meanwhile, 50% of the people who are not paying a dime can decide how your money is spent. That is 50% taxation without representation - and that is not equal.

Only if YOU remember that it was only after women got the vote that the sex got good. That's right. Keep us happy, we keep you happy. Best reason ever for doing the dishes!

I don't remember the sex before then, what was it like?

I don't remember the sex before then, what was it like?
Hahahahah...if I didn't know better, I'd think you were calling me OLD!!

How is tax bracket determined? Currently it's done by income.

Finally! I left that out on purpose - I'm glad you brought it up.

THAT is up to debate. Ther are a multitude of options. For example, if the lowest bracket is 10% and the highest is 30% then the highest bracket gets three times the additional votes.
Or
Additional votes for hitting fixed thresholds, say 5%=1 10%=2 15%=3 etc.
or
each bracket is one vote, period. even if they set them only 2% points apart. (ensuring careful consideration when setting brackets and also possibly greater differences between them)

The important thing to remember is that tax brackets currently are not set by the IRS, they are set by congress. Elected oficials determine the brackets. A fixed framework would have to be in place regarding how votes are distributed, but tax brackets could, as they always have, fluctuate.

Yes. Unless you propose a government which runs on happy thoughts alone there is no reason why the people paying the bills should not have a voice proportioal to their share of the bill.
People contribute time and energy to their country. Why shouldn't this be a taken into consideration? How do you measure this, factor it in?

One person, one vote = simple and fair.

Please, try to keep in context of what I proposed. It is not based on money, or even amount paid (directly) it is based on tax BRACKET.

Frankly, if Soros is paying more than the same share of taxes as me, then he SHOULD be able to have more influence than me.

He already does. Your proposal would give him more. That "influence" can easily be used to adopt policies and vote for politicians that then keep those w/ only one vote from achieving any further.

For example: I've done almost ten years in service to my country. I've done more to support my country than someone in the same tax bracket who hasn't served. Why should I only have one vote, the same influence as that person?

People contribute time and energy to their country. Why shouldn't this be a taken into consideration? How do you measure this, factor it in?

One person, one vote = simple and fair.

I take no issue with considering public service. That is a good idea. probably the best way to count it would be similarly to how charitable deductions are currently handled, only in reverse and without a tax conquence. The value of their service is estimated and recorded and then added to their income for vote determining purposes.

One person, one vote can only be fair in a place where everyone pays the same proportional amount in taxes, regardless of income or lack thereof.

He already does. Your proposal would give him more. That "influence" can easily be used to adopt policies and vote for politicians that then keep those w/ only one vote from achieving any further.

For example: I've done almost ten years in service to my country. I've done more to support my country than someone in the same tax bracket who hasn't served. Why should I only have one vote, the same influence as that person?

First, Soros would have to convice ALOT of people to participate in that endeavor, and he wasn't so successful last time he tried that, so I wouldn't get all uptight about that.

On your second point, military service is a worthwile and valued endeavor, but it was your choice. Tax brackets are not a choice, they are assigned. How the money is spent is ultimately the concern of the people from whom it was taken, and your neighbor has had the same amount taken from him as you have. Your choice of past service is not comparable to the involuntary nature of tax brackets.

Good sex is a two (or three:)) way street buddy...it isn't just 'provided'...and walk carefully when you start making fish comments....
OMG! I so didn't catch that fish comment. I think I may puke after I stop laughing.

Hahahahah...if I didn't know better, I'd think you were calling me OLD!!

heh, nah. Besides, if you were having sex before suffrage and are now having more and even better sex today, well. Rock on!, but please don't give us the details.

First, Soros would have to convice ALOT of people to participate in that endeavor, and he wasn't so successful last time he tried that, so I wouldn't get all uptight about that.

On your second point, military service is a worthwile and valued endeavor, but it was your choice. Tax brackets are not a choice, they are assigned. How the money is spent is ultimately the concern of the people from whom it was taken, and your neighbor has had the same amount taken from him as you have. Your choice of past service is not comparable to the involuntary nature of tax brackets.

You are now contradicting yourself:

"I take no issue with considering public service. That is a good idea."

"military service is a worthwile and valued endeavor, but it was your choice."

"Your choice of past service is not comparable"

Which is it? Is public service considered or not?

You are now contradicting yourself:

"I take no issue with considering public service. That is a good idea."

"military service is a worthwile and valued endeavor, but it was your choice."

"Your choice of past service is not comparable"

Which is it? Is public service considered or not?


There is a difference between a job in the public sector and public service. I presumed you understood that.

Only if YOU remember that it was only after women got the vote that the sex got good. That's right. Keep us happy, we keep you happy. Best reason ever for doing the dishes!

Sex in the middle ages was the stuff legends were made from!

... must return to coffin now.

There is a difference between a job in the public sector and public service. I presumed you understood that.

So you're saying you don't consider voluntary military service to be a public service?

Isn't the purpose of having a job in the public sector to be performing a public service?

What do you consider then to be "public service"?

So you're saying you don't consider voluntary military service to be a public service?

Isn't the purpose of having a job in the public sector to be performing a public service?

What do you consider then to be "public service"?

Public Service is something you do for your community for which you are not compensated financially. "Performing a Public Service". A job in the public secor is anything where your salary is paid directly by taxpayors, such as military, fireman, librarian and DMV clerk for example.

Here is a scenario:

Son of an industry tycoon spends all his time travelling, hanging out in resorts, casinos, etc. Never reads a book on politics or has an interest in foreign affairs goes to the voting booth and casts x+ amount of votes.

Working class woman raises two sons, both are drafted and killed in battle. As a result she continues to work minimum wage but can barely afford to support herself because outsourcing is causing the plant where she is working to shut down. She goes to the voting booth and casts x- amount of votes.

Is that democracy?

Yes, it is. Why? Because the familiy members of each would be just as susceptible to a draft - Which currently does not exist I may add.

Meanwhile the government is still consuming resources and requires a budget. The inheritor, presuming he is paying income tax, would likely be paying a a rate greater than average. He should have more say on how it is spent. His lifestyle or political knowledge have no bearing on his tax burden and therefore on his votes.

The misfortune of the woman is irrelevant in the context of paying for the government. As things currently stand they each would get one vote - the woman's loss has no bearing in either circumstance.

Yes, it is. Why? Because the familiy members of each would be just as susceptible to a draft - Which currently does not exist I may add.

Meanwhile the government is still consuming resources and requires a budget. The inheritor, presuming he is paying income tax, would likely be paying a a rate greater than average. He should have more say on how it is spent. His lifestyle or political knowledge have no bearing on his tax burden and therefore on his votes.

The misfortune of the woman is irrelevant in the context of paying for the government. As things currently stand they each would get one vote - the woman's loss has no bearing in either circumstance.

I would agree with your premise if all politics affected was the economy. But politics also affects laws and civil liberty. Also, the members of the different families would not be as susceptible to the draft since the wealthier families, having more votes, could simply use their voting advantage to elect politicians who would ammend the law so that there would no longer be a draft, but a recruitment of reservists. Wealthy people are less likely to serve as reservists (unless they have political ambitions and feel they need a little street cred) since they do not need the extra income.

I would agree with your premise if all politics affected was the economy. But politics also affects laws and civil liberty. Also, the members of the different families would not be as susceptible to the draft since the wealthier families, having more votes, could simply use their voting advantage to elect politicians who would ammend the law so that there would no longer be a draft, but a recruitment of reservists. Wealthy people are less likely to serve as reservists (unless they have political ambitions and feel they need a little street cred) since they do not need the extra income.

For this scenario to play out it would require the highest tax bracket payors (note I did not use the term 'Wealthy' since the two are not synonymous, and my suggestion is specific to tax brackets) to vote as a single block - which they currently do not do (Someone earlier mentioned Soros). Meanwhile any potential bill such as that would not likely ever make it past the Supreme Court. The forefathers of our country existed in a similar environment to what I am proposing, yet they served and sacraficed fairly and valiantly in the War for Independance.

Regardless, where do you get your information on reservists household income? There are plenty of reservists and veterans who are currently in the top tax bracket. Without a source your statement is only opinion and not valid.

I suspect that many here are using class envy rather than common sense, mostly because of the common mistake of saying 'wealthy' instead of the more correct 'higher tax bracket'. This is all about fairness. Those who pay get a representative say.

