Only Tax Payers Should Be Allowed To Vote

Yeah, sure. Nobody would be discriminated against. We could call it the "Jim Crow Voting Rights Act" or some other bull(*)(*)(*)(*) moniker that euphemizes it's true intent, right?

(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), why do all the righties seem to get their "ideas" from pre-1950s America?

 

hahahahaha this is funny folks. When something makes sense the left will label it with the race card one way or another because logic based on facts is such a foreign concept (it's racist actually)

News flash for you, morons come in all colors, sex, nationality, ect. I don't discriminate by saying an IQ test is a good way to weed out voters who will automatically vote for Santa Claus. Only their Santa has to rob working people first before sliding down their chimney.

 

News flash for you. Learn more history. Scarcely two generations ago, your 'brilliant' idea was in effect and used to discriminate against people of color. It's in the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing history books. It's unbelievable that there are idiots who seem perfectly OK with repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

Oh, they certainly can with the sheer number of privileges that leftists suddenly define as rights. Regardless: The Right to Life can also be taken away: just try to intentionally kill someone, and then ask me if the Founding Fathers believed in Capital Punishment.

No they don't. They receive more than they pay. This is inarguable.

Wah. What's a direct violation is creating teeming masses of teat suckers who do nothing but drag our country down.

 

Nonsense. If things like the EITC result in net positive at tax time, I could give a crap if you've deluded yourself into actually thinking you've paid into the system.

 

Why stop there? Why not allow people more votes based on their income and tax's paid? I mean after all, shouldnt I have more say than someone whom didnt pay as much into the system as I did?

 

While I don't understand or agree with taking voting rights from felons, rights can be taken away via due process of law (5th amendment for Feds. And 14th for states), thus why criminals lose many rights.

And yes voting is a right, not a privilege.

 

And if you can get that past through. . .how long before it morphs to "only people paying at least "this much" in tax can vote?

By the way. . .WE ARE ALL tax payers, even if people only pay tax on the bread and meat they purchase, or on the clothes they have on their back, or on the gas they put in their 1994 chevy!

 

and those taxes go to the state and local governments so they can vote in those elections

 

Not really sure where to start here. What is unbelievable is that people are ok with others getting robbed just so they don't have to work as hard (or work at all) and people like you applaud that. There is nothing wrong with my hypothetical IQ requirement to vote idea. Since when do stupid people (can't sugarcoat it sorry) make good economic decisions?

How much of my money do you actually want until I say enough is enough? With your agenda you will run out of other peoples money, it's an inevitable mathematical certainty that the left likes to ignore.

And "Mistakes of the past"? Really?? Because as we all know how well Socialism has worked in the past going back to Rome.

 

I get your point on the 24th Amendment, but how is the OP's proposal a violation of the 15th?

 

(My bold)

Wait, wait! I've seen this movie - it was Starship Troopers, the original movie (apparently there's a remake in the works). R. Heinlein's musings on national service & v. macho military & governance & public good. (& BEM, but hey, ya gotta make a living somehow.) The remake could be interesting, if they actually have the budget to do both the one-man armored/flying suits (think of them as personal mecha) & the bugs, spaceships, hyper drive et al.

 

It is a strawman, just killing the voter ID arguments before they arise.

 

Ah. So you recognize an inequity of being allowed to vote in one's self-interest!

That was rather the point of this thread. Thanks for helping out. I'll chalk your vote for being against being able to vote yourself money out of the Treasury without having any responsibility to put any in.

- - - Updated - - -

Not if you receive credits which result in a net gain, you aren't. You're a leech, and you get to vote yourself money from others - and we were WARNED about that.

 

Please cite the specific inalienable right to vote for all by any amendment.

Example: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

(My bold)

Yah, there is something wrong there. It's the notion that IQ actually measures the quicksilver ability we call intelligence. It actually measures linguistic/reasoning capacity - but the underlying measurement is of language proficiency, & cultural norms embedded in that language. Darwin's cousin - was it? - came up with the notion of social Darwinism. I suppose he decided that he should be famous & an intellectual explorer too.

Unfortunately, the science was v. shaky. It devolved into measurements of cranial capacity, & almost phrenology. & ultimately into notions of suppressing the numbers of infirm, neurotic, mental defectives, Roma, sterilization of habitual offenders, & on & on. Success in society - banker, lawyer, corner office, mistress & wife, summer cottage & whatever the bells & whistles are that you measure this stuff by - is not equal to evolutionary success. That has to do with reproduction.

Yah, a society of eggheads would probably be tidier than what we have now - a Show Biz kind of big top, masquerading as adults in charge of the asylum. Nonetheless, it's what all the big thinkers decided @ the end of WWII - we were to become & we have become a consumer society. Everybody consumes, & a lot of economic & cultural & educational & governmental decision-making rests upon the assumed continued ascendancy of consumption.

So yah, bring on M. Cyrus, J. Bieber, not so much P. Glass & cut way back on W. Shakespeare, J. Milton, W. Faulkner. It's Showtime, folks!

 

I'm done with this thread.

Poll tax (taxpayers, income, literacy tests, however you want to spin it) is a direct violation of the 24th Amendment. That Amendment exists because certain states were using these kind of measures to disenfranchise Black citizens and Populist supporters in the post-Reconstruction South.

You guys just are determined to take us back in time.

Regards.

 

You sound like a right winger who hates big govt, but that is just what your policy will result in.

A kind of semi-fascist state run by haves against the have nots.

Perhaps you need a time machine, 300 yrs ago in Europe would have suited you methinks.

 

another that has no idea what fascism is
you cant have a fascist state with a small government

 

What if the one who didn't work had a broken leg and couldn't work, point to make not everyone is fortunate if one is disabled or otherwise disadvantaged is it their fault in all cases?

And I pay taxes, last time I looked Sales Taxes are in fact taxes.

 

Why not?

 

I advise you to look up the definition of fascism and it will be self explanatory

 

In other words, you don't have an answer to support your absurd assertion.

 

a sales tax is applied to the state not the federal government so those that pay sales tax can vote in state election

 

Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

and how do you have fascism with out a big powerful centralized government so to have stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship