Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Scroll to see replies

Contributed to society in what way? How do we measure a person's contribution to society?

As stated, legislation would decide that. Contributing to the system and country with taxes and reproduction seems to be what most look to in terms of the health of the systems. Even today, many who reproduce are given tax breaks and incentives to repopulate the country.

It is not only grossly unfair, but also grossly immoral, to deny people the right to vote and say on decisions that directly affect them. Especially, when they are out of work through no fault of their own.

Is it the taxpayers fault that so many drop out of school and cannot find jobs because they are not educating themselves?

What of the immorality of those who pick out taxpaying pockets deciding just how much they will vote themselves?

It is not about "taxtakers telling taxpayers what to do with their money". It is about EVERY citizen having the right to have a say on matters that affect them.

Let me give you someone elses comment on who should vote.

------------------------------------
Originally posted by michael1983l
This argument reminds me of the debate where people called on Citizens with a certain IQ not to be allowed to vote. You either want a democracy or you don't, if you want a democracy, then every adult citizen must have the right to vote (aside from prisoners) and if you don't have this then it is not a democracy.

The question for me is who should be labeled a citizen and who is a ward?

If you don't contribute you are a ward - IMO. A citizen contributes a ward does not.

You are saying that everyone in America regardless of IQ and knowledge should have the right to vote?
This guy can vote listen to his reasons. He says he likes that Barrack is black…he comments that being black is good. Does that imply being white is not? I don’t think he has the ability to make decisions that affect the nation – having a person with downs syndrome vote is the equivalent of letting pre-teens vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCKP-FQ3KcE

He is probably a good kid but his reasoning ability is that of a pre-teen at best. Even a high functioning person with downs needs supervision and cannot be trusted to manage their funds because they lack impulse control. It’s a symptom of the disorder in the DSVM.

I think that it is the majority of voters fall somewhere in between Dan (the boy in the video) and those who have some basic reasoning ability - that is what got us in the mess we are in. This kid is motivated by emotion like so many are - he is simply parroting the meme he' heard in the media, nothing more.

There is also a thought that a Democracy will only last until the people learn that they can vote themselves money from the treasury. Again, prophecy coming true.

------------------------------------

You also ignore that everyone pays tax. Even someone who doesn't pay income tax still might pay council tax, or VAT, inheritance tax, or any other tax.

I am not ignoring them. I am recognizing that they are paying that tax with funds taken from taxpayers in the first place.

How would it do this?

And stop referring to them as taxtakers. They are ****ing people. Human beings.

Humans yes. But not equal to taxpayers.

Regards
DL

Reply 61

The Mad Dog

As many others have said, no. The right to vote isn't purely isn't about taxes and spending, it's also about social laws.

Another crucial point is that surely the aim of all governments should be to get more people in work as taxpayers, and similarly the aim of all those you term taxtakers is, all being well, to get back in to work. And what if somebodies paid 5k a year income tax for 20 years and then loses their job and forced into taking benefits are they classified as a taxpayer or a taxtaker?

And that's before we look at the physically or mentally incapable of working who have no choice but to be a tax-taker, why should they be deprived a say in who runs the country?

Reply 62

Greatest I am

Original post by River85

Are you aware that the amount of welfare fraud there is pales into insignificance when compared to the amount of both tax avoidance and tax evasion by the rich? Or white collar crime?

And learn how to multi-quote ffs.

You are denying a large section of society a significant amount of their political voice and power, even when these "taxtakers" are not at fault.

Please tell him how this is right or a good thing?

It is more right and moral than giving some the right to pick the taxpayers pocket and give back nothing. We are being immoral to future generations if we do not stop differing our debt to them. If you are going to think of this issue then all aspects need to be considered. You are forcing your standards and debts to your own children.

Regards
DL

Reply 63

Greatest I am

Original post by Maxisussex

So you're not saying only tax payers but just hose who receive no welfare?

I said taxpayer and meant taxpayer. Legislation would look at the long term history of all citizens.

The majority of people are net recipients,so you would have to disenfranchise the majority of voters.

Hogwash.

You yourself are highly likely to be a net recipient when you pay moderate taxes and receive free healthcare,subsidised medicine,free education from 4-18 and then subsidised education at uni,you might be eligible for housing/council tax benefits,when you have kids you'll get child benefit,they'll have free education and healthcare.

You really think you should have the right to vote?

Thanks for the list of things that the taxpayer carries and gives freely to the poor.

Regards
DL

Reply 64

Greatest I am

Original post by TimmonaPortella

I wouldn't be opposed to that.

There seems to be a small amount of opposition to us but nothing that has hit any real snag so far. I think.

