Ban Non-Taxpayers From Voting by Walter Williams

[bobbyw24]

According to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington, D.C., research organization, nearly half of U.S. households will pay no federal income taxes for 2009. That's up from the Tax Foundation's 2006 estimate that 41 percent of the American population, or 121 million Americans, were completely outside the federal income tax system. These Americans pay no federal income tax either because their incomes are too low or they have higher income but credits, deductions and exemptions that relieve them of tax liability. This lack of income tax liability stands in stark contrast to the top 10 percent of earners, those households earning an average of $366,400 in 2006, who paid about 73 percent of federal income taxes. The top 25 percent paid 86 percent. The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers paid less than 4 percent of federal income taxes collected.

Let's not dwell on the fairness of such an arrangement for financing the activities of the federal government. Instead, let's ask what kind of incentives and results such an arrangement produces and ask ourselves whether these results are good for our country. That's a question to be asked whether or not one has federal income tax liabilities.

Having 121 million Americans completely outside the federal income tax system, it's like throwing chum to political sharks. These Americans become a natural spending constituency for big-spending politicians. After all, if you have no income tax liability, how much do you care about deficits, how much Congress spends and the level of taxation? Political calls for tax cuts and spending restraints have little appeal. Survey polls revealed this. According to The Harris Poll taken in June 2003, 51 percent of Democrats thought the tax cuts enacted by Congress were a bad thing while 16 percent of Republicans thought so. Among Democrats, 67 percent thought the tax cuts were unfair while 32 percent of Republicans thought so. When asked whether the $350-billion tax cut package will help your family finances, 59 percent of those surveyed said no and 35 percent said yes. Tax cuts to many Americans mean just one thing: They pose a threat to the federal handouts they receive.


Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management?

Continue

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams042110.php3

[BenIsForRon]

Why did you post this idiotic op-ed?

[bobbyw24]

Why did you post this idiotic op-ed?

Cuz many people here love Dr. Williams

Lew Rockwell thought it worth posting to his blog to start a debate

[Stary Hickory]

Why did you post this idiotic op-ed?

Um in what way is it idiotic? The concept is sound. I think Williams concentrates too much on just the income tax however when in reality the government has a myriad of ways of extracting wealth from every American regardless of income level.

[ViniVidiVici]

Before we had a federal income tax I would've argued that anyone should be able to vote. But now that we have it and live under a government that doles out entitlements, I think only those who pay it should be permitted to otherwise those who don't will continue to vote for the politician who gives them the handouts.

[TonySutton]

They look at people filing tax returns. How many people are working under the table and do not file a return? The number might be insignificant, I am not sure.

[moostraks]

Walter Williams may be okay on some things but this is just divisive, imo. Maybe someone should send him a list of all the taxes that are being paid and have come about thanks to the glorious people in government and ask him if he can figure who is not paying taxes and does not have a dog in the fight by the time he gets through all the insidious ways government has managed to get its hands in our pockets.

Here is a pretty good list I ran across to drive the point home from:

http://electivedecisions.wordpress.com/the-tax-list/

"This list, of course, does not include the new round of taxes that will hit with the passage of the healthcare bill.


