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 03-30-2016, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Iceland
876 posts, read 605,288 times
Reputation: 1018

Advertisements

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-30-2016, 12:15 PM
 
2,930 posts, read 3,686,779 times
Reputation: 1413
Uh people without property do have issues and concerns that need to be addressed by the politicians and money should not rule everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2016, 12:18 PM
 
12,405 posts, read 9,195,957 times
Reputation: 8856
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.
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...)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2016, 12:24 PM
 
5,605 posts, read 4,158,119 times
Reputation: 12338
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.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2016, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,594 posts, read 9,423,079 times
Reputation: 9198
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2016, 01:02 PM
 
Location: The Berk in Denver, CO USA
13,112 posts, read 18,707,927 times
Reputation: 20399
Well, that was the intent of the founders of our country.
White, male property owners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2016, 02:05 PM
 
Location: WA
5,292 posts, read 20,697,476 times
Reputation: 5622
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2016, 09:48 AM
 
8,274 posts, read 3,452,461 times
Reputation: 1584
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.
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2016, 10:12 AM
 
Location: The Berk in Denver, CO USA
13,112 posts, read 18,707,927 times
Reputation: 20399
Default Hillary for the win!

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdelena View Post
1920
Womens suffrage.
And, downhill from there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2016, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
5,242 posts, read 3,393,710 times
Reputation: 8783
I'll let Ben Franklin address this, since the argument was brought up in his day:

Quote:
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?
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