Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#81
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#81
(Original post by samaiar)
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.
I said nothing of ending the welfare state.
Just stopping those who do not contribute to it from voting on how much they will suck from the public tit.

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#82
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#82
(Original post by CEKTOP)
Voting democrat!
I am not a Yank and do not have that option. I am Canadian.

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#83
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#83
(Original post by noneofthemknew)
Just because this was the case when democracy started doesn't mean it should be now.



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.
VAT's are regressive taxes and should not be in place in the first place. They are anti-poor and at present those on the dole are paying it with free money taken from the taxpayer. As to the corruption you speak to, if only taxpayers were voting, chances are that the system would improve as those with wealth are not as easy for your corrupt politicians to buy off with taxpayer money.

As to democracy. What in hell makes you think our oligarchies are democracys?

When was the last time you saw anyone elected who was not a millionaire and whose position did not cost him millions?

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#84
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#84
(Original post by Kibalchich)
How much welfare fraud is there? As a percentage of the total welfare budget?
The stats I have show it at 3%. How much there really is, who can say.
That is not really pertinent as I see voting as a privilege and my main focus is the taxtaker being bought off and negating the taxpayers vote.

Regards
DL
0
amg_22
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#85
Report 6 years ago
#85
The idea that only taxpayers should be allowed to vote is complete folly. I, a student, like everyone else lives in this country and have the right to vote for who I want to be PM. No one has the right to take away from me otherwise it is not a democracy.
0
vivavangveing
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#86
Report 6 years ago
#86
Amazing. One day in the real world that could be you. You could get ill, be disabled in a car crash, anything could happen. Mummy and daddy won't always be there with that big silver spoon and off shore trust fund, bleating on about having to pay to taxes for 'scroungers' and 'skivers'.

For the majority, unemployment isn't a life style choice, the media - being fed by the government to mask the malice in it's cuts to the disabled and the work program /atos hell they've implemented- have created all this resentment in society.

I get that high rate tax payers, especially those in the lower end of the high rate bracket, are going to be very annoyed when they're hearing the daily bs the government are putting out through the media. And those scenarios do happen but not half as much as you'd think. A certain prime minister and Government created high area's of unemployment - destroying British industries - then another one came along and bloated welfare. Making people poor, then keeping them that way. Now this government are making them poorer and making it harder for them to get into higher education, or anywhere that needs a c grade: the English grade boundaries fiasco.

Plus begrudging people who have never had the opportunity's you have had and judging them - when you've never had to live in those situations - is beyond poor taste and what i hate so much about this country, those who have so much hating on those who don't, for trying to get by. Especially those 'baby boomers' who grew up poor, got a grammar education, free uni? and good job, then begrudge those who didn't get the same chances.

Labour started all of this btw, including screwing the nhs with pfi and this. They wanted people to stay poor as a captive voting audience; with things like tax credits, instead of a living wage.

Notice all the anti nhs rhetoric atm? Yeah its the government pushing ahead, because pretty soon were all going to see that they've completely screwed it; and anyone who can't buy their way out.

This is why everyone should be able to vote. We're all humans and we all have a voice. Thank god for the internet though, because the media are pushing the governments agenda when it suits them and most of the population are oblivious, or fall for it and join in, spewing all this venom.

Over 70% of mp's are millionaires, yet only 1.16% of all households are.
2
tasnimc
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#87
Report 6 years ago
#87
No, because any changes made by those voted into power will most likely have an effect on everyone regardless of whether they are a taxpayer or not. It's as simple as that in my opinion.
0
vivavangveing
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#88
Report 6 years ago
#88
Can i also ask why it's the poorest who are always hounded in these situations?
What about all the millionaires with off-shore accounts, and/or trust funds; like David Cameron's family!!
What about all the big businesses that don't pay any tax! If you have such a problem with it why aren't you going after them? Just picking on the weakest... nice.
0
anony.mouse
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#89
Report 6 years ago
#89
I'm guessing you're a tory seeing as this would benefit them most. Although, as a generalisation people in council houses on benefits are notorious for not bothering to vote. My mum does door knocking and they gave up on council estates cos everyone always says they won't be bothering to vote. These make up the majority of people that don't pay tax, so would it actually make that much difference to results?

I see your point, but then we're not in a democracy. Also can they have had a job and paid taxes at any point? Do they have to have been working the week of the election? Working for at least 1 year, since the last election? or what?
0
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#90
Report 6 years ago
#90
(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
You're probably best off looking at the reasons why this didn't survive before. Because it provokes huge, often violent resistance.

Now, with regard to the actual principle, it's the same fallacy I've seen a million times on TSR: the assumption that everyone who has moneymust have worked and justly earned 100% of it, 100% of the time.
0
noneofthemknew
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#91
Report 6 years ago
#91
(Original post by Greatest I am)
VAT's are regressive taxes and should not be in place in the first place. They are anti-poor and at present those on the dole are paying it with free money taken from the taxpayer. As to the corruption you speak to, if only taxpayers were voting, chances are that the system would improve as those with wealth are not as easy for your corrupt politicians to buy off with taxpayer money.
Free money? You mean money the majority of them payed as part of their NI contributions when they were in work? Remember those who has never worked are the minority.

