A remark in this thread got me thinking, which is always a dangerous thing. Without getting into any debates or politicking, if given the choice, would you give up the right to vote if it meant never having to pay any taxes again? Let’s further say that this would be reversible, but to get the vote back, you’d have to pay back all the taxes you would have paid before. What would you do?
Personally, I think I’d have no problem giving up the vote to save all that money. But then, I couldn’t complain about the way things were being run.
I think that, if such a choice were offered, all that would really change is the methods of taxation. If the government couldn’t tax people’s income anymore, they’d just tax businesses more, which would pass those costs to their employees and customers.
That said, I wouldn’t do it. The increased cost would make my vote worth even more.
I wouldn’t do it. I pay a boatload of tax and I do vote.
While I think a lot of government spending is wasteful, and my tax bill could be lower, I recognize that the government must be funded. And I’m not about to give up my right to bitch (which, as Zebra notes, many don’t seem to care about).
Interesting thought. On one hand you don’t want people with money controlling everthing, but on the other hand you have people who don’t contribute money voting for polititians who spend the money. Hmmmmmmm
I’ve actually thought that there should be some form of social contribution involved as a qualifier to vote but I’ve never concieved of a way of doing it. Hurts my brain.
I guess I’ve always felt that if someone can take my money by force then the same process should apply to labor.
I like having the right to vote (except I don’t even have that at the moment - living in a foreign country, you know), but I would happily give it up to avoid taxes.
Let’s face it, voting is a pretty irrational act. How many elections are decided by one vote? It’s hardly worth the cost of the gasoline to get to the polling booth, let alone the value of all my taxes. In 2000, many people were saying that the closeness of the result shows just how important it is to vote. No, actually, it didn’t. Unless you were on the Supreme Court, a single vote made no difference in any state.
I am a foreign national living in the US with a permanent residency visa. I pay a buttload of taxes and don’t get to vote. Next year I hope to start the naturalization process, mostly because I want to be able to vote. I want that privilege. I do not enjoy living in a country in which I have no say as to the composition of the government. I wish to participate fully as a citizen, to be educated about the issues and to vote for my representatives. I think both paying taxes and voting are part of what it means to have a stake in the country in which you live.
Nope, no way. I’ve voted in all but two elections since I became old enough to vote (and would have voted in a bunch more before that, if not for the oppressive jackboot of The Man), and I’m happy to pay taxes to keep my government running.
However, I’d gladly accept a refund of all the taxes I paid before I was able to vote.
In a split second. By not paying taxes I’d pretty much be making my opinion known. If you want me to fund you then make sure you spend the money I give you responsibly. And that shouldn’t take more than 10% of my income, not 50%*. Plus, I live in western Canada. Our vote out there pretty much counts for shit anyway, IMHO.
*I’m an expat, so at this time only pay ~10% anyway. Still, I’ll eventually work in Canada again.
I believe the goverment’s final authority should be the will of the people. If I were to take the bribe and give up my vote I would be a hypocrat as the goverment would not be answerable to my say. While in the grand scheme of things my vote probally does not mean much but what if every figured that? Thats the question I ask me self when I don’t feel like voting. Of course if I don’t agree with anyone of the canidates I can always vote for none of thee above.
Now THERE’S a political party I’d support, merely on the basis of Truth in Naming. At least they’d be honest about being dishonest.
re, the OP: Are you KIDDING?!? The only true reason left to vote is to get your damn taxes lowered. 'Cept that whenever I vote for someone based on his campaign promise to lower taxes, he usually turns out to actually be an un-registered Hypocrat.
Face it, not voting in order to reduce your tax burden is like wrapping yourself in raw bacon to keep from being eaten by jackals.
This attitude is just plain stupid and makes me despair. Every vote is equally valid and important. Many elections give victors with small majorities. How big was Bush’s victory in that county in Florida?
Like Idlewild, I live and pay taxes in the US, but am not a citizen and thus do not vote. So I would happily retain my tax dollars and continue not to vote.
If a country did adopt such a scheme, I wonder if an individual could have more influence over the process by applying their money rather than their vote.
Say someone pays $10K per year in income taxes, and chooses not vote, but instead puts the money toward campaigning for their candidates/causes through contributions to candidates, parties, etc.
What is the likelihood that they would influence more than one person to vote their way and thus get a better return than by actually voting themselves?
I don’t recall who wrote it, but I remember reading a SF short story ion Analog many years ago, in which taxpayers could choose how much of and for what purpose their tax dollars were applied. I found the idea intriguing at the time, and I’ve often wondered if such a scheme were viable.
Why? Your saying so does not make it so. What percentage of elections are decided by one vote? That will tell you the likelihood of your vote being significant.
Correct - and individually, they are of very minor importance. How often in history has one vote been significant?
**
Maybe so, but how often is that majority just one? **
More than one. And it is irrelevant anyway - the votes for the whole of Florida got lumped into one total, where the majority was also more than one.