It seems that opposition centers on the rights of non-contributors and not the rights of those who are contributing.

Regards
DL

Reply 65

Greatest I am

Original post by CEKTOP

How about the rights of those who worked for their whole lives and paid taxes for decades?
Or for those who have yet to start working and therefore paying taxes?
And we all pay taxes, take VAT for instance, that is a tax, it is even called a value added TAX.

Your bs is sickening.

Do you not think that governments can set decent standards. I do and have spoken to your issues just above. Have a look.

Regards
DL

Reply 66

Maxisussex

Original post by Greatest I am

Thanks for the list of things that the taxpayer carries and gives freely to the poor.

Regards
DL

Where you privately educated?

Did you pay foreign fees at uni?

Did your parents refuse child benefit?

Did your parents pay for private healthcare?

You are a net recipient like most people,so no vote for you till you stop sucking on the public tit.

Reply 67

Greatest I am

Original post by The Mad Dog

As many others have said, no. The right to vote isn't purely isn't about taxes and spending, it's also about social laws.

True and those laws always have a cost to the taxpayer and the poor will always vote for whatever moves more from the taxpayers pocket to theirs.

Another crucial point is that surely the aim of all governments should be to get more people in work as taxpayers,

The first and primary aim of any government is to either get or retain power. Second would be to get people employed so that more funds are available to add to government corruption.

and similarly the aim of all those you term taxtakers is, all being well, to get back in to work.

For some yes but all being well is a wish. Not a reality.

And what if somebodies paid 5k a year income tax for 20 years and then loses their job and forced into taking benefits are they classified as a taxpayer or a taxtaker?

Not likely. Legislation would set the rules and will look at the long term.

And that's before we look at the physically or mentally incapable of working who have no choice but to be a tax-taker, why should they be deprived a say in who runs the country?

Why would you want a vote from a normal intelligence to be negated by someone's who is mentally challenged?

Is that fair to the more intelligent voter?

As to the physically challenged, we now have ways of helping them find employment.

Regards
DL

Reply 68

Greatest I am

Original post by Maxisussex

This is not about me. It is about all of us.

Regards
DL

Reply 69

Maxisussex

Original post by Greatest I am

This is not about me. It is about all of us.

Regards
DL

You are one of us and you don't think you should have the right to vote. If that's the case, just stop voting.

Reply 70

The Mad Dog

True and those laws always have a cost to the taxpayer and the poor will always vote for whatever moves more from the taxpayers pocket to theirs.

The first and primary aim of any government is to either get or retain power. Second would be to get people employed so that more funds are available to add to government corruption.

A good way to retain power is to make people more affluent, one of the ways you do this is get people back in to work. People earn more and you get back in to power - win-win.

For some yes but all being well is a wish. Not a reality.

Taking the vote away from these people isn't going to change their mind though, and the benefits scrounger who never want to work is a giant stereotype that doesn't apply as widely as many like to believe. A good way to get people to want to work is to make work more appealing than benefits. There's two ways of doing this - increasing the minimum wage or reducing benefits. I prefer a mixture personally. Another way is encouraging investment by private businesses which is something we desperately need.

Not likely. Legislation would set the rules and will look at the long term.

That doesn't answer my question. In your opinion should the person mentioned be classified as a taxtaker or taxpayer in that situation and crucially would they be entitled to benefits. It's a pretty central point to your idea that those who paid tax are better than those who haven't but you can't tell me whether that extends to those who've lost their job, are searching had for another job and there period of unemployment happens to fall during an election period. (they happen every year so this could affect hundreds of thousands of people).

Why would you want a vote from a normal intelligence to be negated by someone's who is mentally challenged?

Someone can be mentally capable of voting but not mentally capable of working. Also what the **** is normal intelligence, are you now saying that we should take votes away from people who didn't meet certain grade requirements in their GCSEs. That is utterly ridiculous.

Is that fair to the more intelligent voter?

Is it fair to the disabled person to marginalise them even more from society due to their disability. Mental Health problems that prevent a person from working aren't always completely debilitating to the person's functionality, much the same as physical disabilities.

As to the physically challenged, we now have ways of helping them find employment.

Okay what do you propose a person with locked-in syndrome works as then? I'm sure there is possibilities but you must recognise it is automatically harder for the physically disabled to find work. It's still much harder in the world of work for those who are physically disabled, and whilst the situation is better than it has been for a long time, they are still more likely to be unemployed. I agree with you we should do everything we can to help those with physical disabilities find work, but why can't you extend your view to those with mental disabilities rather than writing them off as good-for-nothing as you have done above.

Also do you have a phobia of tags.

