Conservative view of government.

[JoeOh]

Diogenes writes: If only people who pay taxes were allowed to vote, (the way it was before that idiotic 24th amendment was passed.) then you might have an argument. But what we have instead is the situation where a huge chunk of people who don't pay the taxes, are voting to increase OTHER people's taxes.

For one it's not a huge chunk of people not paying taxes. When the economy was good and the unemployment rate down around 5% to 7% (which means 5%-7% of the population were not paying taxes due to lack of income).

Secondly, to say that only a certain group of people should be allowed to vote becuase they pay taxes hearkens back to the pre-civil rights era of selective voting rights. As in the ones with the least amount of power got no say in the polls.

Everyone should have the right to vote, even felons. As everyone should have the same real chance for success in what they do according to the law.

[JoeOh]

Jccarlton, I guess I should read this books too, according to you:

"How to Help the Helpless Wealthy."
"Why Starving for Your Corporate Overlords is Good."
"Let The Invalids Go Hungry."
"Thank You Sir May I Work for Less Than the Minimum Wage?."

No thanks, I'll stay away from those right-wing propaganda books and think for myself.

Amazing, the Federalist is a right wing propaganda book. Making up book titles is pointless. At the very least you could actually find real books with this point of view. Just check the Progressive/Communist section.
If you don't know anything you don't have anything to think about. If you don't read you don't know anything. If you only read one point of view, you don't have any way of know what the questions actually are and end up just mouthing what others want you to think.

So you threw in a few baseline books to make your list look less right-wingy. Big Whoop. I don't need to sound off a list of books to make my point.

[alexjrgreen]

Msimon Writes: TAXATION IS THEFT

Wow dude, I didn't know you were such an extremist libertarian.

It isn't necessary to tax people. A 3% charge on company turnover will do (as payment for the privilege of limited liability).

[seedload]

For one it's not a huge chunk of people not paying taxes. When the economy was good and the unemployment rate down around 5% to 7% (which means 5%-7% of the population were not paying taxes due to lack of income).

A large percentage of people do not pay any Federal Income Tax. Large as in like 40%. Soon to be 50%. Lots of people work and don't pay a dime in Federal Income Tax.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes writes: If only people who pay taxes were allowed to vote, (the way it was before that idiotic 24th amendment was passed.) then you might have an argument. But what we have instead is the situation where a huge chunk of people who don't pay the taxes, are voting to increase OTHER people's taxes.

For one it's not a huge chunk of people not paying taxes. When the economy was good and the unemployment rate down around 5% to 7% (which means 5%-7% of the population were not paying taxes due to lack of income).

Secondly, to say that only a certain group of people should be allowed to vote becuase they pay taxes hearkens back to the pre-civil rights era of selective voting rights. As in the ones with the least amount of power got no say in the polls.

Everyone should have the right to vote, even felons. As everyone should have the same real chance for success in what they do according to the law.

I Disagree. If you are not paying the bill, you should not have an equal say with those who do.

Your influence should be exactly proportional to how much of the load you carry.

THAT'S FAIR.

[Diogenes]

Jccarlton, I guess I should read this books too, according to you:

"How to Help the Helpless Wealthy."
"Why Starving for Your Corporate Overlords is Good."
"Let The Invalids Go Hungry."
"Thank You Sir May I Work for Less Than the Minimum Wage?."

No thanks, I'll stay away from those right-wing propaganda books and think for myself.

Amazing, the Federalist is a right wing propaganda book. Making up book titles is pointless. At the very least you could actually find real books with this point of view. Just check the Progressive/Communist section.
If you don't know anything you don't have anything to think about. If you don't read you don't know anything. If you only read one point of view, you don't have any way of know what the questions actually are and end up just mouthing what others want you to think.

So you threw in a few baseline books to make your list look less right-wingy. Big Whoop. I don't need to sound off a list of books to make my point.

How about answering my questions about whether or not you support yourself and pay your own bills? Or is it too "right-wingy" to ask if you have the slightest clue about what you are discussing?

[seedload]

I Disagree. If you are not paying the bill, you should not have an equal say with those who do.

Your influence should be exactly proportional to how much of the load you carry.

THAT'S FAIR.

There are lots of things that are shared equally or even disproportionately more by those who don't pay as many of the bills. For example, military service, especially during a time of a draft. Not having an equal say in whether you are conscripted to die in defense of your country is a pretty big example of why you can't just make it about who pays the bills. Bills get paid in ways other than just money.

Besides, if Matt Damon gets 300 votes for my one, I will be a little upset about it, thank you very much.

[JoeOh]

Diogenes, sure I'll tell ya how I'm getting along. Right now for the past 9 months I've been filling out applications just to find ANY job with no success. I did get a couple of "interviews" but nothing came from them.

I am right now house sitting for some friends who are out of the country on family business. They are taking care of the bills. I would help but I can't find a job. I've tried fast food joints, gas stations, and even temp services whom I update my info every 6 months to stay in their rolls so I can be reached when they do have something for me.

And as far as fair-load vote tax representation is just bunk. In that case those with the most "load" will control everyone else. Sounds like feudalistic hogwashery to me.

[alexjrgreen]

I Disagree. If you are not paying the bill, you should not have an equal say with those who do.

Your influence should be exactly proportional to how much of the load you carry.

THAT'S FAIR.

Wouldn't that put Bill Gates in charge?

