U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-01-2016, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
20,958 posts, read 15,275,811 times
Reputation: 23737

Advertisements

If anything, I think you'd have more responsible voting patterns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-01-2016, 08:41 AM
 
5,189 posts, read 1,977,570 times
Reputation: 1919
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
People who live in Section 8 housing don't pay rent that covers the owners property taxes.
Should they lose other rights as well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Whereever we have our RV parked
8,035 posts, read 7,056,459 times
Reputation: 13466
OP: I think its a great idea. IF you own property, its an indication that you are or were a productive person. Right now we have a voting population that has a large percentage of people who are not and never have been employed or productive, and yet have an equal say in the government to those who support the government and the economy in general. Once you have a population that thinks that elections are about voting themselves a better standing of living, because the elected officials will increase the free money they get from the govt. the show will soon be over, and that is the path we are on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Born & Raised DC > Carolinas > Seattle > Denver
9,351 posts, read 5,174,681 times
Reputation: 9406
This is a pretty crap idea, OP. Even for C-D lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 10:20 AM
 
5,092 posts, read 9,601,657 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
Why don't we have two branches of Congress - a House of Commons and a House of Taxpayers. Every adult citizen who is not a felon could vote for the House of Commons, which would be responsible for ordinary criminal and civil law, defense, foreign relations, and so forth. To vote for the House of Taxpayers you would have to pay some Federal income tax (not Social Security) or property tax. The House of Taxpayers would be responsible for all tax and appropriations bills.

Taxes and government spending would go *way* down.
. . . . bankrupt in a year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 10:30 AM
 
12,648 posts, read 12,071,712 times
Reputation: 17283
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin View Post
Let's say that only people who own real property ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_property ) are allowed to vote, but that in return the only form of taxation is taxation on property. Would this not incentivize good economic policy since only people who have actual economic resources to lose would have a say while people who don't have property don't need to pay taxes? It just seems reasonable that only the people holding wealth get to decide how said wealth is spent for the whole, as compared to the current system where people just vote themselves into prosperity using other people's stuff.
People who do not own any property also pay taxes, some pay a hell of a lot more than those who own property.

Property is not always an economic resource nor is it the only economic resource.

I am having trouble understanding how you think some family of four making $38k a year and owns some rather small, old home in a low cost area, and receives enough tax breaks to effectively not pay any federal taxes and even gets money back, should be able to vote yet the single guy making $120k a year renting an apartment, and paying out the rear in federal taxes should not be able to vote. Who really is contributing to the economy and has an economic interest?

Many people who "vote themselves to prosperity" own property, I have no idea why you think they are exempt from this type of voting.

If you want to address such things, at least do it realistically, for example; do like what I think the IMF does, in that the amount of money paid in taxes is the number of votes the person gets. Yes, absurd I know, but still more plausible than what you suggested.

If you really want to address this voting into prosperity, address as to why property taxes are based on the value of the property, which has nothing to do with the amount of resources that property uses. Address why so many people have a federal tax rate effectively of zero, and even receives money back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
11,047 posts, read 11,455,634 times
Reputation: 17205
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin View Post
Let's say that only people who own real property ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_property ) are allowed to vote, but that in return the only form of taxation is taxation on property. Would this not incentivize good economic policy since only people who have actual economic resources to lose would have a say while people who don't have property don't need to pay taxes? It just seems reasonable that only the people holding wealth get to decide how said wealth is spent for the whole, as compared to the current system where people just vote themselves into prosperity using other people's stuff.
I like it. Big money is buying up real estate at a high rate, and fewer and fewer people will be property owners in the future. Eventually only the nobility will have a say in government, and the general population will be in a condition of servitude where they belong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 03:19 PM
 
Location: North West Arkansas (zone 6b)
2,484 posts, read 1,708,335 times
Reputation: 3271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
I'm sure he knows that. And I'm sure he knows that it would not even take one complete tax year cycle before all taxes were abolished afterwards. I don't know of a country on earth where there are no taxes but I'm sure there are. I'm sure they are hell holes. I'm sure that there are wealthy people living well in these hell holes. Or what passes for living well in places where the homicide rates are in the top five in the world. Hey if America wants to experiment further with "have, have not" type winner take all, two state economic systems, who am I. Just do it. Why waste time with "only property owners get voting rights". Get right to the point and say, "we the wealthy no longer want to pay taxes". Oh, right... you already say that... well don't pay them then. Boycott the IRS.
This kinda sounds like Texas to me, just kidding.

OP's idea of taxes based on property is not too far from state economies where there are more poor people where the local economy relies on property taxes such as NY and NJ.

The other side of the coin are the states with more well off people where property taxes are lower but local economies rely on high sales taxes for funding the municipality.

Texas has no state income tax but they'll get you on sales tax and property tax and toll roads etc etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 03:43 PM
 
Location: NC
6,081 posts, read 7,027,359 times
Reputation: 12054
If government decisions affect you, then you should be allowed to vote. Period. Otherwise, why not just let the CEO's have the votes (j/k)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 03:54 PM
 
6,166 posts, read 3,251,225 times
Reputation: 12502
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin View Post
Let's say that only people who own real property ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_property ) are allowed to vote, but that in return the only form of taxation is taxation on property. Would this not incentivize good economic policy since only people who have actual economic resources to lose would have a say while people who don't have property don't need to pay taxes? It just seems reasonable that only the people holding wealth get to decide how said wealth is spent for the whole, as compared to the current system where people just vote themselves into prosperity using other people's stuff.
No. That theory doesn't even make sense.

It sounds like the old English aristocracy philosophy, which isn't American.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top