I can't agree with anything in this system. It infringes on so many civil liberties... It's disgusting.

no just no

democracy shouldnt be for sale.

besides the rich are already getting a plenty good enough deal without getting extra votes too.

For this scenario to play out it would require the highest tax bracket payors (note I did not use the term 'Wealthy' since the two are not synonymous, and my suggestion is specific to tax brackets) to vote as a single block - which they currently do not do (Someone earlier mentioned Soros). Meanwhile any potential bill such as that would not likely ever make it past the Supreme Court. The forefathers of our country existed in a similar environment to what I am proposing, yet they served and sacraficed fairly and valiantly in the War for Independance.

Regardless, where do you get your information on reservists household income? There are plenty of reservists and veterans who are currently in the top tax bracket. Without a source your statement is only opinion and not valid.

I suspect that many here are using class envy rather than common sense, mostly because of the common mistake of saying 'wealthy' instead of the more correct 'higher tax bracket'. This is all about fairness. Those who pay get a representative say.

1. The environment in which the founding fathers drafted the constitution was one of war with England, war with indegenous tribes and mass importation of slaves from Africa. Cities were not industrialised, there was no means of telecommunications and technology was primitive in comparison to today. So while the founding fathers might have existed in a similar environment to what you are proposing, today's society doesn't.

2. With regards to reservists household incomes, I'm sure it varies, but I have read several articles and seen several reports that discuss how families of reservists are having hard times making ends meet while the soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afganistan. The families are having such a difficult time economically that communities have had to set up food banks so they can get by.

3. You are talking about issuing political power based on economic status in which case the wealthy will have the most power. Which they already do, so in effect your whole scenario is just a way of legitimizing the current corruption in U.S. politics.

why did we move away from only landowners voting anyway? why did we stop levying poll taxes?

its not a bad thing to encourage all citizens to feel that they have a fair say in the government. pretty hard to do when "all citizens are equal but some are more equal than others"

What alot of people here are failing (or refusing) to note is that the "idle rich" won't have greater votes. They neither have (nor need) an income, and so they will only have a couple (or possibly one) vote. On the other hand, Dave Schmidt who makes $100,000 will be paying a hefty income tax, and should get votes accordingly. This situation will place most of the power in the middle class, where booth numbers and income abound, as opposed to the lazy rich, who pay don't have enough income or numbers to seriously influence anything.

What alot of people here are failing (or refusing) to note is that the "idle rich" won't have greater votes. They neither have (nor need) an income, and so they will only have a couple (or possibly one) vote. On the other hand, Dave Schmidt who makes $100,000 will be paying a hefty income tax, and should get votes accordingly. This situation will place most of the power in the middle class, where booth numbers and income abound, as opposed to the lazy rich, who pay don't have enough income or numbers to seriously influence anything.

All this means is that around election time Papa bear starts giving all his lazy baby bears jobs. It also means that employers will start taking into account an employee's politics when job promotions and wage increases are being determined.

1. The environment in which the founding fathers drafted the constitution was one of war with England, war with indegenous tribes and mass importation of slaves from Africa. Cities were not industrialised, there was no means of telecommunications and technology was primitive in comparison to today. So while the founding fathers might have existed in a similar environment to what you are proposing, today's society doesn't.

2. With regards to reservists household incomes, I'm sure it varies, but I have read several articles and seen several reports that discuss how families of reservists are having hard times making ends meet while the soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afganistan. The families are having such a difficult time economically that communities have had to set up food banks so they can get by.

3. You are talking about issuing political power based on economic status in which case the wealthy will have the most power. Which they already do, so in effect your whole scenario is just a way of legitimizing the current corruption in U.S. politics.

1) that is what is called a 'yes, but' argument. It invalidates itself with no assistance from me. To somehow suggest that lack of informantion aka ignorance somehow made politics less corruptable would take a leap of ignornace I'm unwilling ot take.

2) Ancedotal evidence is never valid and therefore your point is null. I once new a guy who only used ancedotal evidence. you know where he is now? Dead. That's where. (tribute to Freaks and Geeks)

3) You are validating my last point of the thread, that you are responding with class-envy rather than common sense. Your insistance on calling the top bracket taxpayers 'Wealthy' indicated it, and your persistance validates it. Class jealousy is nothing that you can resolve with politics... Maybe a better job...

All this means is that around election time Papa bear starts giving all his lazy baby bears jobs. It also means that employers will start taking into account an employee's politics when job promotions and wage increases are being determined.

That is quite a leap. By what evidence are you able to make such a bold conclusion?

I can't agree with anything in this system. It infringes on so many civil liberties... It's disgusting.
If you don't like it then in MUST be good. Maybe you can contribute something more than you fairly boring and unsupported opinion to the thread.

no just no

democracy shouldnt be for sale.

besides the rich are already getting a plenty good enough deal without getting extra votes too.


LOL, love your sig.

You too are caught in the quagmire of class envy. You have forgotten the roots of our republic in representative taxation. For those who are paying no tax, why is there representation and where is the equality for those who do pay taxes? Are the poor more equal than the rich? No? Then why does only one get thrown in jail for not paying taxes?

why did we move away from only landowners voting anyway? why did we stop levying poll taxes?

its not a bad thing to encourage all citizens to feel that they have a fair say in the government. pretty hard to do when "all citizens are equal but some are more equal than others"

Landowner voting and poll taxes are only seperated by, oh, about a century of history.

As far as equality goes, as I just said, only one class goes to jail for not paying taxes. Step aside from your calss-envy for a moment to really consider what representation and taxation mean and why. A helping hand would be to keep in mind the term 'tyrrany of the majority'.

1) that is what is called a 'yes, but' argument. It invalidates itself with no assistance from me. To somehow suggest that lack of informantion aka ignorance somehow made politics less corruptable would take a leap of ignornace I'm unwilling ot take.

2) Ancedotal evidence is never valid and therefore your point is null. I once new a guy who only used ancedotal evidence. you know where he is now? Dead. That's where. (tribute to Freaks and Geeks)

3) You are validating my last point of the thread, that you are responding with class-envy rather than common sense. Your insistance on calling the top bracket taxpayers 'Wealthy' indicated it, and your persistance validates it. Class jealousy is nothing that you can resolve with politics... Maybe a better job...


1. What I am saying is that because something worked in the past does not mean it will work in the future. Which is what you seem to be asserting with your reference to the founding fathers.

2. This is not anecdotal evidence but fact. I will provide you the facts when I have the chance. (You're not the only arguement in town.)

3. If I call the lower bracket poor does this mean I'm envious of the poor?

P.S. You shouldn't make assumptions about someone's background over the internet.

That is quite a leap. By what evidence are you able to make such a bold conclusion?

And yet you have made the conclusions that:

This would cause two effects, one - more citizens would demand the right to pay taxes so that they could cast additional votes (causing them to pay much more attention to government spending.) Two - the 'rich' would not be so eager for tax cuts as it could erode their political clout. Three - Tax fraud would be discouraged. Four - Lower tax brackets would likely narrow and become more fairly distributed, while there would likely be additional higher tax brackets for the super-rich.

What "evidence" do you have?

That is quite a leap. By what evidence are you able to make such a bold conclusion?

Common sense. If you are an employer and you have a choice between a candidate who supports the same policies you do and a candidate who opposes those policies who are you going to promote?

1. What I am saying is that because something worked in the past does not mean it will work in the future. Which is what you seem to be asserting with your reference to the founding fathers.

2. This is not anecdotal evidence but fact. I will provide you the facts when I have the chance. (You're not the only arguement in town.)

3. If I call the lower bracket poor does this mean I'm envious of the poor?

P.S. You shouldn't make assumptions about someone's background over the internet.

1 - Human nature does not change.
2 - understood, it is al ong night.
3 - No, it would mean you are inaccurate.

ps - I made none.

This is an interesting argument. On one hand, in our progessive tax system, certain people shoulder more responsibilty for maintaining government than others. On the other, we believe everyone should have a right to vote.

I'm actually seeing a valid argument for a progressive vote system if a progressive tax system is also deemed fair. Someone who puts nothing in the pot should not decide what is made for dinner.

What would be better and more fair, would be a FLAT TAX, and since everyone would pay the same percentage we'd have more reason to support everyone having an equal vote. If I have to pay 50% of what I earn, compared to someone who doesn't pay any taxes at all, I would think I would have a greater right to vote and choose how the money is spent.

For this scenario to play out it would require the highest tax bracket payors (note I did not use the term 'Wealthy' since the two are not synonymous, and my suggestion is specific to tax brackets) to vote as a single block - which they currently do not do (Someone earlier mentioned Soros). Meanwhile any potential bill such as that would not likely ever make it past the Supreme Court. The forefathers of our country existed in a similar environment to what I am proposing, yet they served and sacraficed fairly and valiantly in the War for Independance.

Regardless, where do you get your information on reservists household income? There are plenty of reservists and veterans who are currently in the top tax bracket. Without a source your statement is only opinion and not valid.

I suspect that many here are using class envy rather than common sense, mostly because of the common mistake of saying 'wealthy' instead of the more correct 'higher tax bracket'. This is all about fairness. Those who pay get a representative say.


You state the SC wouldn't allow such a law. Your suggestion is itself in contradiction to the 14th and 25th amendments by abridging the rights of individuals to vote.

And yet you provide no source for your claim of "plenty of reservists etc." pot meet kettle.

You keep playing the tune of "class envy". Do you think that giving the "higher tax brackets" more power and influence wouldn't increase that?

LOL, love your sig.

You too are caught in the quagmire of class envy. You have forgotten the roots of our republic in representative taxation. For those who are paying no tax, why is there representation and where is the equality for those who do pay taxes? Are the poor more equal than the rich? No? Then why does only one get thrown in jail for not paying taxes?

but everyone pays taxes, just not everyone pays income tax.

i dont think im in class envy so much as you are in love with money. why should the amount of tax paid in have anything to do with it? its not like having a level of income that requires a 33% income tax means you are a better citizen, more informed, smarter, more important, etc. all it means is that you paid in more income tax.

some people out there are.... serving in the military. their incomes mean they pay less than 10% in income tax. they deserve LESS of a vote because of it??

ever since the founding of our country we have been moving toward a more representative system. as you said, at first only men who owned land could vote. over the years it became all non-slave men, then all men regardless of race and background, then all citizens over 21, then all citizens over 18. we have passed laws to make sure that minorities are not shut out of the system by racial bias, language, ability to pay poll tax etc.

why would we want to go backwards on this?

i know kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country" but i dont think he was talking about taxes. are we servants of our country or is our country set up to serve US?

This is an interesting argument. On one hand, in our progessive tax system, certain people shoulder more responsibilty for maintaining government than others. On the other, we believe everyone should have a right to vote.

I'm actually seeing a valid argument for a progressive vote system if a progressive tax system is also deemed fair. Someone who puts nothing in the pot should not decide what is made for dinner.

What would be better and more fair, would be a FLAT TAX, and since everyone would pay the same percentage we'd have more reason to support everyone having an equal vote. If I have to pay 50% of what I earn, compared to someone who doesn't pay any taxes at all, I would think I would have a greater right to vote and choose how the money is spent.
with the flat tax wouldnt you still have the problem of one person putting in half a potato and one putting in half a cow? the rich will still pay more than the poor even if the percentage it the same.

What alot of people here are failing (or refusing) to note is that the "idle rich" won't have greater votes. They neither have (nor need) an income, and so they will only have a couple (or possibly one) vote. On the other hand, Dave Schmidt who makes $100,000 will be paying a hefty income tax, and should get votes accordingly. This situation will place most of the power in the middle class, where booth numbers and income abound, as opposed to the lazy rich, who pay don't have enough income or numbers to seriously influence anything.

You do realize that "income" isn't based soley on a paycheck, right? It includes interests on investments, profits, etc. These things don't necessarily need someone at the helm 24/7.

This is an interesting argument. On one hand, in our progessive tax system, certain people shoulder more responsibilty for maintaining government than others. On the other, we believe everyone should have a right to vote.

I'm actually seeing a valid argument for a progressive vote system if a progressive tax system is also deemed fair. Someone who puts nothing in the pot should not decide what is made for dinner.

What would be better and more fair, would be a FLAT TAX, and since everyone would pay the same percentage we'd have more reason to support everyone having an equal vote. If I have to pay 50% of what I earn, compared to someone who doesn't pay any taxes at all, I would think I would have a greater right to vote and choose how the money is spent.

Well said and a thoughtful point. It is, indirectly, a point I wished to make through this poll.

This is an interesting argument. On one hand, in our progessive tax system, certain people shoulder more responsibilty for maintaining government than others. On the other, we believe everyone should have a right to vote.

I'm actually seeing a valid argument for a progressive vote system if a progressive tax system is also deemed fair. Someone who puts nothing in the pot should not decide what is made for dinner.

What would be better and more fair, would be a FLAT TAX, and since everyone would pay the same percentage we'd have more reason to support everyone having an equal vote. If I have to pay 50% of what I earn, compared to someone who doesn't pay any taxes at all, I would think I would have a greater right to vote and choose how the money is spent.

Sure you would, and the person who spends 20+ years of his/her life defending this country would think they have a greater right to vote and choose how the country is run.

But that's not really a "public service".

Common sense. If you are an employer and you have a choice between a candidate who supports the same policies you do and a candidate who opposes those policies who are you going to promote?
That is currenly not practiced. How would these changes affect that? There iss no causal relationship which I can see.

And yet you have made the conclusions that:

This would cause two effects, one - more citizens would demand the right to pay taxes so that they could cast additional votes (causing them to pay much more attention to government spending.) Two - the 'rich' would not be so eager for tax cuts as it could erode their political clout. Three - Tax fraud would be discouraged. Four - Lower tax brackets would likely narrow and become more fairly distributed, while there would likely be additional higher tax brackets for the super-rich.

What "evidence" do you have?
There is no evidence, but a causal relationship can be construed without much difficulty. As I pointed out in my prior post, there was no causality that I could see in the statement I was challenging.

with the flat tax wouldnt you still have the problem of one person putting in half a potato and one putting in half a cow? the rich will still pay more than the poor even if the percentage it the same.

Yeah, I was thinking about that. Ultimately, it comes out being a similar burden to all. Half a potato is a lot to a poor person, and half a cow may be a lot to someone who is wealthy. What I don't mind is someone who puts in a little bit at the very least voting...it's the people who put in nothing at all, and ultimately continue getting free meals. What I don't like is a system that says, "Well, you're poor, so you just can put a quarter of your potato in. But you're rich, so you owe us fifty percent of your cow."

All this talk of taxes as if it was stew is making me hungry... :D

That is currenly not practiced. How would these changes affect that? There iss no causal relationship which I can see.

Then go clean your glasses.

If an employer has to choose between giving a raise(potential increase in tax bracket => more voting power), that employer will most likely choose someone that agrees w/ his/her political viewpoints in order to support them.

There is no evidence, but a causal relationship can be construed without much difficulty. As I pointed out in my prior post, there was no causality that I could see in the statement I was challenging.

Your own words :"Without a source your statement is only opinion and not valid. "

Sure you would, and the person who spends 20+ years of his/her life defending this country would think they have a greater right to vote and choose how the country is run.

If such a system were employed I would have no problem with a greater voting power being distributed to people who take risks in defence of the country.

You state the SC wouldn't allow such a law. Your suggestion is itself in contradiction to the 14th and 25th amendments by abridging the rights of individuals to vote.

And yet you provide no source for your claim of "plenty of reservists etc." pot meet kettle.

You keep playing the tune of "class envy". Do you think that giving the "higher tax brackets" more power and influence wouldn't increase that?

No, individuals would still be able to vote. It is probably that there would need to be a new ammendment ro accomodate the new tax/vote system. A new ammendment would help safeguard it from abuses. It is not that far off considering that there is also an ammendment regarding abolition.

My statement 'plenty of reservists' is not a qualtitative statement and therefore, by nature, ancedotal. I make no pretense. Your statement was global, in that you are applying it to all wealthy people.
"Wealthy people are less likely to serve as reservists (unless they have political ambitions and feel they need a little street cred) since they do not need the extra income. "
That type of statement requires substantiation.

As far as class envy goes, this is not a solution to that nor has it been propsed as one. Class envy is not an issue which need to be addressed by government at all, no more than spouse envy, penis envy or any other type of envy. What does need to be dealt with is the unfairness of taxation without proportional representation.

If such a system were employed I would have no problem with a greater voting power being distributed to people who take risks in defence of the country.

B0zzy, however, does have a problem w/ that. He doesn't consider any service that is compensated to be a "public service"

1 - Human nature does not change.
2 - understood, it is al ong night.
3 - No, it would mean you are inaccurate.

ps - I made none.

