Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
View Poll Results: Should only net payers into the system be allowed to vote?
Yes 29 35.37%
No 49 59.76%
Other 4 4.88%
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-20-2010, 10:01 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,707,823 times
Reputation: 22474

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
If "all men are created equal," we should be requiring everyone to pay the same percentage income tax. Want to vote in federal and state elections? Pay your fair share = equal percentage of federal and state income tax. Not everyone pays now; nearly half of all American households pay no federal income tax whatsoever. Some even get money FROM the government.
Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1 - broken link)

Of course, voting for president and other federal gov offices without having to pay any federal income tax provides a mighty strong incentive for nearly half of Americans to vote themselves ever increasing amounts of freebies and entitlements by electing politicians who promise exactly that. If you ever wonder why our national debt is so high, giving freebies and entitlements to those who don't pay into the system is one of the major causes.
Yes. Equality would require that. Everyone should pay the same for the government we all have.

It's getting bad in some places with the welfare class outnumbering the working taxpayers. They can vote in every sort of handout possible, there is no limit to the money they want to take from those who actually worked for the money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-20-2010, 10:05 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,707,823 times
Reputation: 22474
The way it now - it's like 12 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's going to be for dinner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2010, 10:08 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,118,301 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by tb4000 View Post
If you can't name every state in the Union within a two minute timeframe, you can't vote.
I might be able to do that.. And in alphabetical order...

Blame long term memory for remembering a childhood song I learned.. haha
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2010, 10:20 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,707,823 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonian123 View Post
If 25 years from now, when California is 99% illegal aliens and their anchors. They will probably begin talking about seceding and joining Mexico. It will be difficult not to support your proposal then.
It would be better now if California would do that, it would eliminate all the Medicaid and food stamp money and federal grant money, they would have to turn to Mexico DF for their welfare programs.

It's worse than that. The welfare class of Mexico is moving in, voting for more and better welfare programs and making sure immigration from their country remains unlimited. They like California being a part of the USA because that lets them control immigration enforcement, and allows the citizens of a foreign nation to access the social security program, the welfare handouts, and control the outcome of our elections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2010, 10:25 AM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,758 posts, read 18,818,821 times
Reputation: 22603
Yes, of course. Only those whose lives revolve around money should be allowed to vote because it's only money that matters in life. Those whose lives do not revolve around money should not only be barred from voting, they should be sterilized, lobotomized, and herded into death camps in the middle of the desert. Money is life--the lack of it should be death. Once per month in each municipality within the US, a low-life, poverty-ridden, subhuman slob should be spared the shower at the death camp and be dragged into the town square behind a special golden Lexus; he should then be hanged, drawn and quartered to remind us that money is our God and poverty is death.

If your main thrust in life is not money, to hell with you.




Happy?

Last edited by ChrisC; 06-20-2010 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2010, 10:32 AM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,758 posts, read 18,818,821 times
Reputation: 22603
Quote:
Originally Posted by tb4000 View Post
If you can't name every state in the Union within a two minute timeframe, you can't vote.
Absolutely. Voting should depend on pointless rote memorization. If you can't recite the middle name of each US president in reverse chronological order, give pi to 100 decimal places, and list the first 200 numbers in the fibonacci sequence, you have no business voting in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2010, 11:11 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,707,823 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Yes, of course. Only those whose lives revolve around money should be allowed to vote because it's only money that matters in life. Those whose lives do not revolve around money should not only be barred from voting, they should be sterilized, lobotomized, and herded into death camps in the middle of the desert. Money is life--the lack of it should be death. Once per month in each municipality within the US, a low-life, poverty-ridden, subhuman slob should be spared the shower at the death camp and be dragged into the town square behind a special golden Lexus; he should then be hanged, drawn and quartered to remind us that money is our God and poverty is death.

If your main thrust in life is not money, to hell with you.




Happy?
What if your main thrust in life is not to earn your own money but to take the money of others? For example the welfare types, it's not that they don't love money, they like free money - in the form of free housing provided by the working types, they like all the food stamps they can be given.

The whole problem is not that some will give up money and all it can buy, it's that they want all the things it does buy but they don't want to earn it themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2010, 11:23 AM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,758 posts, read 18,818,821 times
Reputation: 22603
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
What if your main thrust in life is not to earn your own money but to take the money of others? For example the welfare types, it's not that they don't love money, they like free money - in the form of free housing provided by the working types, they like all the food stamps they can be given.

The whole problem is not that some will give up money and all it can buy, it's that they want all the things it does buy but they don't want to earn it themselves.
Your response points out just what I was hoping someone would. There are many types of 'poor.' And as your post points out just as clearly as I could have, had I not resorted to sarcasm: you used the word 'some'--some give up money, yet want the things they can no longer earn. So they become welfare queens or kings. Some. Not all. Others simply and purposely earn a lower wage and live a frugal life to match their income--there should be no punishment for such a lifestyle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2010, 11:28 AM
 
2,857 posts, read 6,726,338 times
Reputation: 1748
I pay lots of taxes, and would gladly opt out of paying them by giving up my right to vote, three years out of four.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2010, 12:14 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,029 posts, read 44,840,107 times
Reputation: 13715
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Others simply and purposely earn a lower wage and live a frugal life to match their income--there should be no punishment for such a lifestyle.
There should also be no benefit to that - the benefit of paying little to no income tax, or even getting money FROM the government. Otherwise, the government is incentivizing the total elimination of productivity and self-sufficiency - which is essentially what is happening now.

Work ---> have part of your earnings taken away, making it harder to provide for yourself and your family.
Don't work ---> the government pays you to not work, and takes care of you and your family (welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc.).
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:50 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top