Don't Pay Income Tax? Don't Vote.

In a hypothetical world where lefties must be held accountable for their actions (or lack of actions), it follows that if you don't pay income tax, you shouldn't ethically be allowed to vote.

Of course, we don't live in that world - here you can vote in free (*)(*)(*)(*) and vote for policies that will benefit you, at no cost to you. This is the world of free lunches, and it will eventually mean the collapse of a system *most* of us have worked so hard to build. Now to top off the typical counter-arguments:

"But they do pay taxes through sales tax, property tax etc." Not enough - the vast majority of revenue is coming in through the income tax. If you're not paying income tax, you're likely sucking out more than you're putting in. Let's try to be honest here and not dodge the main principle.

"But that disenfranchises millions of people" - only through their own decisions not to pay income tax. You want to live in a society where people are held accountable, and their governments held accountable? Then no income tax, no vote.

Of course, Bernie the Bum's supporters would disagree with this concept vehemently. But then again, who really cares? They're not generally net contributors anyways, so let them eat cake

edit: Just so it's clear, I'm speaking of working-age, able individuals, not retired people. So again, don't pull strawmen please, thanks

 

I thought you were a lefty trying to disenfranchise corporate higher ups paying no tax, but you just want to disenfranchisethe poor. I can get behind that.

Haha not really. I thibk we need to just get rid of entitlement programs across the board.this is a band aid solution.

 

The poor can contribute via income tax, and then they can vote. Otherwise they have no skin in the game...it's not about punishment (unlike liberal policies) it's about accountability.

 

Something's not sitting right with me.

Well, what about people who fall into poverty? So you're going to take their voting rights away from them when they're at their most vulnerable?

So if a bad policy pushes a lot of people into poverty they can't have a voice to change it? But the people who are prospering from the policy change get to keep their right to vote, thus their political voice?

Unreal! This is how revolutions get started.

 

But I don't want them paying no income tax. This proposal doesn't fix this problem.

 

Revolutions more commonly start from the top-down, despite conventional wisdom. At the end of the day it's about having skin in the game - a lot of people don't (I'm looking at you Bernie Supporters) and yet they have a say in taking money from others' wallets.

It's wrong.

 

When you become emperor, you can put that policy into place. We still have a few surviving WWII veterans, some of which I'm sure are living off of SS. I'd like to see you try to take their vote away. Crackpot idea, Murikawins. The right to vote is not contingent on income tax, or any other tax for that matter. Thinking it should be is narrow-minded and authoritarian. Quite un-American.

 

I prefer basing one's qualifications on IQ, rather than income, but I would support this if I couldn't get my system implemented. Income is modestly correlated with IQ, so it would be better than what we currently have.

I definitely don't think people who pay no net taxes should be voting. That is just insane to me.

 

We all have skin in the game. We're all Americans. Even you, Murikawins.

 

what if I am working, but my salary is low enough to fall below the minimum. Your telling me that I lose my right to vote? Really?

 

Our economy booms and busts. Taking away someone's vote because they were unlucky enough to get hammered by a recession would be insane. Our system is elitist enough as it is.

 

But when the people in poverty vote for politicians who take money from the productive to give to them is simply the other side of the coin. It's taking people's money to buy the poor.

 

Not as insane as people voting to tax other people. I say this as someone who doesn't even know what it's like to have money.

I don't think it is something that should happen quickly or immediately. Temporary unemployment or underemployment should not be grounds for disenfranchisement, but chronic inability to pay net taxes is problematic.

 

It's really not fun debating with you anymore, you take things way too seriously.

 

Sure it's problematic, ricky. We have lots of problems. Singling out "income tax" is arbitrary and thoughtless. Chronic smoking is problematic as well. It not only kills us, it places a huge burden on the healthcare system. Should we strip chain smokers of their voting rights as well? What about poor parenting, chronic obesity, alcoholism, etc., etc? I know you see where I'm going with this. Think about it.

 

Haha. Good one. (Not really. An obvious dodge.)

 

Absolutely we should take away their rights to vote if they fail. Why should the rest of us have to pay for their mistakes?

They don't loose their voice, they can always protest about it.

 

I didn't dodge anything - I specifically requested people not make strawmen about retired people losing the right to vote. Go back and re-read the OP.

 

Taxing the wealthy never works. But in Obama's vision, class warfare is more important than developing rational alternatives. "Tax the Rich" suggests that the rich do not work and that workers are not rich.

Consider the following super-rich people: Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Jack Welch (GE), Fred Smith (FedEx), Julia Roberts, Oprah Winfrey, and Michael Jordan. Next consider the merely rich (who make over $100,000 per year) and whose names are not common knowledge. The surgeon who operated on your mother, your accountant. Who among these people does not work very hard?

In fact, the majority of rich and super-rich people started out with little, worked hard and long, and went from [poor] worker to rich [worker]. THAT is the greatness of our nation. THAT is why people flock here to the U.S.

But leftist bought into the lie and helped Obama and Democrat politicians funnel more of hard working people's money to the government.

 

Because this is 21st century America, not 18th century America. Why should someone lose his right to vote because of
someone else's mistake? Why should someone lose his right to vote because his employer moved to China?

 

"Tax the rich, not the workers" implies that the rich should support the [poor] workers. But they already do! The bottom 30% - 40% of American wage-earners pay no taxes and the top 10%-the rich-pay over 40% of all taxes.

 

I think anybody paying less than 50K in income taxes should not vote.
Anybody who isn't rich, really doesn't have the best interest of the country at heart. Just their own interests.

 

So, your proposal in in the advanced stage. Tell you what, just list everybody you don't like, and we'll take away their voting rights. Because you say so.

You haven't provided anything reasonable to be argued, but it's quite clear who you don't like.

 

Well it's not that so much, everyone has their own interest at heart. It's easier to buy the vote of anyone who promises to take care of them. Because the poor don't understand basic personal finance either, survival mode, they are easier to fool with lies.

 

That seems like an issue with those who pay the wages. They pay so little, people don't even qualify for the minimum amount of the tax bracket.
But, have you heard about all the other type taxes? Sales etc? The poor pay a huge % more of their income to those types of taxes.