Reply 71

CEKTOP

Original post by Greatest I am

This is not about me. It is about all of us.

Regards
DL

Well it's certainly not about me.
On my visa it is stated: "no recourse to public funds", this makes me a net contributor indeed.
And yeah I'm privately insured because I don't want to die while waiting in a queue if I would be unfit to travel back to the US to receive medical help.

Gimme the vote!

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 72

Greatest I am

Original post by The Mad Dog

Come off your high bloody horse please. There's 63 million people in the country, the vast majority pay tax. If we include public sector workers a you righties always love to it works out at roughly 9 million. The other 52 million could easily group together and vote against any money going to the other section of society out of their taxes. They haven't, which means that many tax-payers support the welfare system. They may want minor changes to it but they clearly support it.

A good way to retain power is to make people more affluent, one of the ways you do this is get people back in to work. People earn more and you get back in to power - win-win.

Taking the vote away from these people isn't going to change their mind though, and the benefits scrounger who never want to work is a giant stereotype that doesn't apply as widely as many like to believe. A good way to get people to want to work is to make work more appealing than benefits. There's two ways of doing this - increasing the minimum wage or reducing benefits. I prefer a mixture personally. Another way is encouraging investment by private businesses which is something we desperately need.

That doesn't answer my question. In your opinion should the person mentioned be classified as a taxtaker or taxpayer in that situation and crucially would they be entitled to benefits. It's a pretty central point to your idea that those who paid tax are better than those who haven't but you can't tell me whether that extends to those who've lost their job, are searching had for another job and there period of unemployment happens to fall during an election period. (they happen every year so this could affect hundreds of thousands of people).

Someone can be mentally capable of voting but not mentally capable of working. Also what the **** is normal intelligence, are you now saying that we should take votes away from people who didn't meet certain grade requirements in their GCSEs. That is utterly ridiculous.

Is it fair to the disabled person to marginalise them even more from society due to their disability. Mental Health problems that prevent a person from working aren't always completely debilitating to the person's functionality, much the same as physical disabilities.

Okay what do you propose a person with locked-in syndrome works as then? I'm sure there is possibilities but you must recognise it is automatically harder for the physically disabled to find work. It's still much harder in the world of work for those who are physically disabled, and whilst the situation is better than it has been for a long time, they are still more likely to be unemployed. I agree with you we should do everything we can to help those with physical disabilities find work, but why can't you extend your view to those with mental disabilities rather than writing them off as good-for-nothing as you have done above.

Also do you have a phobia of

tags.

You sure want to paint all people with the same brush and ignore the benefits the taxpayer brings to our systems. You are discriminating more than I am.

I do extend my view to helping those who are mentally challenged to find work. Those able to in any case. Those who could not contribute would not vote.

"That doesn't answer my question. In your opinion should the person mentioned be classified as a taxtaker or taxpayer in that situation and crucially would they be entitled to benefits. It's a pretty central point to your idea that those who paid tax are better than those who haven't but you can't tell me whether that extends to those who've lost their job, are searching had for another job and there period of unemployment happens to fall during an election period. (they happen every year so this could affect hundreds of thousands of people)."

There would likely be a long term merit system put in place for net taxpayers and net taxtakers. The ratio or formula would be decided on by the lawmakers. If a person worked and paid taxes for 15 out of 20 years for instance, then he would likely vote. If another worked 5 out of 20, he likely would not.

Regards
DL

Reply 73

Greatest I am

Original post by CEKTOP

You got it.

Regards
DL

Reply 74

The Mad Dog

Original post by Greatest I am

You sure want to paint all people with the same brush and ignore the benefits the taxpayer brings to our systems. You are discriminating more than I am.

I do extend my view to helping those who are mentally challenged to find work. Those able to in any case. Those who could not contribute would not vote.

What if they contribute to society in other ways than paying tax? On that subject what about unemployed people who contribute to society without working for whatever reason? What about housewives/househusbands who are financially reliant on their husbands - should only their husbands be entitled to vote? What about those still in financial education who are effected by reams of government legislation, shouldn't they get their democratic right to a vote?

It isn't as black and white as taxpayers and taxtakers. Government isn't just there to preside over the economy, it is there to preside over society. And that means all of society, black or white or other skin colour, rich or poor or middle-income, unemployed or employed.

There would likely be a long term merit system put in place for net taxpayers and net taxtakers. The ratio or formula would be decided on by the lawmakers. If a person worked and paid taxes for 15 out of 20 years for instance, then he would likely vote. If another worked 5 out of 20, he likely would not.

You going to start keeping a tally of taxes paid and taxes taken by every member of society. Ignoring the fact this would be a bureaucratic nightmare and ridiculously expensive, it would also be horrid to people.

"I'm sorry Mr Jones you can't eat this week as you've now reclaimed the money you paid into the united kingdom bank of tax before you were laid off, I know you'll pay back your next 2 weeks benefits in a month or so once you get a job but I can't lend you the money so you'll have to starve. Britain is now a corporation, not a country seeking to look after it's citizens."

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 75

samaiar

Original post by Greatest I am

Do you see the poor respecting the rich whose pocket they visit?
Are you aware of how much welfare fraud there is?

Regards
DL

we could always generalize here but at the end of the day we do need to reach out and help those that do need welfare. Think disabled people, single mums and whatever else you want that would have to resort to some extreme actions just to survive. I know there is a lot of fraud but that doesn't mean we get rid of the welfare state.

Reply 76

CEKTOP

Original post by Greatest I am

You got it.

Regards
DL

Voting democrat!

Reply 77

noneofthemknew

Original post by Greatest I am

As stated in the O P, when democracy was invented only those who paid tax voted.

Just because this was the case when democracy started doesn't mean it should be now.

Original post by Greatest I am

Almost all government bills have a price attached that the tax payer will have to foot. Taxtakers do not contribute to it and should not have a vote on how taxpayers decide to use their wealth.

Regards
DL

But, as I have already pointed out, taxtakers are still subject to the laws of the land, the state reserves the right to imprison them etc. so they surely they should have a say in the processes that lead to this? Otherwise you are essentially segregating people along lines of power, which defeats the point of modern representative democracy.

And again, what of people who are deprived of the ability to pay certain taxes through no fault of there own, e.g. by way of being made redundant? Surely this establishes a dangerous scenario in that a corrupt government is able to grab power by deliberately enacting policy that brings economic ruination on those who oppose it?

Finally, surely everyone pays some tax in that we all buy products with VAT at some point?

Essentially, you're putting forward the position that only those who are able to pay for it may participate in the democratic process, A highly dangerous one when consistent correlations have been shown between an imbalance of political power and social unrest.

Reply 78

Kibalchich

Original post by Greatest I am

Do you see the poor respecting the rich whose pocket they visit?
Are you aware of how much welfare fraud there is?

Regards
DL

How much welfare fraud is there? As a percentage of the total welfare budget?

Reply 79

Greatest I am

Original post by The Mad Dog

I haven't ignored the benefits the taxpayer brings to the system. My post was an argument for universal suffrage not an argument against taxpayers. Taxpayers are wonderful as they pay for public services but it's wrong to suggest they should be the only beneficiaries of such a system and even more wrong to suggest that those who don't pay tax shouldn't have a say in the system. The way to solve the problem of unemployment and benefit dependency is not kick these people to the sidelines of society it's to make them employable and bring them into society, why can't you see that?

And please provide examples from my post of discrimination towards tax-payers?

What if they contribute to society in other ways than paying tax? On that subject what about unemployed people who contribute to society without working for whatever reason? What about housewives/househusbands who are financially reliant on their husbands - should only their husbands be entitled to vote? What about those still in financial education who are effected by reams of government legislation, shouldn't they get their democratic right to a vote?

It isn't as black and white as taxpayers and taxtakers. Government isn't just there to preside over the economy, it is there to preside over society. And that means all of society, black or white or other skin colour, rich or poor or middle-income, unemployed or employed.

You going to start keeping a tally of taxes paid and taxes taken by every member of society. Ignoring the fact this would be a bureaucratic nightmare and ridiculously expensive, it would also be horrid to people.

"I'm sorry Mr Jones you can't eat this week as you've now reclaimed the money you paid into the united kingdom bank of tax before you were laid off, I know you'll pay back your next 2 weeks benefits in a month or so once you get a job but I can't lend you the money so you'll have to starve. Britain is now a corporation, not a country seeking to look after it's citizens."

Universal suffrage?

I can see taking from the taxpayer as the taxpayer suffering.
I cannot see taxtakers as suffering as they are inflicting the suffering onto the taxpayer.
Explain please how the taxtakers are suffering?

We could list exemptions to taxtakers all day. Rest assured that any who contribute to the country indirectly, at home mothers, vets and all the others who you say contribute without taxes, whoever they are, would be considered. As you say, taxpayers are generous and I do not propose a draconian system. Just a fair one and taxtakers negating the vote of taxpayers is not fair.

“You going to start keeping a tally of taxes paid and taxes taken by every member of society.”

That system is basically already in place.

“I'm sorry Mr Jones you can't eat this week”

Don’t be stupid. I did not say anything about cutting people off the dole. Just stopping them from voting on how much they will suck from the public tit.

Regards
DL