[Diogenes]

Diogenes, sure I'll tell ya how I'm getting along. Right now for the past 9 months I've been filling out applications just to find ANY job with no success. I did get a couple of "interviews" but nothing came from them.

I am right now house sitting for some friends who are out of the country on family business. They are taking care of the bills. I would help but I can't find a job. I've tried fast food joints, gas stations, and even temp services whom I update my info every 6 months to stay in their rolls so I can be reached when they do have something for me.

My sympathies. I've been in similar straits, though it was a long time ago.

[seedload]

And as far as fair-load vote tax representation is just bunk. In that case those with the most "load" will control everyone else. Sounds like feudalistic hogwashery to me.

If you feel this way then you must be able to admit that the idea that those with the least load and the most benefit will control everyone else is a real threat as well.

[Diogenes]

Besides, if Matt Damon gets 300 votes for my one, I will be a little upset about it, thank you very much.

And as far as fair-load vote tax representation is just bunk. In that case those with the most "load" will control everyone else. Sounds like feudalistic hogwashery to me.

Wouldn't that put Bill Gates in charge?

Seems to be a common objection to the idea.

Millionaires:
HNWIs (more than $1 million, in 2006)
Region Number Percentage of regional population
Global 9,500,000 0.15%
North America 3,000,000 0.62%


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire


aboout 2.6 millionaires in the US. it would be pretty hard to name them all.
1 Los Angeles County, CA 262,800
2 Cook County, IL 167,873
3 Orange County, CA 113,299
4 Maricopa County, AZ 106,210
5 San Diego County, CA 100,030
6 Harris County, TX 96,593
7 Nassau County, NY 78,816
8 Santa Clara County, CA 75,371
9 Palm Beach County, FL 69,871
10 Middlesex County, MA 67,552
those are the top ten counties for highest amount of resident millionaires.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 759AA28G91




Billionaires in North America

Total = 388
Rank Nation Number of billionaires Notes
1 United States 359
2 Canada 23
3 Mexico 9


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... llionaires


3 Million millionaires + 359 Billionaires Vs. 300 million population.

100/1 ratio = 1% of the total population. Most of them living in Liberal parts of the country anyway.


Obviously they aren't interfering with the Political system the way it is now. [/sarcasm]


Do you really think that the taxes paid by 1% of the population will be equal to that of the other 99% ?



Also, did any of you give this idea serious thought, or did you just blurt out the first thing that came to your mind?

[Skipjack]

I Disagree. If you are not paying the bill, you should not have an equal say with those who do.

Your influence should be exactly proportional to how much of the load you carry.

THAT'S FAIR.

Well, there was a time when the rich had the say here in Austria. That was the time of monarchy. The richest of the all the emperor was the boss and then it went down the hirarchy to the counts and barons, etc.
At some point in history they even had elections of who shall be emperor, but only the Herzoege (dukes) were allowed to have a vote.
The common people had no say in anything, of course. Now one can argue about whether it was good or bad. Some older Austrians that I knew that still got to know the empire, were actually quite fond of it.
Again that is what is called a monarchy. There are still a few monarchies on this planet. I am sure you can find one that is suitable for you. I do doubt though that you will be happy.
If you want democracy however, then you need to accept that everybody has the right to vote and the majority gets to say what is to be done.

[JoeOh]

And as far as fair-load vote tax representation is just bunk. In that case those with the most "load" will control everyone else. Sounds like feudalistic hogwashery to me.

If you feel this way then you must be able to admit that the idea that those with the least load and the most benefit will control everyone else is a real threat as well.

Oh yea, because the rich are suffering so much in this country. I feel Sooo bad for them. [/sarcasm]

Again you can always read the book "How to Help the Helpless Wealthy" written by R. D. Tard Poorman to help you understand how much the super-rich are being brutalized unjustly by the poor.

Sheesh.

[seedload]

Also, did any of you give this idea serious thought, or did you just blurt out the first thing that came to your mind?

Actually, I thought I gave a very thoughtful reply, which you didn't quote or respond to, followed by a bit of a joke, that you did respond to. Remember this?

There are lots of things that are shared equally or even disproportionately more by those who don't pay as many of the bills. For example, military service, especially during a time of a draft. Not having an equal say in whether you are conscripted to die in defense of your country is a pretty big example of why you can't just make it about who pays the bills. Bills get paid in ways other than just money.

Regarding your numbers, yes the millionaires have a giant effect. First, you are talking about taxes paid. Most people earning up to say 100K or so aren't paying much more than say 10% of their income, after deductions, in income tax. So, say 10K of vote worth for the average 100K earner (call them me although this is very approximate). A teacher making 40K might only get a thousand bucks or so of vote after taking all of their deductions. Matt Damon makes 10M a year and is paying a larger percentage in income tax, say approaching 28%. So Matt gets 2800000 in voting power. As a ratio, Matt gets 3000 votes to my 10 and the teachers 1. A miliary man fighting for you in Afganistan probably isn't paying any federal income tax. He doesn't get a vote. Nor does 40% of the population.

Now I admit that being a millionaire doesn't necessarily mean that you have a million dollars of income in a year, like Matt does. But, there are plenty that have far more income than Matt. I don't want a Fannie Mae executive getting 1000 votes to my one. My son's friends dad makes a million a year. He would get 20 votes to my 1. He is an exec of a Hostpital. Do you recognize the conflict of interest to give him 20 times the voting power on Health Care that I have? Yes, I think that 1% millionaires can have a huge influence.

Yes, I considered your idea. I don't like it.