Tea Party leader desirous of Property requirement for voting

[GoodSarmatian]

I would actually support a political literacy test, but property ?
Why don't they just outright divide the people into aristocrats and commoners ?

 

[kosiosko 1]

non property owners still pay property taxes ... unless land lords are too dumb to pass on the cost to renters , which in my experience they are not

 

[GhostWriter16]

That would mean no Republican would be allowed to vote!!

but no.

What is "the country", in this context? The state, the community, the economy? You're going to have to lend your proclamations a little more definition.

I am suggesting that people who consistently live on welfare and do not pay taxes should not be able to vote. If none of their money is going into what happens in the country, why should they have a say?

The seriously disabled?

If you are seriously disabled, (The word seriously being important here) then I doubt you will be able to make an intelligent decision on who to vote for.

Those in poverty?

Those who are in poverty but are working SHOULD still be paying income tax. SHOULD. That they are not is a problem. Those who are not working, if they worked anytime at all recently (I believe I said like 3-4 years) then they would still have the right because they paid income tax in the past. The retired would also obviously have the right.

Those who haven't contributed anything since who knows when? Why should they have the "Right" to choose the leaders who will use the money of people who do work hard?

Remember, the working poor still should be paying income tax. Where they are not, it should be changed.

Seriously you couldn't care less about rights or freedom, as long as money is involved.
You're not a libertarian as the proposal you've suggested goes directly against your own ideology, why rely on the government, why take away someone's right to vote, their voice?

My point is that someone who is living continually off the work of others does not have the right to choose how everyone else's money is spent.

Though that is a means to an end, not an end in itself, simply a way to wake some people up and create change. My ultimate ideal is no income taxes and nobody being allowed to collect welfare for extremely long periods of time.

 

[Cutlass]

I am suggesting that people who consistently live on welfare and do not pay taxes should not be able to vote. If none of their money is going into what happens in the country, why should they have a say?

They are only on welfare because the rich refuse to allow them to work.

 

[GhostWriter16]

They are only on welfare because the rich refuse to allow them to work.

Nobody CAN'T get any source of income for a three year period. You can find a job somewhere, or start one.

Also, its not the rich refusing to allow them to work, its the rich choosing not to hire them. There is a difference. But there is someone somewhere who always needs a hired hand.

 

[SuperJay]

Wow. Just... wow.

BTW, at what point in these threads do you guys collectively begin to ignore posts by Domination3000?

 

[Traitorfish]

I am suggesting that people who consistently live on welfare and do not pay taxes should not be able to vote. If none of their money is going into what happens in the country, why should they have a say?

I think you need to pry about those two concepts, because only the latter is of much relevance. Would you also say that college students shouldn't be able to vote? The unemployed? Those whose income is below tax threshold? Housewives/husbands? Perhaps ones vote should be proportional to the tax one pays?

 

[JollyRoger]

How much property ownership? If you have a mortgage, does the lender get to vote rather than you?

 

[Cutlass]

Nobody CAN'T get any source of income for a three year period. You can find a job somewhere, or start one.

Also, its not the rich refusing to allow them to work, its the rich choosing not to hire them. There is a difference. But there is someone somewhere who always needs a hired hand.

The rich insist on an unemployment rate so high that there are not enough jobs. The rich ruin the chances of education for the poor so that they aren't qualified for jobs. It's a choice.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

What's next? Taking away voting rights from African Americans and women?

They already are trying, technically. I think I read somewhere that those groups are less likely to own properties than white males.

 

[.Shane.]

How much property ownership? If you have a mortgage, does the lender get to vote rather than you?

lol, so true!

 

[GamezRule]

So much for moving forward.

 

[JollyRoger]

What if you live in a trailer park? Does actually owning your mobile home count? If not, the Tea Party could be in a world of hurt.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Wow. Just... wow.

BTW, at what point in these threads do you guys collectively begin to ignore posts by Domination3000?

I'm actually far from sure that my opinion here is correct, but I feel like its worth exploring.

I think you need to pry about those two concepts, because only the latter is of much relevance.

I think so as well.

Would you also say that college students shouldn't be able to vote?

Well, wouldn't most college students be doing some work anyway to pay off college? But I'd say that college students would be an exception because what they are doing in college is likely to increase their contribution to the government later on anyway.

The unemployed?

Well, as I said, PAID income tax in the past 3 years, not specifically paid that year. So if you were temporarily unemployed and on welfare you'd still get the vote. If you haven't paid any income taxes for over three years, you are not giving anything to society, and are probably taking away from society, so why should you be allowed to choose who manages everyone else's money?

Those whose income is below tax threshold?

Well, IMO such a thing should not exist. Which is what I think they should be changing.

Housewives/husbands?

If you were married, or in a similar legal union, I would compute your tax statistics as a unit.

Perhaps ones vote should be proportional to the tax one pays?

I heard this suggested in satire once, but no. Bill Gates should not have 20 billion votes (Random estimate.) That would destroy the meaning of democracy.

@Cutlass- It isn't the rich creating an unemployment rate, it is the market PERIOD. And I'd blame the government more than anyone.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

If you are seriously disabled, (The word seriously being important here) then I doubt you will be able to make an intelligent decision on who to vote for.

Even a physical disability WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR INTELLECT???

 

[RedRalph]

I know many regard them as a flash in the pan, but these people are very dangerous. Another big economic crash and you would seriously want to start worrying about them.

 

[dannyshenanigan]

If you are seriously disabled, (The word seriously being important here) then I doubt you will be able to make an intelligent decision on who to vote for.

Wow, this is extremely insulting.

 

[Traitorfish]

I heard this suggested in satire once, but no. Bill Gates should not have 20 billion votes (Random estimate.) That would destroy the meaning of democracy.

Why? You're the one who poses the validity of input as dependent on financial contribution; why then turn it around and claim that it is not?

I mean, I see the core of your point here, the idea of parasite/producer, but you really need to flesh it out more fully for it to stand without a tremendous amount of qualifiers, and, frankly, that's not something I think you can achieve within the terms of capitalism.

I know many regard them as a flash in the pan, but these people are very dangerous. Another big economic crash and you would seriously want to start worrying about them.

I agree. There's a disturbing proto-fascist vibe to them, especially given- as reflected here- their waning commitment to liberal democracy.

 

[JollyRoger]

@Cutlass- It isn't the rich creating an unemployment rate, it is the market PERIOD. And I'd blame the government more than anyone.

It's the market PERIOD, yet you blame the government?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Wow, this is extremely insulting.

Well, can you define seriously disabled here? If you are seriously disabled to the point that you can't work at all, would you be not seriously disabled enough to not be able to understand politics?

That is, unless it was a physical disability, in which case yes I believe an exception should be made there.

Why? You're the one who poses the validity of input as dependent on financial contribution; why then turn it around and claim that it is not?

I mean, I see the core of your point here, the idea of parasite/producer, but you really need to flesh it out more fully for it to stand without a tremendous amount of qualifiers, and, frankly, that's not something I think you can achieve within the terms of capitalism.

Well, my point is, certain people are just leeching off the system and not working at all. There is a difference between that and working and trying to contribute, but just not being the very best at it. My point is to ensure that more people work, not aristocracy where the rich rule everything.