Eye on the ball. I brought those examples up only in the context of refuting a weak argument that if someone doesn’t have the vote, he doesn’t have to obey the law. I demonstrated that this was historically demonstrably a red herring.
To answer your question, even though it’s not on point: Depends. I read a biography of the Duchess of Devonshire. She didn’t have the vote. She seems to have enjoyed herself pretty well. I imagine I’d try to position myself (first and foremost, by getting a good job) so that the lack of a vote did not make my life unduly unpleasant (just as having a “vote” in North Korea, which they do, does not render life unduly pleasant).
50% of them? Can’t pay anything? You’ll forgive my skepticism.
My point is rhetorical though there are multiple ways (which could be combined) to address the problem: broaden the tax base, shift taxation from penalizing earned income to some other index, reduce the role/cost of government, and, yes, consider something like a poll tax.
I think you typed “today’s” where you meant to type “my.”
But . . . why only adults? Why only citizens (if I’m visiting from Uzbekistan on election day, I’m subject to all U.S. laws – I should totally be allowed to vote!)?
You’re also reading “ordered” to mean “most appealing to [you].” When I or others use it, we mean a society in which the rule of law prevails (through human history, by far the biggest problem has not been casting a vote, but preventing some other guy or tribe or country from raping or murdering you), there’s not widespread starvation, crime, or pandemics, government is not overtly corrupt, the trains run on time. None of that requires 100% suffrage, desirable though that may be to you.
I never said 50%. I haven’t looked at the numbers closely, but I could easily seeing it being at least 20%. And that is a “large number”, which is what I did say.
OK. Like I said, revoking the franchise should not be on the table.
Point of order, sir ! You offered these examples as material proof that there were ordered societies before there was universal suffrage. I’ll grant you that much. I mean, while you’re at it you could also point to France or England circa 1215, where the average cack-handed peasant did not have the vote, did not even know what a vote was or have the notion that he could in any way influence government - but still had to obey the law, OR ELSE.
The gist of my point was that those societies were ordered in a way that we arrogant and cocksure moderners think were, not to put too fine a point on it, mondo fucked up to the max. To the point that they led to widespread social unrest & upheaval, bloodshed and, well, in a nutshell, modern society. We’ve learned, we’ve moved onward and upward. As such, pointing to them as justification for your modest proposal doesn’t really help as much as you might think.
The poor should have their taxes raised, after all they escape the estate taxes which kick in at over 1mill. They don’t have to pay this and the top 12 percent do. How can that be fair?
How many poor people are escaping the capital gains tax? Here we go again. The poor burdened wealthy have to pay it and the poor get away again.
. . . (putting aside that well-off people pay in a lot more than they may get out, and vice versa).
[/QUOTE]
tomndebb, sorry but the original statement is absolutely correct. It is usually a good idea to do some research before you try to correct people. Familiarize yourself with http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/social-security-medicare-benefits-over-lifetime.pdf . Two-earner couple with one spouse earning an average wage ($43,500 in 2011) and one earning a low wage ($19,500 in 2011) retiring in 2011 will get back 109% of their Social Security taxes. Two-earner couple with one spouse earning a high wage ($69,600 in 2011) and one earning an average wage ($43,500 in 2011) will get back 87% of their Social Security taxes.
You missed the point. The wealthy benefit from our system of laws more than the poor, because they have more to lose. That is why they pay more. Taxes are the price of civilization.
You really missed the point. Tom made the bald assertion that SS tax was always regressive. I knew (and erez’s link confirmed – hat tip for that) that they are very often progressive/redistributive. (I was too lazy to correct Tom, mostly because of the drive-by nature of his contribution).
“Taxes are the price of civilization.” Then everyone who enjoys the benefits of civilization should pay every tax pro rata. Half the population should not be exempted from a major tax (the income tax). As for the brand-new argument that the rich get more out of the rule of law – the rich get less, because they can hire private security, pay for their own healthcare, attend private schools. We could do this all night.
Well to be fair he made it clear that he retired out of pure self-interest, not out of some political change of heart. He said the Republicans were clearly intent on gutting the federal government, and as part of that they meant to dismantle federal workers’ benefits, including their retirement. And so he left while he still had a generous retirement plan to retire with. In short, he was happy to be a Republican operative while they were goring other people’s oxen, but when it became HIS ox that was endangered, the light dawned! I’m sure a lot of Republican lower-end people are like that … they know they are doing wrong, but the money is so rewarding!
I’ll believe you are sincere when you include things like estate taxes and capital gains taxes as needing to be included 1:1 in equalizing “pro rata” taxes.