One of my working definitions for what is not “bat-shit crazy” is something that has been applied in America for substantial periods of time without chaos revolution or anything other than peace and prosperity. Property/tax restrictions on the franchise certainly meet that standard.
Don’t have time to read this thread but the economics editor of the FT makes some good points re. supply side, tax cuts and the GOP here.
His last sentence is
Where am I wrong, if at all?
Anybody like to point out where they think he’s wrong?
Yes. It is unfortunate that we do not vote on individual spending bills. If this were the case then I would oppose the non-contributors voting for how we spend other people’s money. But, as long as the government seeks to increase the number of non-contributors, and we have Congressmen who run on a platform of taking more from the contributors and giving to the non-contributors, then I have no choice but to oppose voting by those that don’t contribute.
Alternatively, make everyone who works pay something into the system. This makes a lot more sense then denying people the right to vote.
You think property and poll tax restrictions were accompanied solely by peace and prosperity. What were these halcyon days of peace and prosperity?
I’ll admit, it’s handy when people come right out and declare they are better or more worthy because they have money, but we really have already come through this stuff as a nation. You’re going to have to bring something pretty damned substantial to the plate instead of just “Wah! My money! MIIIINE!” if you want some of our rights and franchises to be swept away.
And nobody replied to your post. Shocking. 
No, not joking at all. I am curious because you ridiculed another poster about their thoughts on the concept of ‘rights’, and I just wanted to hear your definition so I can compare and see how you arrived at the conclusion of the ludicrousness of the other poster’s ideas. Seems fair to me to have both viewpoints on the table for analysis. I understand that you feel strongly about your position. I just am not sure what that is, so if you would be so kind as to spell it out for us, that would be great.
Do you mean prior to 1820? I’ve heard of longing for “the good old days”, but this is taking it to a new level.
And I’m sure you are aware of why poll taxes are no longer acceptable in the US.
And maybe those that contribute more can vote more? Maybe one vote per 100k in income? If this is your goal, let’s just move to an aristocracy and be done with it.
Everyone who works does “pay something into the system”. They provide the labor that makes the economy run. They buy the goods and services that make the economy run. They fight our wars. The idea that the poor are somehow “sub-American” is rather revolting to me.
Poll taxes existed well into the 1960s. They were then nullified by Constitutional amendment and judicial action, but I stand by my point – modern, peaceful, prosperous America does not absolutely require (nor is it “bat-shit crazy” to dispute that it requires) extending the franchise to non-stakeholders. That’s how we have it today, true, but it’s not the only or even necessarily the best way.
I like the diet budget analogy, but it doesn’t work here. Lets use a budget/budget analogy.
A newly married couple decided that they want kids and when they want kids, one of them will stay home.
Is it better for them to keep spending and say “well, when you quit your job, we’ll just decrease our spending” or for them to say “let’s see what we can do on one income before we have kids?”
Chances are, the first won’t work because you’ll take on obligations that need to be paid with future dollars - you’ll buy a house with a mortgage you qualified for with two incomes, much like our government has with debt, social security and pension obligations. Cutting taxes and then figuring out how to cut the budget will turn us into Iceland or Greece.
The other problem I have with tax cuts is that tax cuts are an effective stimulus. But only if you have rates to cut. What we SHOULD do is tax MORE than needed when times are good and put it in a reserve (no spending the excess from EITHER side of the aisle). Then when times are bad, revenue goes down but you can afford a stimulus cut. We want to cut when times are good because “the government is bringing in plenty of money” and we want to cut when times are bad because we want the stimulus. Eventually, there isn’t anything to cut, and you can’t use taxes to move the economy.
Of course not! We forbid convicted felons from voting, there is certainly no good reason why this should not apply to those persons who’s failures of character and will have consigned them to poverty. For all practical purposes, its already a crime to be poor in America, why not just go ahead and formalize the obvious?
Poor Will Rogers! Trying to be sarcastic, ending up being prophetic.
Yes, Mr. 88. I think most of us understand your point.
An excellent job of dodging responsibility there. Not only do you wish to take the political voice from others (and thereby magnify your own), but it’s someone else’s fault that’s brought you to this conclusion. Yes, you’ve simply no choice.
But I don’t understand yours in making this post. Or maybe you don’t have one, that’s entirely possible.
I think there is a valid point to be made that a democracy becomes unstable as you approach a situation where a majority of the population can vote on benefits but do not share in the costs. And FICA taxes do not count, because they are supposedly collected to be returned for a defined benefit, and are not used to finance new program spending (well, not any more, anyway). So even though poor people pay a tax, it’s not proportional to the cost of the programs they vote for, so it has no effect on responsible voting.
I would say that the ‘fairest’ tax in this regard is one that seeks to find a level of constant utility. In other words, the ‘felt pain’ is equivalent regardless of income level. That means a progressive tax, but one which extends down to the floor of every salary. Perhaps someone making $20,000 per year only has to pay $1000 in tax to feel the same economic pain as someone who makes $100,000 being taxed $20,000. If so, fine. But we should attempt to avoid situations where a voting citizen is completely disconnected from the consequences of their vote.
Hey, look what debtors’ prisons did for 19th Century English literature. Bring them back, and another Dickens will arise. sure as shootin’.
It’s funny that those so offended by the notion that non-stakeholders might not deserve the exact same voice as stakeholders have to resort to attacking arguments that no one’s actually made (criminalizing poverty, debtor’s prision), as opposed to the actual argument – you can have a highly-progressive tax code in which a tiny minority is supporting a substantial freerider class, or universal suffrage, but both at the same time does not work well.
Hmm, maybe the need to attack strawmen suggests there’s not much there there for the group that believes the freeriders deserve an equal voice. FWIW, I’d just as soon they were paying their share and then they can have their voice.
We should also avoid a situation where someone’s voting rights can be taken away due to no fault of their own. There are many many reasons why an individual may not qualify for paying income tax in a given year. Are you certain that in all of these cases you’d be comfortable silencing their political voice? That is an awfully big net to be casting out there.
Also, to mr 88 - yes that’s correct, noone else in this thread has a point beside you. Is that really what you think is going on here? I think that poster was simply commenting on the fact that you’ve made your point abundantly clear many times in this thread now, so constantly reiterating it doesn’t really add anything substantive to the thread anymore.
We could always raise the minimum wage to the point where people who work at McJobs earn enough to pay taxes. Of course, that’d cut down on the profits raked in by the owners, but maybe that’s a small price to pay for a more vibrant democracy?
First, given the low voting rate in the US, it might be the case that your dream world already happens, in that the poor vote at much lower rates than the well-to-do.
Even as it stands, there are two problems. First, for the most part a voting citizen is disconnected from the consequences of votes on spending whether or not they have money. California is a perfect example, where the initiative system encourages people to vote for new spending and vote against new taxes, both at the same time. Perhaps politicians do a bad job of balancing taxing and spending, but the people do an even worse job.
Second, wouldn’t it be better to deal with the large number of people not rich enough to vote in this scenario not by disenfranchising them further (the rich get a bigger vote already due to donations) but by getting to the point where they have jobs that pay well enough so that they pay taxes? In the first alternative why would the rich voters want to pass legislation which would reduce their political power by arranging for the poor to earn more? Not to mention the other incentives to keep their salaries as low as possible. So, this looks like it would be a one-way street - at least until that time the poor, completely estranged from government, gets their second amendment guns and it is up against the wall for the rich.