1. Accounts Receivable Tax
2. Accounting and Tax Preparation (cost to taxpayers $300 billion)
3. Accumulated Earnings Tax
4. Accumulation Distribution of Trusts
5. Activity Fee (Dumping Permit Fee)
6 . Air Tax (PA coin-operated vacuums)
7. Aircraft Jet Fuel Tax
8. Aircraft Excise Tax
9 . Alcohol Fuels Tax
10. Alcoholic Beverage Tax
11. Alternative Minimum Tax – Amt
12. Ambulance Services (Air Ambulance Services, SD)
13. Ammunition Tax
14. Amusement Tax (MA, VA, MD)
15. Animal Slaughter Tax (WI, others, Per Animal)
16. Annual Custodial Fees (Ira Accounts)
17. Ballast Water Management Fee (Marine Invasive Species)
18. Biodiesel Fuel Tax
19. Blueberry Tax (Maine)
20. Bribe Taxes (Pay If You Dare)
21. Brothel licensing fees (NV – $35,00000 per year per brothel)
22. Building Permit Tax
23. Capital Gains Tax
24. California Interstate User Diesel Fuel Tax
25. California Redemption Value (Can and Bottle Tax)
26. CDL License Tax
27. Charter Boat Captain License
28. Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Fee
29. Cigarette Tax
30. Cigarette Tax Stamp (Acts) (Distributors)
31. Compressed Natural Gas Tax
32. Commercial Activity Tax (OH – for Service Providers)
33. Corporate Income Tax
34. Court Fines (Indirect Taxes)
35. County Property Tax
36. Disposable Diapers Tax (Wisconsin)
37. Disposal Fee (Any Landfill Dumping)
38. Dog License Tax
39. Duck Hunting Tax Stamp (PA, others)
40. Electronic Waste Recycling Fee (E-Waste)
41. Emergency Telephone User Surcharge
42. Environmental Fee (CA – HazMat Fees)
43. Estate Tax (Death Tax, to be reinstated)
44. Excise Taxes
45. Facility Fee (CA – HazMat Fees)
46. FDIC tax (insurance premium on bank deposits)
47. Federal Income Tax
48. Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
49. Fiduciary Income Tax (Estates and Trusts)
50. Fishing License Tax
51. Flush Tax (MD Tax For Producing Wastewater)
52. Food License Tax
53. Fountain Soda Drink Tax (Chicago – 9%)
54. Franchise Tax
55. Fresh Fruit (CA, if Purchased From A Vending Machine)
56. Fuel Gross Receipts Tax (Retail/Distributor)
57. Fuel Permit Tax
58. Fur Clothing Tax (MN)
59. Garbage Tax
60. Gasoline Tax (475 Cents Per Gallon)
61. Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax
62. Generator Fee (Recycled Waste Fee)
63. Gift Tax
64. Gross Receipts Tax
65. Habitat Stamp (Hunting/Fishing in some states)
66. Hamburger Tax (Ask Huckabee)
67. Hazardous Substances Fees: Generator, Facility, Disposal
68. Highway Access Fee
69. Household Employment Taxes
70. Hunting License Tax
71. Illegal Drug Possession (No Carolina)
72. Individual Income Tax
73. Inheritance Tax
74. Insect Control Hazardous Materials License
75. Insurance Premium Tax
76. Intangible Tax (Leases Of Govt. Owned Real Property)
77. Integrated Waste Management Fee
78. Interstate User Diesel Fuel Tax
79. Inventory Tax
80. IRA Rollover Tax (a transfer of IRA money)
81. IRA Early Withdrawal Tax
82. IRS Interest Charges
83. IRS Penalties (Tax On Top Of Tax)
84. Jock Tax (income earned by athletes in some states)
85. Kerosene, Distillate, & Stove Oil Taxes
86. Kiddie Tax (Child’s Earned Interest Form 8615)
87. Land Gains and Real Estate Withholding
88. Lead Poisoning Prevention Fee (Occupational)
89. Lease Severance Tax
90. Library Tax
91. Liquid Natural Gas Tax
92. Liquid Petroleum Gas Tax
93. Liquor Tax
94. Litigation Tax (TN Imposes Varies With the Offense)
95. LLC/PLLC Corporate Registration Tax
96. Local Income Tax
97. Lodging Taxes
98. Lump-Sum Distributions
99. Luxury Taxes
100. Make-Up Tax (Ohio, applying in a salon is taxable)
101. Marriage License Tax
102. Meal Tax
103. Medicare Tax
104. Mello-Roos Taxes (Special Taxes and Assessments)
