Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#21
(Original post by The Socktor)
Would tax avoiders be allowed to vote?
Not if caught.

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#22
(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
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.
We do not live in democracies. We live in oligarchies.

Regards
DL
0
DontWantYourBloodMoney
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 7 years ago
#23
If we were going to start limiting who could vote, I'd prefer the introduction of a political aptitude test (as someone above suggested), as this means those who vote actually know what they're voting for and the implications their decisions may have.
1
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#24
(Original post by samaiar)
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?
Just as much rights except that the poor usurp the rights of the taxpayer to decide where his wealth will be spent.

The rich have lost their rights to the poor.

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#25
(Original post by Kibalchich)
everyone pays tax
Sure but much of it is done with someone else's money and only the foolish will not recognize that many do not pay taxes.

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#26
(Original post by noneofthemknew)
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.
I agree but you fail to recognize that at present, the poor have power over the rich and their wealth. Those who do not pay tax discriminate against the taxpayers by denying his right to spend where he wants.

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#27
(Original post by Swanbow)
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?
I am looking at one aspect of the system. Not the complete system. If you are asking if our systems are good then generally ---- yes.

Regards
DL
0
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 years ago
#28
What about those who are working but receive so little money they are below the tax threshold?

What's next - getting more votes for the more tax you pay?
1
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#29
(Original post by DontWantYourBloodMoney)
If we were going to start limiting who could vote, I'd prefer the introduction of a political aptitude test (as someone above suggested), as this means those who vote actually know what they're voting for and the implications their decisions may have.
Most experts do not agree on implications because of disorder and chaos in our systems.

It is all a shot in the dark.

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#30
(Original post by gladders)
What about those who are working but receive so little money they are below the tax threshold?

What's next - getting more votes for the more tax you pay?
No tax, no vote.

And yes, the one who pays millions in taxes as compared to the average should have more of a say.

Regards
DL
0
theonefrombrum
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#31
Report 7 years ago
#31
I think that this proposal is flawed simply because it alienates people from deciding who they want to run the country based on something which may not be their fault. What if a key part of a party's manifesto was their pledge to increase employment? A taxpayer's stance on that would be moot as an increase in employment has no impact on them as ostensibly they are already employed and so you're rejecting the opportunity for the unemployed to vote for a party who they feel has a good chance of getting them out of that predicament and becoming a taxpayer.

Also, your argument based on the fact that the money that the government spends comes from the taxpayers is missing the point that the decisions of taxpayers on how the Government should spend its money will be inherently selfish and not fair for all of society, which is what the Government is at the least expected to be.
0
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#32
Report 7 years ago
#32
(Original post by Greatest I am)
No tax, no vote.

And yes, the one who pays millions in taxes as compared to the average should have more of a say.
So you want to go back to the Victorian era. Oh well, I can see the child labour laws and workhouses laws lasting really long under that regime...
1
Skaterkid
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#33
Report 7 years ago
#33
labour will lose all their votes if that happened
0
akash11
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 years ago
#34
Thats fundementally against democracy and its sort of like moving back in time
0
Kibalchich
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 7 years ago
#35
(Original post by Greatest I am)
Sure but much of it is done with someone else's money and only the foolish will not recognize that many do not pay taxes.

Regards
DL
"someone else's money"? What are you on about? Bank robbers and that?
0
River85
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#36
Report 7 years ago
#36
(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.
How on earth can it be far to deny people their right to have their say in both national and local government?

What about people who are genuinely sick or disabled and cannot work? Should they not be allowed to have a say in important matters that personally affect them? Some of these people are among the most vulnerable and least represented people in socieity and you're prepared to deny them even this basic right?

But, yes, it's only unfair to students...

Also how do you know a person claiming JSA hasn't paid income tax for decades, before losing his or her job as a result of the economy and unable to find work?? Perhaps they've only been claiming JSA for six months after being in work for 30 years?
0
Kibalchich
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 7 years ago
#37
(Original post by Greatest I am)
I agree but you fail to recognize that at present, the poor have power over the rich and their wealth. Those who do not pay tax discriminate against the taxpayers by denying his right to spend where he wants.

Regards
DL
"the poor have power over the rich and their wealth"?

Are you for real?
1
samaiar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 7 years ago
#38
(Original post by Greatest I am)
Just as much rights except that the poor usurp the rights of the taxpayer to decide where his wealth will be spent.

The rich have lost their rights to the poor.

Regards
DL
I'd have to disagree with that. Just because the poor may need help from the rich to maintain decent living standards doesn't mean their rights have been taken away from them, if anything it is a duty upon the rich to make sure that people aren't going hungry just because they didn't have as much potential or opportunity. I know it sounds a bit commy but seriously if the poor didn't have the vote as they didn't in victorian england for example, you get the exploitation of these people putting them in a vicious cycle of poverty as again you see in some of the corrupt countries where votes don't matter. It just boils down to how much you respect human life in general
0
noneofthemknew
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#39
Report 7 years ago
#39
(Original post by Greatest I am)
I agree but you fail to recognize that at present, the poor have power over the rich and their wealth. Those who do not pay tax discriminate against the taxpayers by denying his right to spend where he wants.

Regards
DL
And the position that those who cannot or do not pay tax should not be allowed to participate in democracy follows from that how? The fact that non-taxpayers do not prevent taxpayers from participating in the voting system in any way that I am aware of seems to render this point irrelevant.
0
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 years ago
#40
(Original post by Greatest I am)
Not if caught.

Regards
DL
But tax avoidance is not illegal.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's stopping you doing a masters?

It's too expensive (17)
24.29%
My career doesn't need one (7)
10%
I'm sick of studying (14)
20%
I can't find a course I want to do (2)
2.86%
I don't know enough about them (8)
11.43%
Nothing, I'm going to do it! (22)
31.43%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed