Taxes and Voting


bytor2112
 Share

Recommended Posts

Amen Brother!

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? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. 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.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that I don't have any stock in Ford Motor Company so they have no reason to listen to me, but as one of many car companies, I'm also not forced to drive their cars. The reason that the stock/voting analogy fails is because whether I am penniless or pay millions in taxes, laws that are passed affect me the same. Why should the person who pays millions of dollars have thousands of times more say in matters that affect us both? Doesn't that seem rather unfair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

I think I've got some bad news for you MM...

Yes, the wealthy have a lot of influence, but in America the average person is far better off today than they were in the times when things weren't decided by democracy -- serfs, peasants, no access to property, education, or entrepreneurship or movement into higher socioeconomic circumstances. Citibank executives were quoted as saying the only thing stopping the plutonomy was the popular vote...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So true.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that I don't have any stock in Ford Motor Company so they have no reason to listen to me, but as one of many car companies, I'm also not forced to drive their cars. The reason that the stock/voting analogy fails is because whether I am penniless or pay millions in taxes, laws that are passed affect me the same. Why should the person who pays millions of dollars have thousands of times more say in matters that affect us both? Doesn't that seem rather unfair?

Because the man that pays the millions of dollars in taxes pays for things like welfare programs and national defense. Things that benefit the penniless. Laws that are passed do not affect people the same as evidenced by the tax laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the man that pays the millions of dollars in taxes pays for things like welfare programs and national defense. Things that benefit the penniless. Laws that are passed do not affect people the same as evidenced by the tax laws.

I hate this idea, Bytor. Something in my gut just makes me instantly dislike it, and I pay taxes.

However... Let's consider that. What are you really saying?

$20, 000 in taxes. $3.5 trillion dollars being spent per annum, on average.

That means that there is an additional 175 million votes in a country with 307 million people Hmm... That would give additional stake, certainly, to corporate America. That's assuming, of course, that you aren't running at a deficit.

6, 700, 000 people are millionaires currently(As in: Total worth over $1000000 not counting first homes) in the US. If we assume they'd all vote with corporate interests in mind(Unlikely, but we'll make do for the moment), then if a law were designed to mess over the middle class and the lower class, you could count on it still being outvoted.

The idea has merit, but I'd be cautious: It would give a lot of power to foreign nationals. It would encourage kowtowing to the areas that have the most votes, which... Actually, as a flip side might encourage people to pay their taxes for a greater say.

It would probably cause a greater break in the rich/poor divide, but would certainly help balance the budget and might even give the middle class greater power as husband/wives joint-file their income tax and so increase their voting power by 50%.

Trick idea, Bytor. It has merit, but you might be looking at full on class warfare after a few things don't go the way of the people who don't pay $20, 000 in taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I am not advocating the idea and neither is Dr. Williams really. The article points out the obvious problems with our current unfair system of income tax. Far too many do not have "skin in the game" as is often said and as such aren't nearly as concerned with runaway government spending and waste and corruption because it doesn't affect their wallets....or so they think. The reality is that it affects all and hinders economic prosperity...but many are far to addicted to the government dole and are way to quick to take the bait of class warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

In the bolded section above, Madison received close to what he was looking for in that the Constitution originally established that Senators were to be elected by the state legislatures and the Representatives by the vote of the people. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution, in my opinion, took us in the completely opposite direction the Founders intended by establishing that Senators also be elected by the people. Further to this, the Founders never had in mind a federal income tax and the 16th Amendment is on some very shaky ground. I actually have a much stronger opinion relative to federal income tax than this, but... maybe later.

I echo the sentiments of a couple of others who have posted on this thread as well... the tying of votes to dollars spent in taxes is a horrific idea. Perhaps instead of seeking ways to further divide this country into the "have's" and the "have not's", we should be looking at ways to eliminate the federal income tax altogether and to repealing the 17th Amendment to strengthen the rights of the individual states in the Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I am not advocating the idea and neither is Dr. Williams really. The article points out the obvious problems with our current unfair system of income tax. Far too many do not have "skin in the game" as is often said and as such aren't nearly as concerned with runaway government spending and waste and corruption because it doesn't affect their wallets....or so they think. The reality is that it affects all and hinders economic prosperity...but many are far to addicted to the government dole and are way to quick to take the bait of class warfare.

If that's the case, then the idea should be advocated seriously. At one point, during world war II, the government considered 100% income tax on all incomes over $25000 per annum. Now, taxes are much much lower and spending is much much higher.