Human nature is constantly changing. Two hundred years ago being overweight indicated you had a surplus of food, today it means you are unhealthy. The tolerance and acceptance of different cultures is more common because of television. Today it is considered subnormal to live under a fascist ruler. Four hundred years ago it was the norm. In fact your entire argument hinges on the fact that a middle class exists. Something that is a relatively recent phenomenon.

PS When you say my arguments are motivated by class envy you are assuming that I'm not wealthy.

PPS Perhaps you should be more clear in who you consider the lowest and highest brackets would be.

No, individuals would still be able to vote. It is probably that there would need to be a new ammendment ro accomodate the new tax/vote system. A new ammendment would help safeguard it from abuses. It is not that far off considering that there is also an ammendment regarding abolition.

My statement 'plenty of reservists' is not a qualtitative statement and therefore, by nature, ancedotal. I make no pretense. Your statement was global, in that you are applying it to all wealthy people.
"Wealthy people are less likely to serve as reservists (unless they have political ambitions and feel they need a little street cred) since they do not need the extra income. "
That type of statement requires substantiation.

As far as class envy goes, this is not a solution to that nor has it been propsed as one. Class envy is not an issue which need to be addressed by government at all, no more than spouse envy, penis envy or any other type of envy. What does need to be dealt with is the unfairness of taxation without proportional representation.


And you would be abridging it by giving one voting bloc more power that another. The amendment regarding abolition "increased" the rights if individuals to vote, not decreased the value of them.

It wasn't my statement. "less likely" is as qualititative as "plenty". You dismissed it as invalid. Yours is just as.

Yet you keep touting it as the primary reason people are opposed to your plan which in itself would increase "class envy". It is merely your opinion that levels of taxation should equate to "proportional representation".

Here's an idea. Instead of scaling up and up and up, why don't we try this:

If the government has to subsidize someone's lifestyle, they get NO votes.
If someone doesn't live up to their full economic or social potential (i.e. they make less than $16000 a year and have not worked in civil service) they get 1 vote.
If someone makes 16000 - 110000 a year, they get 2 votes. They used their brains and/or worked a lot of overtime. They made something of themselves.
If someone makes over $110000 a year, they only get 1 vote. At this point they are now living off of the system; their earnings potential doesn't necessarily reflect their actual work ability.

This way the middle class really does get the voice they seek. The poor can't perpetuate their free ride by voting in bleeding heart charlatans. The super-rich can't oppress the masses by gladhanding the political fat cats. Everyone is happier, despite the fact that they are in constant state of class warfare.

but everyone pays taxes, just not everyone pays income tax.
This topis is specific to Federal Income Tax. State and local governments are a different issue worthy of a different thread.


i dont think im in class envy so much as you are in love with money.

How does proportional representation indicate that I love money? The argument could be made that I love my country even more than most because of my considerable financial support.

why should the amount of tax paid in have anything to do with it? its not like having a level of income that requires a 33% income tax means you are a better citizen, more informed, smarter, more important, etc. all it means is that you paid in more income tax.


You got it with the last part. You paid more. If the government takes more, then you should have the opportunity to have representation proportional to your contribution. Your intelligence, citizenry, importance and knowledge have no bearing. The government does not try to take those from you once a year.


some people out there are.... serving in the military. their incomes mean they pay less than 10% in income tax. they deserve LESS of a vote because of it??

If you think that is unfair perhapse you should be arguing to raise their income. Working in the military is something many people do for a reward beyond money. Not only patriotism, but also job training, personal growth and other benefits are desireable. I don't know many who join the service specifically for the generous pay. Nor would they for any other benefits. (and if we did pay huge amounts how would they be different from mercenaries?) Career military people make a decent living, plus often retire at a young age and get a second career. Those folks often have a considerable income.


ever since the founding of our country we have been moving toward a more representative system. as you said, at first only men who owned land could vote. over the years it became all non-slave men, then all men regardless of race and background, then all citizens over 21, then all citizens over 18. we have passed laws to make sure that minorities are not shut out of the system by racial bias, language, ability to pay poll tax etc.

why would we want to go backwards on this?
You forgot suffrage. This would not be backwards, it would be forwards. All of these people would still have the right to vote. The benefit is that we move to a more fair system where the voters get representation proportional to their taxation. As you know, taxation without representation, more than anything else, drove the founding fathers to seceed from England.

i know kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country" but i dont think he was talking about taxes. are we servants of our country or is our country set up to serve US?
Apparently, the rich are servants and the poor are served, at least as far as the tax codes and distribution of wealth currently read. Read my sig (line 2, by GW) for my take on your final question.

with the flat tax wouldnt you still have the problem of one person putting in half a potato and one putting in half a cow? the rich will still pay more than the poor even if the percentage it the same.

That is true, but at least it is proportional. It is a reasonable compromise between the two systems.

You do realize that "income" isn't based soley on a paycheck, right? It includes interests on investments, profits, etc. These things don't necessarily need someone at the helm 24/7.
But the taxes paid on it are still a seizure of assets.

Sure you would, and the person who spends 20+ years of his/her life defending this country would think they have a greater right to vote and choose how the country is run.

But that's not really a "public service".

A person who spends that time in the service has done so by choice. Unless you propose making taxes voluntary there is really no case to be made.

Meanwhile, a person w 20 years in the military should be receiving a beefy retirement check and benefits. If they joined at 18 they are 38 yrs old and still able to pursue a second career. Income should not be a problem for someone like that.

Then go clean your glasses.

If an employer has to choose between giving a raise(potential increase in tax bracket => more voting power), that employer will most likely choose someone that agrees w/ his/her political viewpoints in order to support them.

Not likely considering most employers know little about their colleagues political opinions plus the fact that running a good business is never trumped by politics. The risk is present (as it currently is today as well), but I would say the benefit from this behavior would be so slight as to be insignifigant, therefore the practice would be insignifigant as well.

Your own words :"Without a source your statement is only opinion and not valid. "

You're trying very hard but it is just not working. Speculation is an art you must be unfamiliar with.

If such a system were employed I would have no problem with a greater voting power being distributed to people who take risks in defence of the country.
It could be a reasonable consideration. I think the better option would be better pay, particularly for combatants.

Human nature is constantly changing. Two hundred years ago being overweight indicated you had a surplus of food, today it means you are unhealthy. The tolerance and acceptance of different cultures is more common because of television. Today it is considered subnormal to live under a fascist ruler. Four hundred years ago it was the norm. In fact your entire argument hinges on the fact that a middle class exists. Something that is a relatively recent phenomenon.
None of these are a description of human nature, they more accuratly describe fashion, politics and economics. Also, in what way has TV resulted in 'tolerance and acceptance of different cultures'? A satement of fact like this should be easy to substantiate.

PS When you say my arguments are motivated by class envy you are assuming that I'm not wealthy.
No, you are assuming I am assuming. I made no assumption. :)
[/QUOTE]
PPS Perhaps you should be more clear in who you consider the lowest and highest brackets would be. [/QUOTE]
Umm, OK, lowest tax bracket = those paying tax on their MAGI at the lowest bracket (currently 10%). Highest tax bracket = those paying on their MAGI up to and through the highest tax bracket (currently 35%).

And you would be abridging it by giving one voting bloc more power that another. The amendment regarding abolition "increased" the rights if individuals to vote, not decreased the value of them.

It wasn't my statement. "less likely" is as qualititative as "plenty". You dismissed it as invalid. Yours is just as.

Yet you keep touting it as the primary reason people are opposed to your plan which in itself would increase "class envy". It is merely your opinion that levels of taxation should equate to "proportional representation".

Um, no, abolition made the sale of alcohol illegal. Suffrage increased the rights of individuals (namely, women) to vote. Abolition was revoked with another ammendment... Thank God.

I won't argue symantics with you. If you don't know the difference between a global claim and an ancedotal exception I will leave it to you to pursure by yourself.

not sure I understand what you're trying to say with that last statement.

1) that is what is called a 'yes, but' argument. It invalidates itself with no assistance from me. To somehow suggest that lack of informantion aka ignorance somehow made politics less corruptable would take a leap of ignornace I'm unwilling ot take.

