The Lunatics are Now in Charge of the Asylum

[Jon]

@The_Doc_Man I would like to be compared to a good analogy, and that isn't one!

It is the difference between a binary outcome and one on a continuum. I do think that voters resemble lemmings though. All falling off a cliff. One following the other in believing they are doing something, but not understanding they won't make a blind bit of difference. It is the paradox of voting. You need the system, but it is irrational for an individual to think they will affect the outcome.

I do rather like paradoxes. I think Zeno came up with a few. Those ancient Greeks were damn smart!

Zeno's paradoxes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Isaac]

I agree. I think it should go further - you should be required to vote. Laziness or indifference are enemies of the democracy. While voting might be compulsory - you can, in the privacy of the act of voting, choose to not select or foul the ballot paper. The incentive to stay put and not get up and make an effort unlike others, is not conducive to participation in the democratic process, then to moan about who/ what happened is a ridiculous position to take. Everyone (citizens - including those who do not pay taxes) should have a right to vote, and everyone has a responsibility to vote.

BTW my origins are the Cotswolds.. long ago

I think you should be required to vote and also only be allowed/required to vote if you pay taxes.
It's contradictory to innate fairness to let people who pay no taxes vote to raise taxes on those who are paying them for the benefit of those not paying them - such a system by designed is guaranteed to slowly increase the size of the pool paying no taxes (but voting to raise them) until finally those being taxed engage in some sort of more organized rebellion.

No representation without taxation.

 

[Isaac]

Refusal to take part in the democratic process should result in restriction in use of available services that a democratically elected society provides.

That's reasonable.
And, failure to pay taxes (which is a subject of the voting matter itself), should result in restriction on voting, too

 

[ColinEssex]

I think you should be required to vote and also only be allowed/required to vote if you pay taxes.

I think you are referring to tax on income. Whereas we all pay taxes on goods in shops, petrol, virtually most things are taxed.
Anyway, in the UK there is a threshold you can earn before you pay income tax. So you are saying someone in a poorly paid job who pays no income tax because they don't earn enough should not have a right to vote in a general election? Yet they pay tax on goods etc. Is that fair?
Col

 

[Isaac]

So you are saying someone in a poorly paid job who pays no income tax because they don't earn enough should not have a right to vote in a general election?

Correct.

The solution isn't really prohibiting them from voting, it's making sure everyone pays a percentage of their income as a tax.
Making it the same percentage will remain fair, no matter how poor you are.
It's not an honest, fair system where people who pay no income taxes can vote for other people to pay yet more income taxes.

 

[Jon]

There are many volunteers who contribute to society. Their contributions may be greater than those who pay tax, and yet they would be disenfranchised. And the disabled who are unable to work, through no fault of their own. If they were born with no arms and legs, to also take away their voting rights would be another blow to their already disadvantaged life.

 

[Isaac]

There are many volunteers who contribute to society. Their contributions may be greater than those who pay tax, and yet they would be disenfranchised. And the disabled who are unable to work, through no fault of their own. If they were born with no arms and legs, to also take away their voting rights would be another blow to their already disadvantaged life.

There could be all kinds of exceptions, I'm fine with that. (Except we've seen what that does with Welfare and Immigration/Asylum.....Everyone will simply claim to be the exception).

The one and only thing I've held fast to from the beginning, and still do, is that it's unfair for people who pay no taxes (let's say, because of lower incomes) to be voting on raising taxes for the rest of the people. That and only that.

All that will happen is that pool will become larger and larger - as it has in the United States, and now we don't have enough tax money coming in to satisfy the demands of those who have voted for the tax-and-spend party. The proof is what we're living out.

There are always exceptions to the rule. But you should not have people who are exempt from fees voting about raising those very fees to directly benefit themselves - that would be corruption under any other definition

Ideally, we would restrict my new policy in SUCH a targeted way that people who don't pay taxes would only be prohibited from voting for things that directly raise taxes on others - but I'm afraid that would be impossible to implement unless every political issue is decided by public referendum.

Another way to say this is just look at the welfare state under the Democratic party. How do you think it got that way?
"Sure, of course I'll vote Democrat. More free stuff for me, at no cost to me, at someone else's expense".
How would you propose that be solved? Maybe there is a better idea, before the country fails at our inability to even pay our interest payments

Really the nature of the solution probably shouldn't be prohibiting people from voting as much as it should be making sure everyone is paying a percentage. And don't think there is some massive pool of people with nothing coming in - in the US, we pay federal taxes even on Unemployment benefits and Social Security benefits. As Christians and Mormons have proved with the tithe, everyone can pay on a percentage-based system. We do it all the time - and have when we were very low income, too.

You shouldn't be able to vote for laws with penalties that you're exempt from - and especially when those penalties convert to a benefit for yourself.

 

[Pat Hartman]

In the US, we are currently around 47% of people who file income tax returns don't pay any tax or even get money back if they qualify for the earned income credit. The EIC is directed at the working poor but it is the segment of tax filers with the largest percentage of cheaters. One of the charts I posted recently (in a thread were we were talking about what the new 85,000 IRS agents would be doing) shows this.

Since we don't have referendums on bills that spend tax dollars, there is no way to target voting. I would love to hear a solution where a system that has 47% of the participants voting for representatives that are promising them "free" stuff.

This is actually so prevalent and effective for the Democrats, Trump has jumped on the bandwagon. One of his campaign promises is to stop taxing tips. He can't do that with an executive order. Congress would have to do it but it will likely get him some votes from the group of people who rely on tip income.

Can you find UK stats on the percentage of working people who file a tax return but don't pay taxes?

 

[Jon]

Get the lazy or unemployed to do community work, so there's a disincentive to perpetually claim benefits.

 

[Space Cowboy]

In the US, we are currently around 47% of people who file income tax returns don't pay any tax or even get money back if they qualify for the earned income credit. The EIC is directed at the working poor but it is the segment of tax filers with the largest percentage of cheaters. One of the charts I posted recently (in a thread were we were talking about what the new 85,000 IRS agents would be doing) shows this.

Since we don't have referendums on bills that spend tax dollars, there is no way to target voting. I would love to hear a solution where a system that has 47% of the participants voting for representatives that are promising them "free" stuff.

This is actually so prevalent and effective for the Democrats, Trump has jumped on the bandwagon. One of his campaign promises is to stop taxing tips. He can't do that with an executive order. Congress would have to do it but it will likely get him some votes from the group of people who rely on tip income.

Can you find UK stats on the percentage of working people who file a tax return but don't pay taxes?

You completely miss Trumps point, two days after that "Tip" comment a republican state governor was cleared of bribery for accepting a $13,000 reimbursement from a company to whom he had awarded a 100, 000 dollar contact.
The reimbursement after the contract was determined a "tip" by the republican court.
As if trump did not know that the bribe conviction would be overturned.
Trump is legislating bribery and corruption as long as the BRIBE is paid after the contract is awarded and furthermore, determining it "TAX FREE"!

 

[Space Cowboy]

That's reasonable.
And, failure to pay taxes (which is a subject of the voting matter itself), should result in restriction on voting, too

Failure to pay the current rate of taxes, by huge multi billion dollar profit making operations, should preclude said companies from supporting, Financially ANY political party.

 

[Isaac]

Get the lazy or unemployed to do community work, so there's a disincentive to perpetually claim benefits.

We have been trying to undo the disastrous results of our welfare state ever since a few years after we started it.

@Jon I want to make it clear I am not unsympathetic to people who can't work.
And if our reality in the USA were the same as the sympathetic picture your paint, I'd have a different opinion on it.
Our problem is that in the USA fully half of all people pay no income taxes - and , speaking generally, those same people keep voting for more services from tax money from the people who are paying taxes - it's really an unsustainable system which is starting to break down

 

[Isaac]

Failure to pay the current rate of taxes, by huge multi billion dollar profit making operations, should preclude said companies from supporting, Financially ANY political party.

