From: Bobster on

"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-486C64.22485806022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <tnqbn.35794$Fm7.7270(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > - - -
>> >
>> > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets one
>> > vote.
>> > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person pays in
>> > income taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this would
>> > weight votes on what government should do based on who is paying for
>> > it.
>> > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes.
>>
>> Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200 in
>> income
>> taxes you get two votes.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK?

Buying votes is exactly what public employee unions do in California which
explains why we are bankrupt.

From: Bobster on

"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-B9A309.07575607022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <YOrbn.35799$Fm7.16451(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>
>
> So now you see just what a stupid idea this is. For a reality check,
> just remember that your proposal is very similar to the system that used
> to hold in Northern Ireland, and we all know what that led to.

No, now we see how stupid you are. People who don't pay taxes don't have
any skin in the game. They shouldn't get to vote on issues that raise taxes
or increase spending.

From: Bobster on

"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-6300BD.10213407022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <7kzbn.90050$1m3.87120(a)newsfe11.iad>,
> "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>
>
> This gets crazier by the moment. You don't suppose there are fifty
> million ways to avoid paying taxes but making it look like you do?
> Right.
>
> What you end up with in a system like this is a permanently
> disenfranchised class, who then turn to other (usually violent) means to
> express their dissatisfaction and frustration with the system. Don't I
> recall some kind of revolution taking place a couple of hundred years
> ago on a similar basis? It is what happened in Northern Ireland, and
> with some justification. I prefer the ballot box as a better means of
> doing this.

You don't think taxpayers are going to rise up someday? Lock and load!

