Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Error4001
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 7 years ago
#41
(Original post by Greatest I am)
Detail would be worked out. I am just looking for a general ageement of not.
The average taxpayer is not super rich.

Regards
DL
Your system would be too complex.

Furthermore, a charity volunteer who does not get paid will be denied the opportunity to vote. Is this practical?

I think people would be more agreeable to your proposal if you state that tax-takers will not be awarded the right to vote instead of "only taxpayers will be eligible to vote".

In the latter, people assume that voting is a right which cannot be taken away but in the former, it creates the perception that tax-takers do not contribute to society thus it is "acceptable" for them not to have the right to vote. You are simply turning material (money) into an intangible (contribution).

(I do have a devious mind.)
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#42
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#42
(Original post by theonefrombrum)
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.
Any rich person will vote for job creation as it lightens his tax burden.

As to your last, you do have a point on the selfishness of those who are taxtakers as they would never vote to have less of someone else's money.

That is why they should not have a vote.

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#43
(Original post by Skaterkid)
labour will lose all their votes if that happened
I thought that they mostly were taxpayers but if not, should they be voting?

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#44
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#44
(Original post by akash11)
Thats fundementally against democracy and its sort of like moving back in time
If you think you live in a democracy and not an oligarchy then you, as Carlin says, must be asleep.

Regards
DL
0
Maxisussex
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#45
Report 7 years ago
#45
What if you are a low earner and don't pay tax,should you be ineligible to vote because the government raised the tax free allowance?

What if you lost your job due to the recession,should you be ineligible to vote because other people messed up?

If people aren't allowed to vote,they aren't able to influence the decisions which could determine their ability to get a job and hold it.
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#46
(Original post by Kibalchich)
"someone else's money"? What are you on about? Bank robbers and that?
We are talking of taxpayers subsidizing those who are taxtakers.

Regards
DL
0
nixonsjellybeans
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#47
Report 7 years ago
#47
No- what about the people who have lost their jobs recently? and those struggling to get back into work?
Not to mention students/OAPs etc.

If democracy is ruled purely by money then I want nothing to do with it.
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#48
(Original post by River85)

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?
If it ever came to a vote and legislation, all the standards would be set and those who have contributed to the society would be recognized.

The intent of such legislation would be to end the second and third generations of taxtakers.

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#49
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#49
(Original post by Kibalchich)
"the poor have power over the rich and their wealth"?

Are you for real?
Are they taking from the rich?
Yes they are and that is power.

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#50
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#50
(Original post by samaiar)
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
Do you see the poor respecting the rich whose pocket they visit?
Are you aware of how much welfare fraud there is?

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#51
(Original post by noneofthemknew)
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.
As stated in the O P, when democracy was invented only those who paid tax voted.

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
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#52
(Original post by The Socktor)
But tax avoidance is not illegal.
It is here in Canada.

Regards
DL
0
River85
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#53
Report 6 years ago
#53
(Original post by Greatest I am)
If it ever came to a vote and legislation, all the standards would be set and those who have contributed to the society would be recognized.
Contributed to society in what way? How do we measure a person's contribution to society?

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.

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.

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.

The intent of such legislation would be to end the second and third generations of taxtakers.L
How would it do this?

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

Regards.

Me
2
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#54
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#54
(Original post by Error4001)
Your system would be too complex.

Really?
Have you seen the tax code?

Furthermore, a charity volunteer who does not get paid will be denied the opportunity to vote. Is this practical?

If he is perpetually on the dole, yes.

I think people would be more agreeable to your proposal if you state that tax-takers will not be awarded the right to vote instead of "only taxpayers will be eligible to vote".
Political correctness I find hypocritical.

In the latter, people assume that voting is a right which cannot be taken away but in the former, it creates the perception that tax-takers do not contribute to society thus it is "acceptable" for them not to have the right to vote. You are simply turning material (money) into an intangible (contribution).

(I do have a devious mind.)
I guess people will have to recognize that voting is a privilege and not a right.

Regards
DL
0
River85
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#55
Report 6 years ago
#55
(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
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.

(Original post by Greatest I am)
I guess people will have to recognize that voting is a privilege and not a right.

Regards
DL
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?
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#56
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#56
(Original post by Maxisussex)
What if you are a low earner and don't pay tax,should you be ineligible to vote because the government raised the tax free allowance?
I would think that he would be given the privilege of voting if he is contributing to the country through working. He would not be seen as a taxtaker as he is not on the dole.

What if you lost your job due to the recession,should you be ineligible to vote because other people messed up?
Standards would be set if and when legislation were passed.
Perhaps they will look at a net position of taker or payer over time.

If people aren't allowed to vote,they aren't able to influence the decisions which could determine their ability to get a job and hold it.
It is those with wealth, like taxpayers who create jobs. Not those who have no wealth.

Have no fear. The first priority to the taxpayer whose money is going to the poor and unemployed is getting him employed and contributing to the system instead of sucking on the public tit.

Regards
DL
0
Maxisussex
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#57
Report 6 years ago
#57
(Original post by Greatest I am)
It is those with wealth, like taxpayers who create jobs. Not those who have no wealth.

Have no fear. The first priority to the taxpayer whose money is going to the poor and unemployed is getting him employed and contributing to the system instead of sucking on the public tit.

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

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

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?
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#58
(Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
No- what about the people who have lost their jobs recently? and those struggling to get back into work?
Not to mention students/OAPs etc.

If democracy is ruled purely by money then I want nothing to do with it.
Then you had better opt out now as most so called democracies are really oligarchies.

As to those who are on and off the dole, legislation would likely look at a long term history to see if they are taxtakers or taxpayers.

Regards
DL
0
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#59
Report 6 years ago
#59
I wouldn't be opposed to that.
0
CEKTOP
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#60
Report 6 years ago
#60
(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
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.
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 (21)
23.33%
My career doesn't need one (14)
15.56%
I'm sick of studying (15)
16.67%
I can't find a course I want to do (3)
3.33%
I don't know enough about them (10)
11.11%
Nothing, I'm going to do it! (27)
30%

Watched Threads

View All