2) Ancedotal evidence is never valid and therefore your point is null. I once new a guy who only used ancedotal evidence. you know where he is now? Dead. That's where. (tribute to Freaks and Geeks)

3) You are validating my last point of the thread, that you are responding with class-envy rather than common sense. Your insistance on calling the top bracket taxpayers 'Wealthy' indicated it, and your persistance validates it. Class jealousy is nothing that you can resolve with politics... Maybe a better job...

"Administration Does Little for Reservists and National Guard. For each National Guardsman and Reservist called up to active duty, there are family members left at home who are making sacrifices. Right now there are close to 170,000 Reservists and National Guard on active duty, and with tours being extended it is estimated that nearly 70,000 soldiers and countless family members are suffering financial hardships. …And for an estimated 40 percent of these soldiers, the gap between their civilian salaries and military pay makes the separation from their families all the harder to bear. This pay gap forces cutbacks in house budgets, and many family members are forced to work overtime, dip into savings, borrow, or even go on welfare to cover the bills caused by the pay gap.

This past week (April 30 2004) the House considered and ultimately passed the Guardsmen and Reservists Financial Relief Act of 2003." - Congressman Tom Lantos.

Granted this article was written by a self serving politician, but it corresponds with reports I remember seeing on the BBC and CNN

Bozzy, I like your representation idea, but they were referring to the abolition of slavery. You are referring to "prohibition" in regards to the ban on alcohol. Prohibition, by the way, wasn't that bad of an idea. If prohibition still existed, you wouldn't have to worry about drunk driving or frat parties or any of that negative stuff.

None of these are a description of human nature, they more accuratly describe fashion, politics and economics. Also, in what way has TV resulted in 'tolerance and acceptance of different cultures'? A satement of fact like this should be easy to substantiate.

No, you are assuming I am assuming. I made no assumption. :)

PPS Perhaps you should be more clear in who you consider the lowest and highest brackets would be. [/QUOTE]
Umm, OK, lowest tax bracket = those paying tax on their MAGI at the lowest bracket (currently 10%). Highest tax bracket = those paying on their MAGI up to and through the highest tax bracket (currently 35%).[/QUOTE]

1. What is your definition of "human nature"?

2. Your statement... "you are responding with class-envy rather than common sense." is an assumption.

3. Could you provide numbers that would clarify the number of votes a person should receive based on their annual income?

If I were to move to your country with this system in place: I work there, and pay taxes, but I do not adopt your nationality: how many votes, if any, would I get?

What happens if I only live there a few months of the year, and thus only pay state taxes? Do I get to vote in state elections?

If I were to move to your country with this system in place: I work there, and pay taxes, but I do not adopt your nationality: how many votes, if any, would I get?

What happens if I only live there a few months of the year, and thus only pay state taxes? Do I get to vote in state elections?

A system like that would probably consider taxes on a foreign worker a right-to-work tax, I'm not sure how it works now under the current system but I think we collect taxes on any temporary workers anyway. No sensible nation would allow someone from foreign lands who has no intent on becoming a citizen to choose policies.

Bozzy, I like your representation idea, but they were referring to the abolition of slavery. You are referring to "prohibition" in regards to the ban on alcohol. Prohibition, by the way, wasn't that bad of an idea. If prohibition still existed, you wouldn't have to worry about drunk driving or frat parties or any of that negative stuff.
DOH!

That's what I get for staying up so late. Thanks for the correction.

With prohibition we'd still have speak-easies run by a flourishing organized crime syndicate. I'll take the frat boys any time.

PPS Perhaps you should be more clear in who you consider the lowest and highest brackets would be.
Umm, OK, lowest tax bracket = those paying tax on their MAGI at the lowest bracket (currently 10%). Highest tax bracket = those paying on their MAGI up to and through the highest tax bracket (currently 35% )

1. What is your definition of "human nature"?

2. Your statement... "you are responding with class-envy rather than common sense." is an assumption.

3. Could you provide numbers that would clarify the number of votes a person should receive based on their annual income?

1) Human behavior. Natural unconditioned responses. Humans generally will love their mother, seek social contact, work cooperatively, etc. I'd post a link if I had more time. Try googling Human Nature. I just can't right now. Maybe this is a subject for a new thread.

2) Again time is an issue, I have dial-up which slows me down alot. As I recall I started that with "I suspect'and it was not particular to you. That qualifies that as an observation and speculation. There is nothing wrong with that, particularly when a reasonable justification for the speculation is shared - as it was in the same post.

3) No, I cannot. Earlier someone posted a similar question and I made a few suggestions but left it quite wide open for debate. I don't think 100 would be a reasonable amount of votes for anybody. I think ultimately that it should be representative of the proportion of taxes paid. ie - people in the 25% tax bracket pay 65% of taxes, they should be allotted enough votes to be able to represent 65% of the votes. By cutting taxes people would also be cutting the influence of the top earners. Narrowing taxes would narrow the difference between votes. A flat tax would level the field for everyone. It would also draw a more clear picture for most people between their taxes and the national budget - whcih is currently too disconnected.

If I were to move to your country with this system in place: I work there, and pay taxes, but I do not adopt your nationality: how many votes, if any, would I get?

What happens if I only live there a few months of the year, and thus only pay state taxes? Do I get to vote in state elections?

Aliens and resident aliens currently do not get to vote. I see no reason to change that.

I disagree with the money system, an better alternative would be employment.
if you are too lazy to get a job, go fuck yourselves, you can not vote.
Note this would apply to all job holders, so 15+ and we would have to institute an system to allow the disabled and pensioners to vote, so an better way might be if you recieve any selected subsidies, you can not vote.
Man that would screw the Greens and other socalists.

I would have to disagree with that. Because not all decisions are ecenomic a non-paying citizen still deserves representation. By allocation votes according to tax brackets it serves the dual purpose of also discouraging userous tax rates on a minority of people.

I would have to disagree with that. Because not all decisions are ecenomic a non-paying citizen still deserves representation. By allocation votes according to tax brackets it serves the dual purpose of also discouraging userous tax rates on a minority of people.

Sorry are you taliking about my point
If so what I meant is by using jobs as a basis, not tax rate. As I said, people who can not physically work should have votes, but those who can not be bothered should not. For this description of job, homemaker/at home mother would be 'employment'
I also have a different view as in Australia voting is compulsory, if you are 18 and not disqualified on legal/mental reasons, by law you must vote. You get fined if you don't.

I say starship troopers style. Only those who fight for or other wise participate in government service get to vote

I disagree with the money system, an better alternative would be employment.

Not all employement is willful. Some is cyclical, that is to say not having work because of a recession. Frictional, moving between jobs. Seasonal, out of work for only parts of the year. And then there is natural unemployement which is a rate of unemployement that our system cannot move under, meaning our system working at it's best cannot employ all those who are willing to work.

So the lessons learned:

1) Not all unemployement are those who are lazy. In fact none of it is because the way the U.S. Department of Labor measures unemployement it only counts those who have been actively seeking a job.

2) Your system, like all others of it's nature, are intrinsically exclusionary and undemocratic.

All this talk about giving more votes to people who pay more taxes and how military service isn't a public service is very fun.

This kind of system is how military coups get started. Imagine I'm General Alpha. Even though I'm a General, the amount of money I earn, and consequently the amount of taxes I pay, is relatively small. Under your system, I get two, maybe three votes. Meanwhile, Mr. Beta, CEO of Oil, Inc., just earned $750 million last year because Oil, Inc. was awarded a lucrative contract in an area that my army just spent the last five years conquering. Mr. Beta gets a lot of votes, say 250. To say the least, I'm a little bit baffled by this. I just spent five good years of my life in constant danger of death, sending good young men and women off to die, and all I get are three measly votes, while Mr. Beta sat in his office on Main St. and signed papers for the past five years, and he gets 250 votes. How is that fair?

Now Mr. Beta, Mr. Gamma, and Ms. Delta, the board of trustees at Oil, Inc., can call up their cronies at Coal, Inc., Uranium, Inc., and Cattle, Inc., and together, they can probably mobilize enough votes to send me and my army off to invade another country, all so they can get richer and get more votes. I'm extremely baffled by this. And I'm also a little bit angry. I've done more for this country than any of those CEOs, in my mind. And, hey, look at this. I've got tens of thousands of trained killing machines who are probably only getting one vote apiece, and they see things the exact same way I do. Combined, they probably don't have as many votes as those CEOs. I say to them, "If I were in charge, all soldiers would get 250 votes instead of CEOs" and various other charismatic, motivating things that have gotten me to the rank of General. I suddenly have an army who wants to put me in charge of the country. And voila, military coup. I'm in charge.