105. Migratory Waterfowl Stamp (addition to hunting license)
106. Minnow Dealers License (Retail – For One Shop)
107. Minnow Dealers License (Distributor – For One+ Shops)
108. Mobile Home Ad Valorem Taxes
109. Motor Fuel Tax (For Suppliers)
110. Motor Vehicle Tax
111. Music and Dramatic Performing Rights Tax
112. Nudity Tax (Utah)
113. Nursery Registration (Buying and selling plants)
114. Occupancy Inspection Fees
115. Occupation Taxes and Fees (Various Professional Fees)
116. Oil and Gas Assessment Tax
117. Oil Spill Response, Prevention, And Administration Fee
118. Parking Space Taxes
119. Pass-Through Withholding
120. Pay-Phone Calls Tax (Indiana)
121. Percolation Test Fee
122. Personal Property Tax
123. Personal Holding Company (undistributed earnings)
124. Pest Control License
125. Petroleum Business Tax
126. Playing Card Tax (Al)
127. Pole Tax (TX – A $5 Cover Charge On Strip Clubs)
128. Profit from Illegal Drug Dealing
129. Property Tax
130. Property Transfer Tax (DE, ownership transfer between parties)
131. Prostitution Tax (NV – Prostitute Work Permits)
132. Poultry Registered Premises License (Sales License)
133. Rain Water Tax (Runoff after a Storm)
134. Rat Control Fee (CA)
135. Real Estate Tax
136. Recreational Vehicle Tax
137. Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling Fees
138. Regional Transit Taxing Authority (Trains)
139. Road Usage Tax
140. Room Tax (Hotel Rooms)
141. Sales Tax (State)
142. Sales Tax (City)
143. Sales And Use Tax (Sellers Permit)
144. School Tax
145. Service Charge Tax
146. Self Employment Tax
147. Septic And Drain Field Inspection Fees
148. Sex Sales Tax (UT, when nude people perform services)
149. Sewer & Water Tax
150. Social Security Tax
151. Sparkler and Novelties Tax (WV Sellers of Sparklers, etc)
152. Special Assessment Tax (Not Ad Valorem)
153. State Documentary Stamp Tax on Notes (FL RE Tax)
154. State Franchise Tax
155. State Income Tax
156. State Park Fees
157. State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
158. Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) Fuel Tax
159. Stud Fees (Kentucky’s Thoroughbred Sex Tax)
160. Tangible Personal Property Tax
161. Tattoo Tax (AR Tax On Tattoos)
162. Telephone 911 Service Tax (some states)
163. Telephone Federal Excise Tax
164. Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
165. Telephone Federal Surcharge Taxes
166. Telephone State Surcharge Taxes
167. Telephone Local Surcharge Taxes
168. Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
169. Telephone Recurring Charges Tax
170. Telephone Universal Access Tax
171. Telephone Non-Recurring Charges Tax
172. Telephone State Usage Charge Tax
173. Telephone Local Usage Charge Tax
174. Tire Recycling Fee
175. Tobacco Tax (Cigar, Pipe, Consumer Tax)
176. Tobacco Tax (Cigar, Pipe, Dealer Tax)
177. Toll Road Taxes
178. Toll Bridge Taxes
179. Toll Tunnel Taxes
180. Tourism or Concession License Fee
181. Traffic Fines (Indirect Taxation)
182. Transportable Treatment Unit Fee (Small Facility)
183. Trailer Registration Tax
184. Trout Stamp (Addendum To Fish License)
185. Use Taxes (On Out-Of-State Purchases)
186. Utility Taxes
187. Unemployment Tax
188. Underground Storage Tank Maintenance Fee
189. Underpayment of Estimated Tax (Form 2210)
190. Unreported Tip Income (Social Security and Medicare Tax)
191. Vehicle License
192. Vehicle Recovery Tax (CO, to find stolen cars)
193. Vehicle Registration Tax
194. Vehicle Sales Tax
195. Wagering Tax (Tax on Gambling Winnings)
196. Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) Fuel Tax
197. Water Rights Fee
198. Watercraft Registration Tax
199. Waterfowl Stamp Tax
200. Well Permit Tax
201. Wiring Inspection Fees
202. Workers Compensation Tax "