The rich are just as likely to buy off corrupt politicians so that entire point is moot in this context.

(Original post by Greatest I am)
As to democracy. What in hell makes you think our oligarchies are democracys?
Well it's a representative democracy in that we may cast a vote to elect an official (as opposed to an absolute democracy which is not possible for practical reasons), any inherent corruption in the system notwithstanding.

(Original post by Greatest I am)
When was the last time you saw anyone elected who was not a millionaire and whose position did not cost him millions?

Regards
DL
Gordon Brown? Though if you want to be pedantic we technically elect an MP for our constituency not the prime minister and they certainly aren't all born into wealth.
0
Smushy
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#92
Report 6 years ago
#92
(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
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?"
I wish such a test existed, but I'm afraid it could have adverse effects. The test could constitute a risk for democracy because it could give the government an opportunity to prevent their critics from voting.
0
-doriangray-
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#93
Report 6 years ago
#93
The fact that most MPs are millionairs probably has nothing to do with an especially strong welfare system in which too much money is given to the poor. Actually this is more an angloamerican problem as MPs in other countries f.e. Germany or Sweden aren't necessarily rich altough they spend more on welfare. This would suggest that a more even wealth balance would also cause a more balanced wealth distribution within the parliament?
0
Kibalchich
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#94
Report 6 years ago
#94
(Original post by Greatest I am)
The stats I have show it at 3%. How much there really is, who can say.
That is not really pertinent as I see voting as a privilege and my main focus is the taxtaker being bought off and negating the taxpayers vote.

Regards
DL
Its 0.7% in the last year
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/...nal-291112.pdf
which is down from 0.8% the year before.


Have a guess now what percentage of benefits are unclaimed
0
jumpingjesusholycow
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#95
Report 6 years ago
#95
(Original post by Smushy)
I wish such a test existed, but I'm afraid it could have adverse effects. The test could constitute a risk for democracy because it could give the government an opportunity to prevent their critics from voting.
I can understand that and I agree, it's certainly a hard sell. That said, we don't let sixteen and seventeen year olds vote for that same reason that people who wouldn't pass the test would. The test wouldn't need to be partisan or even very difficult - just some basic questions about politics in the UK to those who separate those who aren't informed enough from those who are. It would even allow us to abolish the minimum age requirement for voting. Multi-choice would keep things nice and simple and it could be regulated by an autonomous panel with impartiality. Providing it'd be done it, it could be wonderful for our democracy. We wouldn't be nearly as scared of referendums if we knew only people who were knowledgeable enough to vote were on issues like electoral reform and EU membership.
0
River85
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#96
Report 6 years ago
#96
(Original post by Greatest I am)
I said nothing of ending the welfare state.
Just stopping those who do not contribute to it from voting on how much they will suck from the public tit.

Regards
DL
Again, this is all well and good, but a significant number of people on benefits are not just seeking to "suck from the public tit", but are genuinely ill and/or disabled, and already have little voice or representation in society.
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#97
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#97
(Original post by amg_22)
The idea that only taxpayers should be allowed to vote is complete folly. I, a student, like everyone else lives in this country and have the right to vote for who I want to be PM. No one has the right to take away from me otherwise it is not a democracy.
What make you think you live in a democracy when those who control basically all aspects of life are the rich and powerful?

I call what we have an oligarchy.

Have you seen this good esoteric symbolic production?

What make you think you live in a democracy when those who control basically all aspects of life are the rich and powerful?

I call what we have an oligarchy.

Have you seen this good esoteric symbolic production?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZUL5NFbwhc

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#98
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#98
(Original post by vivavangveing)

Over 70% of mp's are millionaires, yet only 1.16% of all households are.
Way too much to speak to.

Bottom line. No taxation without representation says that if you do not pay tax, you have not earned representation.

That is why Plato only had taxpayers voting.

Your last shows how we live in an oligarchy and not a democracy.

Regards
DL
0
Greatest I am
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#99
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#99
(Original post by tasnimc)
No, because any changes made by those voted into power will most likely have an effect on everyone regardless of whether they are a taxpayer or not. It's as simple as that in my opinion.
Then you would have the vote of the taxpayer negated by the vote of the taxtakers and provide fodder for unscrupulous politicians to milk for votes by promises of taking wealth drom those who have earned it.

Do you want your vote negated and the hands of others in your purse and politicians buying votes?

Regards
DL
0
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#100
Report 6 years ago
#100
(Original post by Greatest I am)
Way too much to speak to.

Bottom line. No taxation without representation says that if you do not pay tax, you have not earned representation.

That is why Plato only had taxpayers voting.

Your last shows how we live in an oligarchy and not a democracy.

Regards
DL
In Plato's Athens, women were treated like chattels and slaves could be killed on a master's whim. Are you advocating a return to those happy conditions as well?

Clearly society has moved on and nowadays we consider all citizens of a state worthy of at least the minimum say in how things are done - a vote. Even if they are poor.
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