I am amenable to the concept of making sure corporations are paying a reasonable amount of taxes, yes.
As far as supporting a political candidate or party, I also feel (perhaps we can agree on this) that the situation is abysmal, on all sides, all the time, pretty much.

If possible I would prohibit all candidates from using their own money OR receiving any money from anyone.
Give them each 100 million (or whatever) and let them do what they want with it - therefore nobody is influenced from donors. This might feel like a minor waste of money, but could potentially also solve a massive problem.

 

[Mike Krailo]

If possible I would prohibit all candidates from using their own money OR receiving any money from anyone.
Give them each 100 million (or whatever) and let them do what they want with it - therefore nobody is influenced from donors. This might feel like a minor waste of money, but could potentially also solve a massive problem.

Except if they take what you give them and in addition do the offshore shell companies and diamond deals anyways.

 

[GaP42]

@Isaac - re exceptions to your rule about not having the right to vote if you do not pay income taxes.
Some simple exceptions were shown, such as some physical incapacity, and you agreed there were exceptions, but just think for a moment..
- mothers / fathers as the primary stay-at-home care-giver no longer working would not have the right to vote? If you say but they were working and paid income tax in the past - then how do you decide the period of grace is over. What if they never go back to work?
- family members who are unpaid carers for incapacitated parents, partners or children, that precludes them form working?
- the same applies to people who have been injured and may not be able to work for some period of time. They may have received some form of compensation. Do they lose voting rights after a year of not paying income tax?
- loss of a job through closure of the company, seeking work but unable to find it? Discriminate against them too?
- volunteers: do you imagine that all volunteer organisation and their volunteers would need to submit returns as to who worked as a volunteer and when. What volunteer organisation? Some that may not align with your view: IDK: Food not Bombs, Muslim Brotherhood, Democrats for America? (purely speculative names and do not necessarily represent real orgs - just to illustrate)

Seems like the regulations / monitoring for exceptions becomes extensive, particularly if it only applies to some voting on issues related to income tax.

Are your rules limited to the raising and lowering of income tax.
You also put forward that the rationale for not allowing those who do not contribute income tax to vote (on income tax) was that it has no impact on them and they will just want more for nothing. Does the same self-interest also hold for those who pay income tax where income tax liability might be reduced? Conflict of interest? At some point, in most matters where government policy is being changed, there are many who can be affected directly and indirectly - we have conflicts of interest - perhaps that is where political partisanship arises.

Taxes are raised though a range of means, not just income tax. If you do not contribute to a specific tax, you do not get to vote on that tax? What if the tax is on say, luxury goods? Death/ estate duties? The point is there is this great mix of sources of funds for the implementation of government policy. If you raise or lower income tax, then the government may have to adjust spending or other taxes to adjust. Do those who are then impacted by other taxes then have the right to vote?

 

[Isaac]

@Isaac - re exceptions to your rule about not having the right to vote if you do not pay income taxes.
Some simple exceptions were shown, such as some physical incapacity, and you agreed there were exceptions, but just think for a moment..
- mothers / fathers as the primary stay-at-home care-giver no longer working would not have the right to vote? If you say but they were working and paid income tax in the past - then how do you decide the period of grace is over. What if they never go back to work?
- family members who are unpaid carers for incapacitated parents, partners or children, that precludes them form working?
- the same applies to people who have been injured and may not be able to work for some period of time. They may have received some form of compensation. Do they lose voting rights after a year of not paying income tax?
- loss of a job through closure of the company, seeking work but unable to find it? Discriminate against them too?
- volunteers: do you imagine that all volunteer organisation and their volunteers would need to submit returns as to who worked as a volunteer and when. What volunteer organisation? Some that may not align with your view: IDK: Food not Bombs, Muslim Brotherhood, Democrats for America? (purely speculative names and do not necessarily represent real orgs - just to illustrate)

Seems like the regulations / monitoring for exceptions becomes extensive, particularly if it only applies to some voting on issues related to income tax.

