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 04-04-2016, 08:52 PM
 
Location: midvalley Oregon and Eastside seattle area
3,003 posts, read 1,382,774 times
Reputation: 2474

Advertisements

Is politics allowed on this board?
I got some things to say, if so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2016, 07:46 PM
 
5,253 posts, read 2,406,689 times
Reputation: 5124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Since Section 8 housing is subsidized and not free housing, they do in fact pay taxes from their rents. Only people living in publicly-owned housing, which is a very small percentage of the poor, don't pay a share of their rent towards taxes.
If the rent is less than or equal to the amount of the Sec. 8 voucher, it is free housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2016, 11:01 PM
 
Location: Atlantis
3,019 posts, read 3,135,035 times
Reputation: 8784
This makes absolutely no sense:


Like if someone owned a house and gets one vote, then would logic follow that someone who owned a 200 unit apartment complex be able to get 200 votes.


And what if someone rented where they lived, like a $4,000 a month apartment in Manhattan but owned over $1 million in shares in a REIT that owned properties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2016, 01:33 AM
 
6,308 posts, read 4,800,777 times
Reputation: 8437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydive Outlaw View Post
This makes absolutely no sense:


Like if someone owned a house and gets one vote, then would logic follow that someone who owned a 200 unit apartment complex be able to get 200 votes.


And what if someone rented where they lived, like a $4,000 a month apartment in Manhattan but owned over $1 million in shares in a REIT that owned properties.
My point was not the H. L. Hunt proposal to allocate votes by the amount of taxes paid, but just to say that tax and appropriations bills should originate in a House of Taxpayers elected only by taxpayers. A constitutional amendment would say what is meant by a "taxpayer." One taxpayer, one vote. The idea is to keep people from voting themselves money. Ordinary laws unrelated to taxation and spending would be passed by a House of Commons elected by everyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2016, 06:16 AM
 
2,277 posts, read 1,418,106 times
Reputation: 4948
The economy would be better for property owners...that's for sure.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2016, 07:04 AM
 
Location: The analog world
15,944 posts, read 8,875,755 times
Reputation: 21322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
My point was not the H. L. Hunt proposal to allocate votes by the amount of taxes paid, but just to say that tax and appropriations bills should originate in a House of Taxpayers elected only by taxpayers. A constitutional amendment would say what is meant by a "taxpayer." One taxpayer, one vote. The idea is to keep people from voting themselves money. Ordinary laws unrelated to taxation and spending would be passed by a House of Commons elected by everyone.
If you think being a taxpayer will somehow prevent people from voting to give themselves money, I have a bridge to sell you. Plenty of taxpayers are fully capable of supporting legislation benefiting themselves to the exclusion of other taxpayers. Cutting a portion of citizens out of the process does not prevent this supposed issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2016, 07:11 AM
 
Location: Iceland
876 posts, read 611,655 times
Reputation: 1018
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent View Post
If you think being a taxpayer will somehow prevent people from voting to give themselves money, I have a bridge to sell you. Plenty of taxpayers are fully capable of supporting legislation benefiting themselves to the exclusion of other taxpayers. Cutting a portion of citizens out of the process does not prevent this supposed issue.
Not 100%, but it would make the problems far less bad. A middle class person with a house and a car is still producing more wealth than someone who just stays at home and drinks beer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2016, 08:30 AM
 
504 posts, read 630,676 times
Reputation: 506
This is a terrible idea, although it sounds good at first.


Let's see what would happen if this was implemented:
More people in rural/lower cost areas would keep the right to vote than people in more expensive urban areas.


More middle age and older voters would keep the right to vote than younger voters.


Non-property owners with the means to buy would, driving up demand and prices for real estate.


Geographic mobility would go down a lot as some people would be unwilling to move for better opportunities if it meant giving up their voting rights. This would be bad for the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2016, 08:31 AM
 
504 posts, read 630,676 times
Reputation: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie View Post
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.

How many of those people who "are not and never have been employed or productive" are there?


How many of them actually vote? Hint: Not many.


How much gov't spending goes to Medicaid for people under 65, SNAP, Section 8, and other unearned benefits?

Do you really think all voters have "an equal say in the government"?


For the politicians, it's about money. If you want to see who is "voting themselves free stuff from the government" look at who the big donors are. Follow the money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2016, 08:50 AM
 
8,306 posts, read 3,491,490 times
Reputation: 1592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
My point was not the H. L. Hunt proposal to allocate votes by the amount of taxes paid, but just to say that tax and appropriations bills should originate in a House of Taxpayers elected only by taxpayers. A constitutional amendment would say what is meant by a "taxpayer." One taxpayer, one vote. The idea is to keep people from voting themselves money. Ordinary laws unrelated to taxation and spending would be passed by a House of Commons elected by everyone.
Works for me. Go to the store, buy a pack of gum, not cheap anymore, pay your tax, show the voting staff your receipt and vote.
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