Et tu, Brute? The people previously in control are likely none too pleased with these new circumstances, so they have me eliminated. But this doesn't have the intended effect of restoring the democracy. Now other military commanders, perhaps people who once served under me, see how effectively I was able to seize power, and they want to try. Hooray, now we have a dictatorship, and every time a leader dies, it's civil war as potential successors scramble for the throne, until Rome gets sacked, and BAM! Dark Ages. Is that what you really want for this country, the Dark Ages? That's tratior-speak there, Bozzy.

(I realize that this was all horrible, unsubstatiated speculation, but the logic is all there, and this entire thread, including the original premise, is based solely on speculation anyway, so I thought it alright.)

The first time I read your post, Bozzy, I thought you were insane. But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I think another benefit would be a substantial decrease in pork-barrel spending. Did you know that one of Alaska's representatives just secured 1.5 million in tax-payer money for beautification of a single friggin bus stop?

Link (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=770570&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

I also think it's funny that people are missing the point that the system you propose actually will shift voting power away from the higher tax brackets towards the middle tax brackets, while ensuring fair representation for all.

But then again:
Conservatives: just want to spend their own money.
Liberals: just want to spend other people's money.

:D

I don't know if anyone else has asked you this yet Bozzy, but in this speculation, are you getting rid of all other taxes and going to a straight income tax system? No property tax, no sales tax, no inheritance tax, no usage fees, etc? And what about corporate income taxes--would corporations get to vote under your system? Using income tax as the sole factor in determining who gets how many votes just seems flawed because it's such a small part of the current tax system and because it's so easy to dodge paying income taxes under our current tax code, especially in the higher income brackets.

That is one benefit, I suppose--high-income people would be able to trade off their tax shelters for more votes. I wonder how many would take up that trade?

Sdaeriji, you and a number of other people on here need to realize:

1) The difference in votes bozzy is proposing isn't that great. Instead of 3 vs 250, it would be more like 3 vs 5.

2) That general might have 2 less votes than that CEO, but the number of people in the general's tax bracket would FAR outwiegh the number of people in the CEO's tax bracket! So come election time, people like your "poor, disenfrachised" general and the thousands of army grunts would have way more political clout than the corporate execs.

Think about it. :fluffle:

But then again:
Conservatives: just want to spend their own money.
Liberals: just want to spend other people's money.

:DRight--that's why we're running such insane deficits under a "conservative" administration. I think it's more accurate to say Conservatives: just want to spend your grandkid's money.

Human behavior. Natural unconditioned responses. Humans generally will love their mother, seek social contact, work cooperatively, etc. I'd post a link if I had more time. Try googling Human Nature. I just can't right now. Maybe this is a subject for a new thread.

A subject for a new thread? A new THREAD? It is the subject of political, philosophical, sociological, anthropological, and economic discourse for hundreds of years! You can't just "google" it!

But, what I can say. I half expect that kind of statement from someone who ill-uses logic like a weapon instead of a set of rules.

Anyway, on to the matter at hand:

What is the problem with proportional voting? It's quite simple really. The results of our economic system, meaning the differance in incomes which facilitates these brackets and unequal contribution, is the sum total of all economic activity. The janitor, clerk, salesperson, blood-sucking marketer, CEO, and so on, are all equal economic actors. They are paid differant because their labor is priced differantly, but that doesn't mean that the labor that one provides is superior to others. It is all necessary, it all has to get done.

Your system, on the surface, seems fair, taxation = representation and all that. But it ignores the intrinsic codependant aspect of our economic system.

We have rich people because our system creates wealth and distributes it unequally. The individual rich person might be rich because of his/her merits and some luck. But the very existance of a leisure class is due to the sum total of all economic activity. And because you value gross contribution above individual merit (you implied so in your posts about political knowledge or ignorance, commitment or apathy, not being important) then proportional voting is a self-defeating concept.

A dangerous, undemocratic, backward, concept.

They are paid differant because their labor is priced differantly, but that doesn't mean that the labor that one provides is superior to others. It is all necessary, it all has to get done.

No one said that anyone's labor was superior to anyone else's. This whole debate is centered on the amount taken away as tax!

Right--that's why we're running such insane deficits under a "conservative" administration. I think it's more accurate to say Conservatives: just want to spend your grandkid's money.

I was refering to conservatives in general. I am in total agreement with you in regards to the current administration. I think our government has become so big and corrupt, that it doesn't matter what party leads it.

BTW, was that a reference to Bush's social security plan? If so, how is letting people make a voluntary choice to put a small part of their social security money into mutual funds translate into "spending your grandkid's money?"

All this talk about giving more votes to people who pay more taxes and how military service isn't a public service is very fun.
Agreed - thanks.

This kind of system is how military coups get started. Imagine I'm General Alpha. Even though I'm a General, the amount of money I earn, and consequently the amount of taxes I pay, is relatively small.
Umm, not in the US. A General makes a fairly decent income;
http://www.miltrade.com/average_yearly_income_by_rank.htm
http://www.army.com/money/payrates_officer_a05.html
This is irrespective of additional benefits. (Travel, housing, retirement plans, etc)


Under your system, I get two, maybe three votes. Meanwhile, Mr. Beta, CEO of Oil, Inc., just earned $750 million last year because Oil, Inc. was awarded a lucrative contract in an area that my army just spent the last five years conquering. Mr. Beta gets a lot of votes, say 250. To say the least, I'm a little bit baffled by this. I just spent five good years of my life in constant danger of death, sending good young men and women off to die, and all I get are three measly votes, while Mr. Beta sat in his office on Main St. and signed papers for the past five years, and he gets 250 votes. How is that fair?
Because your innitial hypothesis is incorrect, this question becomes inaccurate. You make the common error of confusing taxes paid with tax bracket. I earlier proposed votes be allocated by tax bracket, and representative of the total contribution to the budget based by tax bracket. (meaning in a flat tax system every tax payer would get the same # of votes, even though some pay more - everyone pays proportionally the same) As it stands today your CEO and general are seperated by one or posibly two tax brackets. That would not result in a 247 vote difference - more likely a 2 vote difference. The topic of how many votes per tax bracket has only loosly been discussed here, and also the fact is - tax brackets change. The CEO and the general could be brought to parity with one simple tax cut.... - or increase.

Meanshile, the general has to admit htat he would not have gotten very far without oil. The CEO drilled it, transported it, refined it and distributed it.


(I realize that this was all horrible, unsubstatiated speculation, but the logic is all there, and this entire thread, including the original premise, is based solely on speculation anyway, so I thought it alright.)

No, it was not horrible nor unsubstantiated. Speculation is acceptable when justified and you did so quite well. Only one of your asumptions was off - and even that is arguable since the discusion of vote distribution has been so limited in this thread. Discouraging speculation which is justified by reasnoable assumptions would be ridiculous. I WANT speculation, so long as it is well thought out and based on reasonable assumptions and assertations. It is how progress is made. Please, don't apologize for that.

I don't know if anyone else has asked you this yet Bozzy, but in this speculation, are you getting rid of all other taxes and going to a straight income tax system? No property tax, no sales tax, no inheritance tax, no usage fees, etc? And what about corporate income taxes--would corporations get to vote under your system? Using income tax as the sole factor in determining who gets how many votes just seems flawed because it's such a small part of the current tax system and because it's so easy to dodge paying income taxes under our current tax code, especially in the higher income brackets.

That is one benefit, I suppose--high-income people would be able to trade off their tax shelters for more votes. I wonder how many would take up that trade?

YES! You're catching on! Woot!

By linking votes to taxes there would be a discouraging factor in the use of tax shelters. There would also be a discouraging factor in the creation of userous tax rates. Tyrrany of the masses would become more difficult in regards to the setting of tax rates.

Property tax and sales tax are currently local and not federal taxes, there would be no impact. Estate taxes are a good observation - dead people have much more difficuly voting (though it's been known to happen). There is currently a STRONG drive to have the repeal in 2010 become permanent. It could become moot. Other taxes are flat or regressive taxes - they are pretty much flat taxes and only a small portion of the government's income. The exception being taxes paid by entities ala trusts, LPs and corporations.
Some of these entities have a pass-through provision where the income is actually taxed twice. (C-corp). Others have a straight pass-through where it is not taxed if it is passed through as income to the owner/shareholders. (trusts) I would suggest that double-taxation is ridiculous under any circumstance. The pass-through tax obligation is a better option. With that votes would be allocated the same - personal income tax bracket. Entities do not get a vote currently, and that would not change. Failing to take income from your business venture would only dilute your vote.

A subject for a new thread? A new THREAD? It is the subject of political, philosophical, sociological, anthropological, and economic discourse for hundreds of years! You can't just "google" it!

Sure ya can;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Human+Nature

Read up, it'll do you some good. There are certain behaviors which are very consistient, predictable and common. If not psycology would be no more credible than astrology.

But, what I can say. I half expect that kind of statement from someone who ill-uses logic like a weapon instead of a set of rules.

You have no reason to take that attitude, particularly in response to the post you quoted. If you wish to be hostile I will suggest a different thread.

Anyway, on to the matter at hand:

What is the problem with proportional voting? It's quite simple really. The results of our economic system, meaning the differance in incomes which facilitates these brackets and unequal contribution, is the sum total of all economic activity. The janitor, clerk, salesperson, blood-sucking marketer, CEO, and so on, are all equal economic actors. They are paid differant because their labor is priced differantly, but that doesn't mean that the labor that one provides is superior to others. It is all necessary, it all has to get done.


Close enough, though the disparity in pay is more complicated than arbitrary labor pricing. I think you'r point is that they all expend similar effort during the course of their work, and that is acceptable. But they do not contribute equally to the government. Regardless, this is not about economic contribution, it is about taxation.

Your system, on the surface, seems fair, taxation = representation and all that. But it ignores the intrinsic codependant aspect of our economic system.

Again, this is not about economics, it is about taxes.


We have rich people because our system creates wealth and distributes it unequally. The individual rich person might be rich because of his/her merits and some luck. [QUOTE=Nikitas]
(There's a hell of a lot more to it than that. Your bias is showing)
[QUOTE=Nikitas]
But the very existance of a leisure class is due to the sum total of all economic activity. And because you value gross contribution above individual merit (you implied so in your posts about political knowledge or ignorance, commitment or apathy, not being important) then proportional voting is a self-defeating concept.

A dangerous, undemocratic, backward, concept.

Actually, I never suggested I value 'merit' or 'contribution' more, particularly not 'gross contribution'. I simply said that if people are going to be taxed disproportionately then they deserve representation proportionate to their tax rate (Not taxes confiscated - or 'gross contribution' as you put it). A person can chooses to be politically informed or not, a soldier or a chef, they cannot choose to pay or not pay taxes. If you feel that taxpayers are somehow have less 'merit' than non earners that is your opinion.

50% of the population pay 96% of the taxes. That is more than just the affluent. There is no reason why thos taxpayers should only get half a say in what happens with their tax dollars. Their 'merit' is not considered at tax time, so there is no point in considering it at election time either.

I was refering to conservatives in general. I am in total agreement with you in regards to the current administration. I think our government has become so big and corrupt, that it doesn't matter what party leads it.

BTW, was that a reference to Bush's social security plan? If so, how is letting people make a voluntary choice to put a small part of their social security money into mutual funds translate into "spending your grandkid's money?"

Please, try to ignore unrelated threads, I'd rather not have this thread hijacked.

If people who paid taxes had a representative voice there could likely be more emphasis on fiscal responsibility. As is, 50% of taxpayors have nothing to lose by electing big spendors.

B0zzy,

I'm going to ignore your comment on human nature, even though you are commiting wanton and cruel violence on hundreds of years of human intellectual development.

So then, the matter at hand.

Well my aristocratic friend, you seem to fail to understand the connection between taxes and the economy. This isn't about economics, it's about taxation, you and your oligopic cohorts yell. Fine, I will speak more simply. Maybe you will see the connection then.

The wealth that the government receives by taxes, the wealth that the taxpayers contribute, and the wealth that they keep, all of it is created by an economic process that the members of our society (and others) equally contribute. The rich pay more, but they have more to pay because the economic process created it.

The whole point of a progress tax system is that those who have benefited most, the wealthy, contribute the most. Despite paying high taxes, the wealthy still enjoy a great deal of luxury and security that the poor do not. Yet the wealthy did not create this wealth on their own, it was created by a complex process of which they are a singular contributor.

You want to reward people by the level of their contribution. You chose the measure of taxation as an indication of contribution. I am showing you how that is not an accurate measure of true contribution.

And as far as the "tie voting to taxes and people will not dodge them anymore" idea goes...

That is perhaps the most naive pile of tripe born of ignorance that I have yet to see. The wealthy will not necessarily stop dodging taxes to get more votes. Why? Because they do not need votes. The influence they excerpt over government is far more sublte and complicated than a ballot. They run in the same social circles as our politicians. They contribute money, both "hard" and "soft". They have controlling interest in corporations with great wealth and influence. They are in the highest positions of the parties. They are our leaders.

They have so much influence that voting is a formality. Your system will just give them more voting power, but they won't trade tax free income for a voting advantage they do not need.

Please, for the sake of democracy, take your poorly disguised plutocracy and go hide in a deep, dark hole somewhere and never come back.

Niki;

In the fog of your snide self-rightiousness, you overlook the simple fact, which I stated several times, that 50% of taxpayers pay 96% of the taxes. You seem intent on addressing class rather than the broader subject which I have brought to bear, which is the point that those paying the taxes only get half of the say in government. Those who do not pay, who have nothing invested or to lose, get the other half.

Unless you have redefined 'walthy' to mean 'everyone who pays taxes' - you have completely missed the point of my thread in your narrow view of the world.

You are attempting, not so subtly, to hijack this thread by sucking me down to yet another tired old "capitalism sux, socialism is kewl" thread. I have neither the energy nor interest in disprooving that failed system yet again, most partucularly within this thread. If you want to have a thread on a tired worn out subject, start your own.

Meanwhile, let me hold a mirror up for you for just a moment;

you are commiting wanton and cruel violence on hundreds of years of human intellectual development.
aristocratic...
oligopic...
naive...
That is perhaps the most naive pile of tripe...
take your poorly disguised plutocracy and go hide in a deep, dark hole somewhere and never come back.


I would suggest you modulate the tone of your messages if you expect any further responses.
.

I was thinking about the original United States of America. The right to vote was not universal, it was limited to land-owners. This was because land was the basis of tax payment.

It got me to thinking about our current system, where 50% of the voters pay 96% of taxes. (Meaning that almost half of voters pay virtually no taxes at all)

So what we have here is almost a majoriy of voters do nothing to contribute to the support of the government. We already deny the right to vote to convicted felons - regardless of if they have been rehabilitated. Why should people who provide no contribution to the government be allowed to vote on the direction of (and spending of) the government? By diluting the vote of taxpayors we have, nearly by default, taxation without representation.

Here is my suggestion - the right to vote should be augmented by government participation. Each citizen receives one vote, but those who pay taxes get an additional vote for each tax bracket they break through.
(Important line, read again before you post - too many people are missing this important point)

This would cause two effects, one - more citizens would demand the right to pay taxes so that they could cast additional votes (causing them to pay much more attention to government spending.) Two - the 'rich' would not be so eager for tax cuts as it could erode their political clout. Three - Tax fraud would be discouraged. Four - Lower tax brackets would likely narrow and become more fairly distributed, while there would likely be additional higher tax brackets for the super-rich.

Then we'd finally have a system where representation and taxation are more or less contingent upon each other. That is fair.

I don't think that many people (if not most) would rather not vote and pay no taxes... than to subject themselves to taxes in order to get the vote.

that's my guess anyway

I was thinking about the original United States of America. The right to vote was not universal, it was limited to land-owners. This was because land was the basis of tax payment.

It got me to thinking about our current system, where 50% of the voters pay 96% of taxes. (Meaning that almost half of voters pay virtually no taxes at all)

So what we have here is almost a majoriy of voters do nothing to contribute to the support of the government. We already deny the right to vote to convicted felons - regardless of if they have been rehabilitated. Why should people who provide no contribution to the government be allowed to vote on the direction of (and spending of) the government? By diluting the vote of taxpayors we have, nearly by default, taxation without representation.

Here is my suggestion - the right to vote should be augmented by government participation. Each citizen receives one vote, but those who pay taxes get an additional vote for each tax bracket they break through.
(Important line, read again before you post - too many people are missing this important point)

This would cause two effects, one - more citizens would demand the right to pay taxes so that they could cast additional votes (causing them to pay much more attention to government spending.) Two - the 'rich' would not be so eager for tax cuts as it could erode their political clout. Three - Tax fraud would be discouraged. Four - Lower tax brackets would likely narrow and become more fairly distributed, while there would likely be additional higher tax brackets for the super-rich.

