Only Tax Payers Should Be Allowed To Vote

you are a ship wreck survivor on a deserted island with 50 other people. you all decide to make decisions democratically
25 of you go out and find and collect food and water you come back to camp and with the 25 left behind 15 of them built a shelter the other 10 didn't do anything but sat around and complained
now it is time to vote how the gathered food and water gets split up and the sleeping arrangements in the shelter.
should the ones who didn't put in any effort to acquire the gathered food and water or build the shelter have a vote and how the food and water is shared or the sleeping arrangements ?

we have started to reach a point here in America that the takers are out numbering the makers, and when we reach that tipping point the takers we keep voting for the ones who promise for more and more to be taken from the makers and given to them and the country will collapse

 

Unconstitutional, and just un-freaking American. Voting is a right, not a privilege.

Any kind of economic infringement on that right is a DIRECT violation of the 24th Amendment.

Any societal infringement on that right is DIRECT violation of the 15th Amendment.

 

there is nothing in the constitution that gives you the right to vote. that is left up to the states. it is why some states allow felons to vote and most states don't

And it is only logical and common sense to only allow the ones who contribute to the funding of government to decide how that money is spent. why would anyone care how someone else's money is spent?

 

I see absolutely no reason to deny the right to vote to certain citizens, including felons. To me it is essential in a free society for all to be able to vote. Once you start tacking on rules you are just asking to create a superior class that runs the nation. There is nothing free about that.

- - - Updated - - -

I see absolutely no reason to deny the right to vote to certain citizens, including felons. To me it is essential in a free society for all to be able to vote. Once you start tacking on rules you are just asking to create a superior class that runs the nation. There is nothing free about that.

 

I vote to prevent those who REFUSE to work and pay taxes from voting. I also want proof anyone who votes can read and understand the ballot. I also want proof they are a citizen when they vote. As all good liberals know, the Constitution can be amended.

 

The poor aren't lining up to vote for people who will take your money. In fact, the poor have the lowest voter turnout of any economic group in this country.

So what groups of Americans are you talking about? What groups should no longer be allowed to vote because they take more money than they pay in? If you believe that government money management is the only issue that should determine how a person votes then what groups should be allowed to vote and what groups should be relegated to the status of non-citizen?

 

Net tax payers..... I believe every DIME of public assistance, unearned income credits SHOULD be paid back 100% before you're allowed in the voting booth.

 

Regardless of your interpretation of who can vote, those two amendments DIRECTLY address voting for black men (voter ID laws), and voting on the basis of income (poll tax). Therefore, your proposal is a VIOLATION of the current constitution as written, per the 15th and 24th amendments.

 

And it has been amended to include the exact OPPOSITE of what you are proposing.

 

They damned well shouldn't be getting a dime of federal tax return either. Become an actual contributor, THEN get treated like one!

 

Where did you get this ludicrous idea that poor people don't contribute to the government?

 

sales and property tax goes to state and local governments they can vote in those elections

 

I've always thought that a short and basic IQ test needs to be taken and passed before your voter registration is complete. That way nobody is discriminated according to their job/income. Nothing unfair about it.

 

I understand the reasoning: "We decide about how to spend money, so those that made the money should be the ones that decide". But the thing is that a government does so many other things than just that. It's supposed to represent the whole nation, and thus the whole nation should be allowed to vote. It's affecting everyone's lives, and thus everyone should be allowed to vote.

 

no because you still can be a lazy bum that contributes nothing to the society you live in and you can be as dumb a rock and contribute quit a lot to society

as I described in my apology people shouldn't be allowed to decide how resources are used when they contributed none to those resources

 

There are more ways to contribute than by money.

 

everything the government does require tax money to do, and people have more of a tendencies to be frugal and responsible when it is their own money being used. people that doesn't have skin in the game the ones who don't contribute will not be responsible. it isn't any part their money. they will continue to vote for who ever promises them more and more taken from the contributors and given to them

 

Even if only people that contribute are allowed to vote, the feeling that they're spending somebody else's money still remains. It's a fundamental flaw with democracies, and it's the reason why decisions should be made on as low a level as possible, so that they feel it's actually their money. But still, as I've said, a government is much more than just deciding what to do with money.

 

While it is true that there is no constitutional right to vote, if the states DO allow their citizens to vote, they can't discriminate based on various criteria spelled out in the constitution. EricBEggs is correct, this time.

That having been said, making the voting process an annual one, and part of the tax filing has some merit. It might work like this: The people vote when they file their tax return (and anybody that wants to vote can file a tax return, regardless of income). The votes are TALLIED every 4 years, and the winner gets the office. This way, incumbents are being constantly evaluated. So they don't just have to appeal to their constituants once in 4 years, they have to do it all the time.

I'd go further to say, incumbents not be allowed to campaign; the job they are doing *IS* their campaign, and campaigning takes focus from their job (in fact, winning the next election currently IS the focus for them). Challengers can only campaign on THEIR OWN positions. No negative campaigning. Challengers get a fixed amount to spend on their campaign. Only when challengers and incumbents are together in a debate are they allowed to attack each other's positions, where direct and immediate rebuttal is possible. No more trickery.

On the surface, only allowing taxpayers to vote seems to make a lot of sense, but it smells of 'ruling elite' to me. Escape from the ruling elite is one of the reasons we came here. There are certainly some changed that could be made to make the voting/election process better though. For instance, I'd be in favor of raising the age to vote to 35. Give people a chance to get out of the idealistic envirionment of college and into the real world before they can influence the choosing of our leaders.

 

Just don't ever use the constitution for any future arguments. You are obviously in favor of circumventing certain Amendments that don't endorse discrimination at the polls.

Poll taxes are illegal. There is no thing more to discuss.

 

Such blanket statements are simply the product of ignorance, and leftist imagination. The right to vote is not absolute; rights come with responsibilities as well.

One can lose their right to vote by committing a crime. Why shouldn't one lose their right to vote if they don't contribute to society?

I am in full agreement with the OP. The right to vote should extend ONLY to those who pay taxes.

 

Rights cannot be lost, sir. Felony disenfranchisement is also unconstitutional.

And as I showed before, the poor do pay taxes.


Don't cherry pick our democracy. Voting is a citizen right. The OP proposals are direct violation of the 15th and 24th Amendments.

 

All citizens have an absolute right to vote. Try reading the US Constitution.

If someone gets convicted of a crime, they are no longer a citizen in good standing and they lose their rights.

Because what constitutes a contribution is arbitrary. What exactly do you contribute?

Find another country, China would make you happy, you can become a party member and vote.

 

Anyone who earns a wage and gets a paycheck pays taxes so your OP is completely baseless.

 

No it's not. You cannot lose rights, what you can lose is the ability to exercise them.