[MelissaWV]

Um in what way is it idiotic? The concept is sound. I think Williams concentrates too much on just the income tax however when in reality the government has a myriad of ways of extracting wealth from every American regardless of income level.

Winner.

The argument used to be made that landowners should also be the only ones to vote. This used to make a lot more sense than it would today. Who really *OWNS* their property? Most are making payments, and even once you're done it would be up for debate as to whether or not you have the final say over what happens to it.

Those who do not pay income taxes still pay into the system in some form or another. What we have no way of figuring out is whether what they pay in equals or exceeds what they take out of the system (which should be the determining factor, if you think about it, if you really want to get at what Williams is saying). There is no accounting along these lines that can be considered even remotely accurate.

Moreover, there are a lot of teens/20-somethings who don't yet pay income tax. Those fall squarely into the age bracket that would be the target of a potential draft, or any number of other unfair programs that would burden the young. To entirely shut them out of voting seems a bad idea.

[Slutter McGee]

Why did you post this idiotic op-ed?

Maybe because this "idiotic" op-ed was written by Walter fucking Williams, brilliant free-market economist, and who Paul said may have been his choice for VP.

And if you read Walter Williams, you would know that he often asks extrememly controversial question in order to spark argument and debate.

I have the feeling you have never fucking read an article of his before.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[silverhandorder]

I would amend the OP's proposal. In all matters concerning economics votes of those who contribute most should be weighted. In matters concerning social problem everyone should vote. The only problem is that our republican system does not allow for such distinction. Just work on removing the gravy train it will have same effect, same difficulties just without the unfairness that people already pointed out.

[Cowlesy]

This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."


Interesting.

In the timeline of human history, universal suffrage is a fairly new concept. Time will tell how well it works out.

[Cowlesy]

Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no. You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.

You can almost see him winking when he wrote the last sentence.

[MelissaWV]

Interesting.

In the timeline of human history, universal suffrage is a fairly new concept. Time will tell how well it works out.

I addressed that in my post. Landowning was entirely different once upon a time. If we limited votes to true landowners now, it would be a pretty low vote total.

I do like the article, mind you, but since there's no real way to account for what's "paid in," we would never really be able to assess a person's financial stake in Government.

[torchbearer]

votes weighted by the amount of taxes you actually pay. almost like share holders. the more stake you have in the company, the more votes you have.
you can keep up with this by actually recieving vote credits for the taxes paid.

[MelissaWV]

votes weighted by the amount of taxes you actually pay. almost like share holders. the more stake you have in the company, the more votes you have.
you can keep up with this by actually recieving vote credits for the taxes paid.

That's a great idea. How do you figure out how much each person has paid in taxes?

[teamrican1]

I like the Madison compromise. Let everybody vote for members of the House, but restrict Senate and Presidential votes to income tax payers.

[Krugerrand]

That's a great idea. How do you figure out how much each person has paid in taxes?

It would require simplification of taxes. (Another good idea)

[Krugerrand]

I like the Madison compromise. Let everybody vote for members of the House, but restrict Senate and Presidential votes to income tax payers.

The Senate should go back to the state legislators.

[torchbearer]

That's a great idea. How do you figure out how much each person has paid in taxes?

you can actually make it automated. when the taxes are filed, if you pay electronically- the payment system can award your vote account credits at whatever ratio decided for money paid.
if you pay by check, this process happens when the clerk enters you tax payment info.
With computers, this gets very easy to track.
Or you can make taxes voluntary and a purchase. meaning, you don't have to pay, but you don't get a say. If you do pay, you actually buy physical shares in the government. present these shares for your votes, or the government just keeps a database of shareholders and sends them their voting forms with vote weight added into the code.
I've actually had the chance to vote for AMDs board of directors. my vote was worth 100 shares. very easy for them to verify.

[Original_Intent]

One class of people should not have the ability to vote money out of other people's pockets and into their own. This goes for corporate welfare as much as welfare for the poor.

I think this proposal is a fine idea as a step in the right direction. Biggest thing that would need to be watched for is for people who paid millions in taxes and then voting in people who gave them millions of dollars of government contracts in return. There would need to be safegaurads in place.

[BenIsForRon]

Um in what way is it idiotic?

Because all humans come into this earth as equals. The laws of government affect everyone, so everyone should have the equal opportunity to decide who administers that government.

I mean, how far do you want to take Walter's logic? If a person is assaulted, and they don't make enough money to have to pay taxes, should they be able to press charges? If they are charged with a crime, do they deserve a trial? Hey, they didn't pay for the courts!

[HOLLYWOOD]

Just Repeal the 16th Amendment... DONE!

[MelissaWV]

you can actually make it automated. when the taxes are filed, if you pay electronically- the payment system can award your vote account credits at whatever ratio decided for money paid.
if you pay by check, this process happens when the clerk enters you tax payment info.
With computers, this gets very easy to track.
Or you can make taxes voluntary and a purchase. meaning, you don't have to pay, but you don't get a say. If you do pay, you actually buy physical shares in the government. present these shares for your votes, or the government just keeps a database of shareholders and sends them their voting forms with vote weight added into the code.
I've actually had the chance to vote for AMDs board of directors. my vote was worth 100 shares. very easy for them to verify.