Then we'd finally have a system where representation and taxation are more or less contingent upon each other. That is fair.

I think that many people (if not most) would rather not vote and pay no taxes... than to subject themselves to taxes in order to get the vote.

that's my guess anyway

Ah, a voting system based on weath. Not exactly like, but quite similar to, the old way (18th/19th-centuries).

I LIKE IT

I'm not a rich bastard; I'm actually a poor university student, who is currently living hand-to-mouth, so you'd think that I'd be against the proposal. However, a modified oligarchy is probably the best form of government we can get right now. Most people are politically apathetic, or worse yet, are politically ignorant and vote for a given party because that's the way their parents have always voted, or that's the way their friends vote.

Besides, as it stands now government is an oligarchy; it's just disguised. When was the last time you saw your federal government be truly responsive to the voice of its citizens? Generally, the elites chart their course and pursue it no matter what the plebs say. When election time comes around, the controversy will be long-forgotten anyhow.

The only thing I have a problem with is that this kind of system would give control over to the Democrats for the forseeable future, since they're now the party of Big Money. Like an earlier poster said, who wants George Soros running the government? *shudder*

I don't think that many people (if not most) would rather not vote and pay no taxes... than to subject themselves to taxes in order to get the vote.

that's my guess anyway

Probably correct, and it would be immoral to make voting mandatory. However, though a person can choose wether or not to excersize their representative rights, taxation is never a matter of choice.

B0zzy,

I'm going to ignore your comment on human nature, even though you are commiting wanton and cruel violence on hundreds of years of human intellectual development.

So then, the matter at hand.

Well my aristocratic friend, you seem to fail to understand the connection between taxes and the economy. This isn't about economics, it's about taxation, you and your oligopic cohorts yell. Fine, I will speak more simply. Maybe you will see the connection then.

The wealth that the government receives by taxes, the wealth that the taxpayers contribute, and the wealth that they keep, all of it is created by an economic process that the members of our society (and others) equally contribute. The rich pay more, but they have more to pay because the economic process created it.

The whole point of a progress tax system is that those who have benefited most, the wealthy, contribute the most. Despite paying high taxes, the wealthy still enjoy a great deal of luxury and security that the poor do not. Yet the wealthy did not create this wealth on their own, it was created by a complex process of which they are a singular contributor.

You want to reward people by the level of their contribution. You chose the measure of taxation as an indication of contribution. I am showing you how that is not an accurate measure of true contribution.

And as far as the "tie voting to taxes and people will not dodge them anymore" idea goes...

That is perhaps the most naive pile of tripe born of ignorance that I have yet to see. The wealthy will not necessarily stop dodging taxes to get more votes. Why? Because they do not need votes. The influence they excerpt over government is far more sublte and complicated than a ballot. They run in the same social circles as our politicians. They contribute money, both "hard" and "soft". They have controlling interest in corporations with great wealth and influence. They are in the highest positions of the parties. They are our leaders.

They have so much influence that voting is a formality. Your system will just give them more voting power, but they won't trade tax free income for a voting advantage they do not need.

Please, for the sake of democracy, take your poorly disguised plutocracy and go hide in a deep, dark hole somewhere and never come back.

a)Why should the rich be taxed a higher percentage? I mean I have no problem with them being taxed a bit more than those right below them, but I do not understand the views of US liberals and European liberals/socialists that the rich should be punished (IE, exorbitantly taxed, forced to support the livelihood of a good deal of citizens they don't know) for being successful. Don't they provide enough by creating jobs, investing in businesses, etc, without having to pay 50% (about 15 percentage points too high, IMO) or more of their annual income?

b)In many cases, the wealthy did create the wealth on their own, or very largely on their own: the bootstrapping entrepreneur who started with nothing who took out a loan to start a business and used his wits to watch it grow such that it is now a multi-million(or billion..)-dollar company that supplies hundreds or thousands of people with jobs and provides value for consumers and investors.

I understand how a free market system makes it possible... but without determination, sound planning, and a willingness to take on risk, the company -- and all the services, investment opportunities, and jobs it provides -- would not have come to fruition. I believe that such individuals can have a great positive impact not only on the economy but on others' lives (by way of improving the economy and other possible things, like providing jobs) ... and that to exorbitantly tax them is wrong. Sure, they should pay their fair share, and maybe it should be higher than everyone else, but it should not be like double (by percentage) what everyone else pays. Success should remain a reward even after the taxes have been paid, and if you're being forced to pay half your income in taxes...

B0zzy,

Snide, self-righteous, and insulting I am. In fact, you forgot to mention where I called you ignorant. But I will let that slip. :D

But of all these things, verily I doth declare a socialist I am not.

And I understand your factoid and your resultant arguement. Those who pay should have a say. Now that is a slogan.

But, and I repeat, taxes are a faulty measure of contribution to the government. All the taxes (the wealth) the government receives are generated by an economy of which nearly all citizens, and some foreigners, are equal contributors. Because everyone is an equal contributor then everyone should have an equal right to vote.

The fact that 50% pay 96% is merely a sign of the grossly unequal distribution of wealth in our society. You want to worsen the condition of the poor by limiting their only political advantage, the weight of their number.

Your system overrepresents the elite and for no good reason. This is only specifically, though not on principle, dissimilar from the estate system of pre-revolutionary France. It is, quite clearly, an aristocracy.

Thanks for joining Gramnonia, welcome to the thread.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the proposal as well, though I tried to word it carefully at the beginning. Maybe you could even suggest ways it could be cleared up.

The taxes would not be based on wealth, but by tax bracket. Effectively, if there were a flat tax, everyone would get equal votes. Only as people become exempted from tax or charged more tax does their share of the vote increase or decrease. because it is tax braket based, the ultra-rich would never get a disproportionate share of the vote unless they payed a disproportionaltly high tax rate compared to everyone else.

Please note I said RATE. Currently the max tax rate starts at a MAGI of $319,100 with a minimum tax bill of $92,592.50. $227,000 net per year is not poor, but it is hardly ultra-rich either. Regardless it places them in a category of only 1% of all taxpayers who fall into that bracket.

Why should the rich be taxed a higher percentage?

Because they have benefited the most from society. And despite "punitive" taxes they enjoy luxury and security many magnitudes higher than their compatriots.

In many cases, the wealthy did create the wealth on their own

This isn't about meritocracy. Joe, Frank, and Winona may have become wealthy of their talent and will. But the very fact that their even can be wealthy people is due to the economy as a whole.

it should not be like double

What should it be like? What is fair and what is punitive? This is opinion, not arguement.

Pfft... who is hijacking now?

B0zzy,

Snide, self-righteous, and insulting I am. In fact, you forgot to mention where I called you ignorant. But I will let that slip. :D

But of all these things, verily I doth declare a socialist I am not.

..The fact that 50% pay 96% is merely a sign of the grossly unequal distribution of wealth in our society...


...an economy of which nearly all citizens, and some foreigners, are equal contributors. Because everyone is an equal contributor then everyone should have an equal...

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...


And I understand your factoid and your resultant arguement. Those who pay should have a say. Now that is a slogan.
Thanks, I like it.


But, and I repeat, taxes are a faulty measure of contribution to the government. All the taxes (the wealth) the government receives are generated by an economy of which nearly all citizens, and some foreigners, are equal contributors. Because everyone is an equal contributor then everyone should have an equal right to vote.

foreigners (and resident aliens) do not and should not. The concept or equal contribution is a cornerstone of socialist/communist dogma. It is a flawed presumption. This is not the thread to discuss that.


Your system overrepresents the elite and for no good reason. This is only specifically, though not on principle, dissimilar from the estate system of pre-revolutionary France. It is, quite clearly, an aristocracy.
You still define all taxpayers as elite.

The current system is flawed because it places 50% of the decision making process into the hands of people with no financial responsibility for the decision.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Is a standard that holds a special place in my heart. Years of ABC democracies. I feel so warm and fuzzy inside...

But this is all hopeless. Clearly B0zzy we have a differant understanding of democracy and fairness, and that kind of thing can't be resolved.

I honestly pray that this sort of reform never comes to pass.

ABC = Already been chewed?