The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today’s terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.

There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.

Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.

This is counter to the taxpayer’s wishes.

Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?

If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.

Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?

Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?

Regards
DL

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for gladders
gladders
16
What kind of tax do you mean? Only income tax? Then what of pensioners and the unemployed? Sales tax? VAT? The latter will give the vote to everybody (including the underage!)
Reply 2
Avatar for Error4001
Error4001
Would a taxpayer who has lost his job 3 weeks before the election be eligible to vote under this system of yours?

Furthermore, taxpayer and tax takers are not mutually exclusive. There are taxpayers who receive handouts in the form of Child Benefits etc. If we were to include all tax-takers, then the only people that would be voting would most likely be the super rich and single taxpayers who are not on the council housing waiting list along with the other minorities.
(edited 11 years ago)
No. As this would surely mean from income tax?

I pay taxes through other means and therefore should have just as much a right to have a say in where that money goes.
Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?


No. Anyone who is eligible to vote should be allowed to vote, regardless of their ability (or lack thereof) to pay taxes.

A far more pertinent question would be "should people have to pass a basic political aptitude test to be allowed to vote?"
Hmm. Taxpayers ie income tax payers? That sounds pretty fair. They're contributing more than those who don't pay income tax, or are on JSA - since it's their money being spent it should really be their decision. Plus, it's encouraging right (ie voting) and responsibility (contributing back, helping those who need it) to go together. And if anything is an incentive to work hard and earn well.
EDIT: the only real issue I can see is students, who will be future taxpayers not getting their day. But I guess when they are able to contribute they will, so it's fair enough really.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 6
Avatar for SillyEddy
SillyEddy
18
I think it was politics which meant that I've never had to pay a penny in tax (because I never earnt enough as a student with a part-time job). So why would it become politics to not let me vote?

In essence, it would purely be a method to limit who could vote by putting up more political measures. Politics controlling politics.
Would tax avoiders be allowed to vote?
OP thinks there is only 1 sort of tax and it gets taken from you every pay day. lol.
Reply 9
Avatar for Mbob
Mbob
12
Original post by joker12345
Hmm. Taxpayers ie income tax payers? That sounds pretty fair. They're contributing more than those who don't pay income tax, or are on JSA - since it's their money being spent it should really be their decision. Plus, it's encouraging right (ie voting) and responsibility (contributing back, helping those who need it) to go together. And if anything is an incentive to work hard and earn well.
EDIT: the only real issue I can see is students, who will be future taxpayers not getting their day. But I guess when they are able to contribute they will, so it's fair enough really.


Not necessarily. What about someone who earns enough to pay a reasonable amount of income tax but has five children who will be educated and has a number of medical treatments on the NHS - they will be taking out more than they put in, and probably more than someone who just claims JSA but isn't using any other services.

In fact I think you'll find that the majority of the population take out more than they put in over the course of their lives. (People have done studies to show this, but then it's kind of obvious it would happen anyway if you consider the shape of raw income distributions).
I would say that I am opposed to democracy in principle.

You wouldn't give everybody a say in any other important decision; how to fly a plane, how to build a nuclear powerplant, how to draft a complex contractual document - so why is everybody, including those with absolutely zero knowledge of economics, given a say in how the country is run?

Now, we like to think that politics isn't rocket science, but it's often not simple. It's bizarre to me. Most voters haven't got a clue about the implications of policies they support. Terrible policies often pass by popular demand.

I can't recommend the book 'The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies' by Bryan Caplan highly enough.

However, I don't think in this day and age that reducing democracy would be possible. Instead, I think the only solution is to limit the scope of government to that of a minimal state; a state that exists only to protect life, liberty and property.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 11
Avatar for Empire08
Empire08
No. MPs make the laws of the land that everyone has to follow. Therefore everyone should have in a say in what MPs get elected.
Reply 12
Avatar for samaiar
samaiar
4
that would mean traveling back in time when we discriminated between rich and poor, it would allow the rich to have more power and be able to make more money off the poor as they already do by taking away their rights. think we should respect everyones rights not just people who are better off i dont see how you can actually think that?
Reply 13
Avatar for Kibalchich
Kibalchich
Original post by Greatest I am
Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today’s terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.

There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.

Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.

This is counter to the taxpayer’s wishes.

Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?

If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.

Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?

Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?

Regards
DL


everyone pays tax
No because non-taxpayers are still subject to the power of the state just as much as taxpayers are, by removing a non-taxpayers right to vote you are essentially giving one group power over the other. Additionally, people may become non-taxpayers through no choice of their own e.g. by being made redundant.
Original post by gladders
What kind of tax do you mean? Only income tax? Then what of pensioners and the unemployed? Sales tax? VAT? The latter will give the vote to everybody (including the underage!)


All taxes.

VAT is paid by many with funds they get from a taxpayer. Many do not work for those funds.

Regards
DL
Reply 16
Avatar for Swanbow
Swanbow
19
Think of it this way. The government have made you redundant from your public sector job and the economy hasn't picked so there aren't any jobs going in the private sector. You have been unemployed, through no fault of your own for the last 6 months and when the general election takes place you don't have the right to elect a more competent government that the previous one as you are no longer a 'taxpayer'. Do you actually think that is a good and fair system?
Original post by Error4001
Would a taxpayer who has lost his job 3 weeks before the election be eligible to vote under this system of yours?

Furthermore, taxpayer and tax takers are not mutually exclusive. There are taxpayers who receive handouts in the form of Child Benefits etc. If we were to include all tax-takers, then the only people that would be voting would most likely be the super rich and single taxpayers who are not on the council housing waiting list along with the other minorities.


Detail would be worked out. I am just looking for a general ageement of not.
The average taxpayer is not super rich.

Regards
DL
Original post by SirMasterKey
No. As this would surely mean from income tax?

I pay taxes through other means and therefore should have just as much a right to have a say in where that money goes.


Yet none of us do after we pay it out and your negative answer says we never will.

Regards
DL
Original post by SillyEddy
I think it was politics which meant that I've never had to pay a penny in tax (because I never earnt enough as a student with a part-time job). So why would it become politics to not let me vote?

In essence, it would purely be a method to limit who could vote by putting up more political measures. Politics controlling politics.


It wold be a further control yes. Why should taxtakers have a say on where taxpayers spend their wealth?

Regards
DL

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you