The first half of your post deals exclusively with income taxes, which was my point. There are myriad other taxes that are paid, and it's quite possible someone puts in more than they take out.

Tracking taxes electronically, for all taxes currently out there, would even involve tracking how much taxable food and such you purchase. You'd have to leave your name at every restaurant together with your vital information to ensure you received your proper credit for paying.

The shareholding idea and the notion of simplifying taxes can go hand in hand, and I'm a huge fan of that in an ideal world. Think of bonds/shares being sold to finance projects. Those who put in money should certainly have a say in how that money is spent. The trouble is it cannot be reasonably done with the system we have in place right now. Income tax is not a reliable indicator, and there's just no way to track what we pay in on a regular basis.

[speciallyblend]

ban neo-cons from voting unless they have served in the military first!!

[BenIsForRon]

The shareholding idea and the notion of simplifying taxes can go hand in hand, and I'm a huge fan of that in an ideal world. Think of bonds/shares being sold to finance projects. Those who put in money should certainly have a say in how that money is spent.

What. The. Fuck. Some people don't care about making $100,000 a year. They would rather have more free time, or work in an area that doesn't bring in as much money. They shouldn't have an equal say in government, the legal body that uses violence to enforce it's rules?

I can't believe what I'm hearing in this thread.

[Cowlesy]

What. The. Fuck. Some people don't care about making $100,000 a year. They would rather have more free time, or work in an area that doesn't bring in as much money. They shouldn't have an equal say in government, the legal body that uses violence to enforce it's rules?

I can't believe what I'm hearing in this thread.

Should they have a say in taking money from those who make $100,000 a year to support all the government programs they get to use?

[MelissaWV]

What. The. Fuck. Some people don't care about making $100,000 a year. They would rather have more free time, or work in an area that doesn't bring in as much money. They shouldn't have an equal say in government, the legal body that uses violence to enforce it's rules?

I can't believe what I'm hearing in this thread.

I don't care about making $100,000 a year. HOWEVER. I don't care about funding butterly observatories, or a bridge to nowhere, or wars overseas, or public education. If people value their free time and don't care about money, then they shouldn't need to vote to use MY money to fund THEIR projects.

If you had read the original article, by the way, everyone's still getting the opportunity to vote in Williams' proposal. Don't let that stop you.

What I was discussing was the fact that projects should be funded by those that want them, and that those who fund them should obviously have some oversight of the money/project as it's going on. Why this disagrees with you so much, I will never know.

I've already said this would never work as things are, so we're discussing hypotheticals. Personally, I'd still leave voting people into power up to "the people" but I would remove the ability to vote the money away from the people and divvy it up amongst projects and locations they have no say in. The responsibilities of the Government's branches should be far fewer than they are.

[BenIsForRon]

Should they have a say in taking money from those who make $100,000 a year to support all the government programs they get to use?

What do you mean? I said all adults should have equal voting rights. What the government does is irrelevant. If it has too many social programs, it is up to the people to change it.

[torchbearer]

What do you mean? I said all adults should have equal voting rights. What the government does is irrelevant. If it has too many social programs, it is up to the people to change it.

my proposal would keep poor people from voting themselves other people's money. in order to have enough shares to make that vote, you'd have to have money to invest to begin with, and a person who has given a lot to the government voluntarily isn't looking for a welfare check, they are looking for a public project.

[MelissaWV]

What do you mean? I said all adults should have equal voting rights. What the government does is irrelevant. If it has too many social programs, it is up to the people to change it.

Voting rights are already unequal as we do not have a direct popular vote determine every election.

[BenIsForRon]

What I was discussing was the fact that projects should be funded by those that want them, and that those who fund them should obviously have some oversight of the money/project as it's going on. Why this disagrees with you so much, I will never know.


You weren't just talking about "projects", you were talking about government. When electing representatives to the federal government, state government, or local government, it should be one man, one vote.

[Cowlesy]

You weren't just talking about "projects", you were talking about government. When electing representatives to the federal government, state government, or local government, it should be one man, one vote.

Did you even read the entire article?

[BenIsForRon]

my proposal would keep poor people from voting themselves other people's money. in order to have enough shares to make that vote, you'd have to have money to invest to begin with, and a person who has given a lot to the government voluntarily isn't looking for a welfare check, they are looking for a public project.

What kind of projects are you talking about? What kind of votes are you talking about? You aren't making any sense. The topic is about electing representatives.

[Krugerrand]

What. The. Fuck. Some people don't care about making $100,000 a year. They would rather have more free time, or work in an area that doesn't bring in as much money. They shouldn't have an equal say in government, the legal body that uses violence to enforce it's rules?

I can't believe what I'm hearing in this thread.

Just curious ... would you support changing the senate structure from 2 senators per state? As it is, people in Alaska have a far greater voice in the Senate than people in California.

I'm not sure how much some of the proposals would help. The thought is that Those With Much To Lose would be less likely to use the government as a redistributor. Yet tax credits for things like electric cars and super heavy vehicles for business use are not at all geared towards helping the poorer folk and demonstrate a willingness of "Those With Much To Lose" to take at any chance they get. (much like when Bill Clinton deducted his used underwear donation to charity.)

Personally, I have confidence in individuals to make decision for themselves but less confidence in individuals to make decisions of governance. (I find that a direct opposite to liberal DEMs.) Thus, I like the way our country was established with the state checking the federal and the branches of the federal checking each other. I like that that House of Reps was the only directly voted body. I liked the landowner/poll tax requirements (but can see that they raise different issues today.) I'm leaning towards going back to the expansion of the House of Reps. so that the propensity for corruption is diluted over more congressmen. So, "equal say" isn't as sacrosanct to me as protection against corruption.

[torchbearer]

What kind of projects are you talking about? What kind of votes are you talking about? You aren't making any sense. The topic is about electing representatives.

i'm talking about voting with your money? maybe? and even indirectly?
A government is a corporation. Your representatives are apart of its board of directors. The board determines the policies of the company and give it direction.

If people chose to invest in government, they'd have a say on its "board of directors".

[MelissaWV]

You weren't just talking about "projects", you were talking about government. When electing representatives to the federal government, state government, or local government, it should be one man, one vote.


Moreover, there are a lot of teens/20-somethings who don't yet pay income tax. Those fall squarely into the age bracket that would be the target of a potential draft, or any number of other unfair programs that would burden the young. To entirely shut them out of voting seems a bad idea.


I do like the article, mind you, but since there's no real way to account for what's "paid in," we would never really be able to assess a person's financial stake in Government.

If you really could come up with a person's "score" as to how much they have paid into Government over their lifetime, I don't think there'd be a problem with weighting the votes. However, there's no way to value all the contributions people make to Government. I might pay no income tax, but be crucial to my community, or even the whole nation, in some other way. Everyone who is employed in this country contributes in some way, and many who aren't employed contribute, and some people have stopped contributing but used to, and some people don't contribute but will, and yet others contribute a lot but take more than they give. How do you determine who's taking more than they give, really? You can't, so it's moot. You can also see my own quote about young people who'd be the target of a draft decided upon by people they cannot vote out of office.

"One man, one vote" is not the least bit what we have now, either, and our founders didn't much care for the idea in their time.

The only way to resolve all of this, imo, is a variation of what I proposed, with projects being funded and decided upon by stakeholders/bondowners, and minimal legislation taken on by officials elected as we do now. If we take the overwhelming financial function out of the legislative branch, then the votes would not be "bought" and would be true votes based on what policy the nation wants to see enacted or repealed.

That's not going to happen, either.

[MelissaWV]

Did you even read the entire article?

From the subsequent commentary, the smart money is on "no."

[erowe1]

This is one of the things that makes me hesitant to let Washington DC get representation in Congress. The whole city is either on welfare or government workers. They have this slogan "No taxation without representation." But the truth is, they're on a whole getting many times more redistributed by the tax payers than they are adding to the kitty themselves.

[TC95]

I think we should get rid of the income tax and go back to the rule that only land owners could vote. Then you still get rid of the problem of broke people voting freebies to themselves at taxpayers expense. By the way, I have nothing against broke people. I happen to be one of those broke people who would not be able to vote under this rule. I support this rule because the income tax is unjust whether I benefit from it or not.

"Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200810220012

[MelissaWV]

I think we should get rid of the income tax and go back to the rule that only land owners could vote. Then you still get rid of the problem of broke people voting freebies to themselves at taxpayers expense. By the way, I have nothing against broke people. I happen to be one of those broke people who would not be able to vote under this rule. I support this rule because the income tax is unjust whether I benefit from it or not.

"Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200810220012

Except that most people don't own property, or even close to it. Even those who would have been property owners in the Founders' time are now actually beholden to the banks.

Renting is also not a sign of poverty anymore, necessarily. Some rents are far higher than mortgages. It's simply not a good standard.

[Stary Hickory]

The best solution is to get rid of all the government programs anyways. Let the market take them over and then we can all pay them individually and create charities when needed to handle the rest.

I mean if you accept the notion that the government can force you to pay for government "services" then you have to take a position like Walter Williams even though it would not be completely fair at all to give people who get taxed indirectly no vote. Alternatively getting rid of the income tax makes the most sense. Get rid of this class warfare altogether.

The funny thing is, the poor pay taxes even when it is raised on the rich. They get hit indirectly. The costs get passed down. If businiess owners get taxed more heavily, they cut wages ir raise prices. The poor will feel this. The government is talking about taxing banks(down with the evil bankers rigth?) well everyone of us uses a bank. We will pay the costs as they are passed down.

And even if you did not use a bank, your grocer, your UPS guy, your mechanic, waiter...they all do. And they will push these costs onto you anyways.

[Krugerrand]

Except that most people don't own property, or even close to it. Even those who would have been property owners in the Founders' time are now actually beholden to the banks.

Renting is also not a sign of poverty anymore, necessarily. Some rents are far higher than mortgages. It's simply not a good standard.

I don't think the thought process was strictly to enfranchise the rich and disenfranchise the poor. It was more of a you own a stake and so you get to vote. If you are a renter, then you are closer to transient than stake holder.

[MelissaWV]

I don't think the thought process was strictly to enfranchise the rich and disenfranchise the poor. It was more of a you own a stake and so you get to vote. If you are a renter, then you are closer to transient than stake holder.

Right, but it's not feasible to own property in some areas. Of course, you may pay extraordinarily high taxes as a part of that rent, and your purchases all have taxes attached to them. You also might be paying massive amounts in income tax. Again, most people who think they are "landowners" right now are not.

Who is left?

[BenIsForRon]

Did you even read the entire article?

Now I have, and my position is the same. For the record, most of my posts have been in response to other posts in the thread.

My response to Walter William's article is what I've said repeatedly, giving people more weight in government because they pay more taxes is wrong because government's primary role is protecting rights, and when it comes to deciding how to do that, everyone's input should be considered equally.

As for how the senate figures into that... I dunno. It could stand to be reformed, I'm sure, but how, that's another discussion. I'm just saying why taxation/income should not be a factor in influence.

[John Taylor]

Now I have, and my position is the same. For the record, most of my posts have been in response to other posts in the thread.

My response to Walter William's article is what I've said repeatedly, giving people more weight in government because they pay more taxes is wrong because government's primary role is protecting rights, and when it comes to deciding how to do that, everyone's input should be considered equally.

As for how the senate figures into that... I dunno. It could stand to be reformed, I'm sure, but how, that's another discussion. I'm just saying why taxation/income should not be a factor in influence.

Wrong. Participation in government should be limited to those least likely to support the expansion of governmment outside it's just perameters.

[BenIsForRon]

So the rich have an inherent distrust of the poor. The poor have an inherent distrust of the rich. North Dakotans have in inherent distrust of New Yorkers. New Yorkers have an inherent distrust of North Dakotans.

How the fuck can you protect rights in a situation like this? My brain hurts.

[BenIsForRon]

Wrong. Participation in government should be limited to those least likely to support the expansion of governmment outside it's just perameters.

Rich people are no better at knowing those parameters than poor people.

[John Taylor]

You weren't just talking about "projects", you were talking about government. When electing representatives to the federal government, state government, or local government, it should be one man, one vote.

Why should it be one man, one vote?

We don't have that now, we've never had it. There are many levels of "incapacity" which have always limited particpation.

If government is a spoils distribution system, then yes, everyone must participate, but if no one is being brutalized, then there is no need to have vast swaths of the "poor" participating and attempting to vote themselves privileges and other people's money.