From: Frank Ketchum on

"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-6300BD.10213407022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <7kzbn.90050$1m3.87120(a)newsfe11.iad>,
> "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>
>> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
>> news:clark-B9A309.07575607022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> > In article <YOrbn.35799$Fm7.16451(a)newsfe16.iad>,
>> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:clark-486C64.22485806022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> >> > In article <tnqbn.35794$Fm7.7270(a)newsfe16.iad>,
>> >> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1mqbn.35793$Fm7.7043(a)newsfe16.iad...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:b5b4fc62-1eb4-4744-9d69-ad9972e5ff31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> > On Feb 6, 8:35 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> news:b2a74ab3-c5cb-45d4-ab83-9d44fe40edc4(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> On Feb 6, 8:07 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >news:ae8a32c0-f97f-4e25-ad48-467fb695fa32(a)o3g2000vbo.googlegroups.co
>> >> >> >> >m..
>> >> >> >> >.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > > In a speech to the Tea Party convention, Tancredo said Obama
>> >> >> >> > > was a
>> >> >> >> > > "committed socialist ideologue," who was elected by people
>> >> >> >> > > who
>> >> >> >> > > can't
>> >> >> >> > > read or write. He said a civics literacy test should be a
>> >> >> >> > > prerequisite
>> >> >> >> > > for voting. I'm just wondering what the Republicans here
>> >> >> >> > > think
>> >> >> >> > > about
>> >> >> >> > > this. Do you defend him?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > I think Obama is a socialist in the sense that he wants to
>> >> >> >> > enact
>> >> >> >> > socialist
>> >> >> >> > policies.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > I do not think that the people who elected him "can't read or
>> >> >> >> > write".
>> >> >> >> > That
>> >> >> >> > is stupid.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > A civics literacy test would be a fantastic prerequisite. It
>> >> >> >> > will
>> >> >> >> > never
>> >> >> >> > happen. Another good idea would be to just accept the fact
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > elections
>> >> >> >> > are nothing more than spoils systems nowadays and weight votes
>> >> >> >> > based
>> >> >> >> > on
>> >> >> >> > how
>> >> >> >> > much income tax an individual pays. Bring in your previous
>> >> >> >> > year's
>> >> >> >> > tax
>> >> >> >> > returns and your vote is thusly weighted. It will also never
>> >> >> >> > happen.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Of course not being a Republican my opinion is not what you
>> >> >> >> > are
>> >> >> >> > looking
>> >> >> >> > for.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> more
>> >> >> >> than those cast by people who don't?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> - - -
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No, I suggested weight be given to those who pay the most in
>> >> >> >> taxes
>> >> >> >> since
>> >> >> >> they are financing government. Let he who pays for it decide how
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> use
>> >> >> >> it.
>> >> >> >> What is wrong with that?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What do you mean by "weight"?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > - - -
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets
>> >> >> > one
>> >> >> > vote.
>> >> >> > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person
>> >> >> > pays
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > income taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this
>> >> >> > would
>> >> >> > weight votes on what government should do based on who is paying
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > it.
>> >> >> > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> income
>> >> >> taxes you get two votes.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK?
>> >>
>> >> Buying something suggests that you willingly enter into an agreement.
>> >> There
>> >> is no willingness on the part of the taxed. I am suggesting that the
>> >> people
>> >> who actually are currently forced to foot the bill for government
>> >> decide
>> >> how
>> >> that government works. What is so hard to understand about that? It
>> >> used
>> >> to be that in order to vote you had to be a landowner. Why? Well
>> >> because
>> >> it was well understood that the only people that should be deciding
>> >> our
>> >> affairs were people that had a stake in the outcome. The further we
>> >> get
>> >> away that and the further away we get from the politically astute
>> >> deciding
>> >> elections, the more our affairs are determined by idiots.
>> >
>> > Your level of taxation is no measure of your contribution. Plenty of
>> > wealthy people pay far less in tax than many middle class salary
>> > earners, since they have the means to pay to set up tax shelters and
>> > other avoidance devices.
>>
>> Geez dude. Ok let's try again. In your example, the middle class salary
>> earner would get MORE votes than the wealthy people since they are paying
>> MORE in TAXES. That is EXACTLY what my suggestion would do.
>>
>> > How about you let people vote by their actual
>> > contribution to society? Then an inner city teacher who works their
>> > butt off gets more say than the wastrel son of a billionaire who just
>> > sits on his rear all day and plays the odd game of polo?
>>
>> Letting people vote by their actual "contribution" to society is worse
>> yet
>> because then it is up to politicians to decide what is "contribution" and
>> what isn't. Contribution would be defined as a politicians particular
>> constituency.
>>
>> The son of a billionaire who does nothing gets one vote since he doesn't
>> pay
>> income tax. Try to understand the difference between wealth and income
>> and
>> taxes.
>>
>>
>>
>> > So now you see just what a stupid idea this is. For a reality check,
>> > just remember that your proposal is very similar to the system that
>> > used
>> > to hold in Northern Ireland, and we all know what that led to.
>
> This gets crazier by the moment. You don't suppose there are fifty
> million ways to avoid paying taxes but making it look like you do?
> Right.
>
> What you end up with in a system like this is a permanently
> disenfranchised class, who then turn to other (usually violent) means to
> express their dissatisfaction and frustration with the system. Don't I
> recall some kind of revolution taking place a couple of hundred years
> ago on a similar basis? It is what happened in Northern Ireland, and
> with some justification. I prefer the ballot box as a better means of
> doing this.

It's called a tax return, William and it is already on file with the federal
government. So you are worried that people will fill out their tax returns
claiming they owe more in taxes than they really do because they want more
power to vote. But that aside, you think that this would lead to MORE
shenanigans in elections than the current system where they can't even ask
for identification?

And we had a system in America where you had to be a land owner to even vote
at all and that worked fine. I don't recall that leading to anything
remarkable.



From: Jack Hollis on
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:43:43 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net>
wrote:

>Right now we have a tyranny of the majority situation in one particular
>area: if the majority want something, they can force the minority to pay
>for it.

In California, you have a huge voting block that pay no, or very
little, taxes. They're quite happy to vote for any service that they
can get no matter what the cost. Of course, the people who do pay
taxes eventually figure this out and leave the state. The result is
huge deficits with no one left to pay taxes.

If you do the same on a national level, the rich people simply go
somewhere else with their money. Businessmen will always outsmart
politicians.

Remember, capital goes to where it's treated the best, not to where
it's needed the most.