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 04-10-2016, 03:08 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 21,058,075 times
Reputation: 8928

Advertisements

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.

What would stop homeowners from voting extra taxes on rental property - as they have done in most states? And how would renters stop them if renters couldn't vote?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-21-2016, 09:37 AM
 
18,543 posts, read 10,158,197 times
Reputation: 18209
Quote:
Originally Posted by davebarnes View Post
Well, that was the intent of the founders of our country.
White, male property owners.
Actually, no. The broad truth was that only taxpayers could vote.

Property ownership was always taxed, so property owner=taxpayer=voter.

But there were many businessmen--particularly in the cities--who did not own the property their businesses were on, but they were taxed for their businesses, and those businessmen also voted. Businessowner=taxpayer=voter.

It was an early debate whether a woman who owned a business--and paid taxes--should be allowed to vote, and that remained a debate (probably because it didn't occur frequently enough) until women were generally granted the right to vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2016, 10:31 AM
 
Location: North Idaho
21,258 posts, read 26,372,551 times
Reputation: 40077
I don't know about limiting to property owners, but it would be nice if voting were limited to people who were interested enough to make an effort. Also, if the vote were limited to citizens and perhaps Nationals.

In Oregon, you get automatically registered to vote when you get a driver's license. Your ballot comes in the mail. Undocumented aliens can get a driver's license, so they get registered to vote. Ballots are mailed so no one checks to see who is filling them out. Voter registration can also be done on line, no id check, no signature.

See any possibilities for voting fraud in the situation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2016, 12:12 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 21,058,075 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
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.

So THAT'S what Dylan meant!

"Don't wanna be a bum, you better chew gum..."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2016, 12:44 PM
 
8,431 posts, read 3,574,203 times
Reputation: 1635
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
So THAT'S what Dylan meant!

"Don't wanna be a bum, you better chew gum..."
The same for land owners:

Own A Piece Of America - Unique Gifts and Personalized Gift Ideas
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2016, 08:14 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 21,058,075 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post

Actually, there were MINIMUM property requirements for voting, so buying one square inch or foot of swampland didn't qualify anyone to vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2016, 09:36 PM
 
8,431 posts, read 3,574,203 times
Reputation: 1635
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Actually, there were MINIMUM property requirements for voting, so buying one square inch or foot of swampland didn't qualify anyone to vote.
How much and where?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2016, 08:18 AM
 
5,122 posts, read 3,401,093 times
Reputation: 4922
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
What would stop homeowners from voting extra taxes on rental property - as they have done in most states? And how would renters stop them if renters couldn't vote?
I think every individual should be able to vote but taxes should be proportional.

Proportional as in 1 person in the house = 1 unit. 5 people in the house = 5 units.

I had quite the liberal streak until I bought a house and paid more than anyone on my street in property taxes. I was a single guy and they were all families with multiple children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2016, 08:59 AM
 
18,543 posts, read 10,158,197 times
Reputation: 18209
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth View Post
I think every individual should be able to vote but taxes should be proportional.

Proportional as in 1 person in the house = 1 unit. 5 people in the house = 5 units.

I had quite the liberal streak until I bought a house and paid more than anyone on my street in property taxes. I was a single guy and they were all families with multiple children.
Please explain how their children made a difference in property taxes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2016, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
5,262 posts, read 3,477,731 times
Reputation: 8834
The main reason property or tax-paying qualifiers to vote would not work is because they've been tried before and failed.

The framers of the Constitution indeed did NOT want the general population to be able to vote. Their point of reference was the French Revolution which they saw as a tragedy of democracy. So they put in restrictions. Within 25 years or ratification in 1789, there were movements to relax those restrictions. At the local & state level most restrictions were removed by 1828. By 1836, only South Carolina still had property qualifications for federal-level voting.

Any restrictions would not be tolerated for more than 10-15 years at most. Longer than that and you've have to enforce them violently.
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

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