I suggest raising the voting age to 30, and tying it to property ownership. If someone doesn't own land or a substantial amount of property by age 30, I see great reason to suspect that they will be more likely to support redistributivist policies to compensate for their personal inability to compete.

[John Taylor]

So the rich have an inherent distrust of the poor. The poor have an inherent distrust of the rich. North Dakotans have in inherent distrust of New Yorkers. New Yorkers have an inherent distrust of North Dakotans.

How the fuck can you protect rights in a situation like this? My brain hurts.

People mistrust other people because they understand human nature to be base, vile, greedly and self-serving. That's why we must limit participation to those least likely to attempt to transfer property from one to another...

[MelissaWV]

So the rich have an inherent distrust of the poor. The poor have an inherent distrust of the rich. North Dakotans have in inherent distrust of New Yorkers. New Yorkers have an inherent distrust of North Dakotans.

How the fuck can you protect rights in a situation like this? My brain hurts.

I already addressed this, and you have subsequently ignored it.

[John Taylor]

Rich people are no better at knowing those parameters than poor people.

Rich people? Who said anything about only "rich" people participating?

I'm saying that we limit participation to those people least likely to support the transfer of property from one group to another. I happen to think that this group would be composed of those over age 30--so they have had some time to mature and realize that reward is connected to productivity and efficient use of scarce resources, and those who have indeed BEEN productive, as they will want people who produce to be rewarded on that basis.

[Stary Hickory]

Now I have, and my position is the same. For the record, most of my posts have been in response to other posts in the thread.

My response to Walter William's article is what I've said repeatedly, giving people more weight in government because they pay more taxes is wrong because government's primary role is protecting rights, and when it comes to deciding how to do that, everyone's input should be considered equally.

As for how the senate figures into that... I dunno. It could stand to be reformed, I'm sure, but how, that's another discussion. I'm just saying why taxation/income should not be a factor in influence.

You would be justified if in fact the government protected everyone's rights equally. This however is not the case. People are using the government as a blunt object of force to coerce people and pick their pockets.

Williams is spot on for wanting to connect positive economic activity with the benefits recieved. He only misses the point that the income tax is one SMALL way that the government robs the people every day. That is why the free market works so wonderfully, everyone has a say to the exact extent that they work and produce in the economy.

Anytime government takes over this process it is to thwart this mechanism of the free market. The government substitutes force and threats of violence for mutally benefical trade. This reduces economic activity and creates more poverty. The US government does not protect rights equally, those that pay no income taxes are recieving special priveleges. This ought to cease immediately.

If the income tax was the only way government could tax us I would defintely support what Williams is talking about. The government is not some place we go to take the fruits of other people's lives away from them.

[Brian4Liberty]

I believe that there is some amount of savings/assets that disqualifies people from public assistance. I propose that only people who have net assets (assets - debt) above that amount be able to vote. That would go a long way towards instilling fiscal responsibility... People in debt don't get to vote.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I would amend the OP's proposal. In all matters concerning economics votes of those who contribute most should be weighted. In matters concerning social problem everyone should vote. The only problem is that our republican system does not allow for such distinction. Just work on removing the gravy train it will have same effect, same difficulties just without the unfairness that people already pointed out.

The wealthiest should have more say? - think about who these people are - CEO's, Obama paid something like 1.25 Million in taxes this year. That sounds like a recipe for corruption - as if lobbyists are not bad enough. It's a fair argument that those on Welfare and Medicaid couldn't vote to them voting themselves more handouts.

Heinlein in Starship troopers proposed that if you didn't do military service, you could not vote. MWV's comment about college age people has merit - if you are looking at being cannon fodder, you should have a say about it. Likewise, the retired / elderly probably are not going to pay income tax - yt most have paid their dues their entire lives. Think this is changing as I believe Medicare benefits are going to get taxed under the health care bill. Also, many will pay interest/dividend tax and property tax. This could have unintended consequences to, as polls have shown that most Tea Party members are over 40... What about immigrants? Switzerland has a system where you can't get citizenship / vote till you've lived in the country at least 90% of the time for 10 years.

Personally, I like the idea of a fair tax better - where something like 21% of anything you buy is tax - that way everyone pays a fair share and you can pay less by consuming less. That is instead of an income or all these other taxes. The entire tax code could fit on one sheet of paper and the IRS abolished if we did that.

-t