Taxes will have to be raised or spending will have to be reduced. If you don't, then inflation will destroy the middle class a whole lot faster than increased taxes. Unfortunately, one side is saying "Raise taxes for the rich!" and the other is saying, "Reduce spending!"

If someone doesn't bend, your country is in for a world of hurt. At least with what you're advocating there, taxes would be voluntarily raised and gathered.

EDIT: Actually, that's making more and more sense. That would mean the reasonable people who realize out of control spending isn't the answer will have more say than the unreasonable people who refuse to either raise taxes or cut spending. YAY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I echo the sentiments of a couple of others who have posted on this thread as well... the tying of votes to dollars spent in taxes is a horrific idea. Perhaps instead of seeking ways to further divide this country into the "have's" and the "have not's", we should be looking at ways to eliminate the federal income tax altogether and to repealing the 17th Amendment to strengthen the rights of the individual states in the Union.

While that's all well and good to reduce taxes, how do you propose you pay for the currently $13.3 trillion in debt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the man that pays the millions of dollars in taxes pays for things like welfare programs and national defense. Things that benefit the penniless. Laws that are passed do not affect people the same as evidenced by the tax laws.

And how many laws that benefit or even protect the penniless do you think will be passed after they have virtually no say in our government? Why not just round up everyone that makes less than $30k per year and kick them out of the country while you're at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how many laws that benefit or even protect the penniless do you think will be passed after they have virtually no say in our government? Why not just round up everyone that makes less than $30k per year and kick them out of the country while you're at it?

It would have an impact on crime, that's for sure. Poverty is a factor in criminal activity. Although where would you send them? Mexico? Australia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued at the possibility of allowing special nationwide referenda on spending or tax bills where votes are weighted as Bytor suggests. The trouble is, once you open the door there--where does it end? Do you allow the military to vote on which wars it will or won't fight?

Whatever the case, I'm certainly uncomfortable with allowing the rich virtual carte blanche to choose our government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes right down to it, everybody in the U.S. has a stake in the economy, whether or not we own property or have investments. I suppose it's stating the obvious, but if we have a strong economy, we have more jobs, more money in circulation, etc., which benefits everybody. It would therefore make sense for people who do not have property to still vote for sound economic policies.

Let's not forget that the poor DO pay taxes. Consumer taxes on goods they purchase, and the working poor often do pay income taxes and property taxes as well (I sure as heck do!).

The problem is not that the poor have too much say in how this country is run, but too little say. Money talks to politicians, so the rich effectively have more political clout than the poor.

I would really love to see some major campaign finance reform happen, but good luck trying to convince the politicos of that. And this nonsense about corporations being "persons" with full First Amendment rights is maddening, not to mention just plain silly.

HEP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just round up everyone that makes less than $30k per year and kick them out of the country while you're at it??

You are overlooking one crucial issue. Someone has to make your fries at McDonald's. The Rich/Business wouldn't want to kick out everyone who makes under $30,000 a year, not only is it a significant labor pool it also represents a significant chunk of collective buying power.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that the poor DO pay taxes. Consumer taxes on goods they purchase, and the working poor often do pay income taxes and property taxes as well (I sure as heck do!).

Just to clarify: Sales taxes go to state, not federal, governments. Also, if your income is below a certain level, you don't pay taxes (yes, your employer may be withholding taxes, but you get that back as a refund at the end of the year; and if it really bugs you you can always get your employer to file a new W-4 listing as many exemptions as it takes to get your withholding down to zero).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify: Sales taxes go to state, not federal, governments.

Taxes are taxes! The poor still have a stake in the economy.

Also, if your income is below a certain level, you don't pay taxes (yes, your employer may be withholding taxes, but you get that back as a refund at the end of the year; and if it really bugs you you can always get your employer to file a new W-4 listing as many exemptions as it takes to get your withholding down to zero).

True enough. Even if one gets a refund, however, it's not always for the full amount you paid in the first place. In other words, your income taxes are lower, but you still pay something.

In any case, even if someone is penniless and pays no taxes, I think they should still be full citizens, with full voting rights, etc. The state is NOT a for-profit corporation.

FWIW, I am in favor of graduated income taxes. The poor have less money to spend, and so it only seems fair they're given a break. And although I think the wealthy should pay higher taxes, I do believe there should be a limit to how much they're taxed. I wouldn't want the government to make it impossible to make a profit! :lol:

HEP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share