Would the economy be better if only property owners were allowed to vote? (real estate, buy)

[hakkarin]

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.

[chirack]

Uh people without property do have issues and concerns that need to be addressed by the politicians and money should not rule everything.

[ncole1]

Originally Posted by hakkarin

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.

Horrible, horrible idea.

-Regressive once there is sufficient income to own property

-Tenants will not have protection from abusive landlords and slumlords

-The entire purchase price of real estate effectively becomes a poll tax

-Poor people will be even more marginalized due to lack of a voice

-Wealth/power concentration will spiral out of control very quickly (read your history...)

[UNC4Me]

If this was the case, why would ANYONE own a home? You'd tank the housing market and drive rents through the ceiling. Good plan.......

[Leisesturm]

Originally Posted by chirack

Uh people without property do have issues and concerns that need to be addressed by the politicians and money should not rule everything.

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.

[davebarnes]

Well, that was the intent of the founders of our country.
White, male property owners.

[cdelena]

1790
Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.

1810
Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.

1850
Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.

1855
Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.

1870
The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.

1920
Womens suffrage.

[Hoonose]

Originally Posted by hakkarin

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.

If ownership of raw land is good enough, then we might have to stipulate how much is needed to qualify.
Own A Piece Of America - Unique Gifts and Personalized Gift Ideas
Chinese Buy American Dream by the Inch - NYTimes.com

[davebarnes]

Originally Posted by cdelena

1920
Womens suffrage.

And, downhill from there.

[redguard57]

I'll let Ben Franklin address this, since the argument was brought up in his day:

Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers — but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?