Are your rules limited to the raising and lowering of income tax.
You also put forward that the rationale for not allowing those who do not contribute income tax to vote (on income tax) was that it has no impact on them and they will just want more for nothing. Does the same self-interest also hold for those who pay income tax where income tax liability might be reduced? Conflict of interest? At some point, in most matters where government policy is being changed, there are many who can be affected directly and indirectly - we have conflicts of interest - perhaps that is where political partisanship arises.

Taxes are raised though a range of means, not just income tax. If you do not contribute to a specific tax, you do not get to vote on that tax? What if the tax is on say, luxury goods? Death/ estate duties? The point is there is this great mix of sources of funds for the implementation of government policy. If you raise or lower income tax, then the government may have to adjust spending or other taxes to adjust. Do those who are then impacted by other taxes then have the right to vote?

I'm open minded to how problematic my 'rule' would be, so at this point I'm more interested in knowing what's your suggestion to solve the problem of a growing pool of people who rely on the government, pay nothing into it, and increasingly vote for the party that takes more from the opposite pool to feed the first pool. You do see a problem with that, right? Needles on dials are moving in a certain direction, they are not staying the same - and that's problematic too - so what do you suggest?

Giving people who pay nothing into the system the ability to vote for things that increase the fees of those paying into the system will naturally grow the first pool and shrink the second pool over time, which ultimately I would think gets you closer and closer to socialism. This is something I think very independently, not because a conservative told it to me.

 

[Pat Hartman]

@GaP42 @Isaac likes to think of himself as a "nice" person and that is why he went along with the concept of "exceptions" regarding voting only for taxpayers. I don't need to think of myself as "nice" so I would be reluctant to go along with exceptions. They would eventually be as complex as the Tax Code and contain sufficient loopholes that very few people would actually be denied the right to vote. Like many things with legislation, that is just a slippery slope.

I understand that basing your ability to vote on whether or not you paid any income tax last year seems harsh. You are right, there are many people who don't work because they don't have to because they have some other source of income - like homemakers or college students. Or who have some mental or physical disability that makes them unemployable. It was a talking point to start a conversation. So, let's flesh it out and see where it goes.

So, how about a second test? How about OR you received some kind of welfare the previous year? Really the goal is not to disenfranchise citizens but to keep people who take government handouts from voting for more government handouts for themselves. This is actually much easier to control. It means that you need to categorize welfare programs so that programs that are in place to help the mentally or physically infirm are in a different class from the welfare given to able bodied people. Keep in mind, this is not a permanent, once applied, always valid category. It can be a sliding window. If you took government assistance - except of the first type - during the past two years, you can't vote THIS year. So, the first full year you are off of government assistance restores your right to vote during the next year. This is actually not hard to administer. The Feds know who gets what money from which programs and can report that annually to each state. The state then uses that file to update their voter list and mark a voter ineligible if he is on the federal list. What is much harder is categorizing the hundreds of welfare programs.

 

[GaP42]

Hi @Pat Hartman, @Isaac.
Your position re reluctant to go along with exceptions I think would disenfranchise lots of people, somewhat unfairly from the democratic process.
The starting position is that we vote for a party or politician representing the party, and its policies. A policy may be one that supports the proposition that you lose the right to vote if you did not pay income tax - in the last year. And a second test (policy) might be you received some form of welfare (government handout) in the previous year.
In either situation:
1. Contributions are made to the tax base of the government not only through income tax. The contribution of income tax is known, but the assignment of money to different programs is not, generally based on how it was sourced. Perhaps you might manage that under a specific pool of funding - if that is of contention.
2. Voting to elect politicians is based on the voters view of the range of policy, character etc that a politician presents. Generally voting is not simply for a bill to change income tax to a different level, up or down.
3. Agree that there can be a mechanism to identify people who have contributed income tax in the past year, and this could be used to update eligible voter lists.
4. The exceptions, which you do not want to permit:
- family members who are unpaid carers for incapacitated parents, partners or children, that precludes them form working
- retirees who have worked all their life but no longer pay income tax (perhaps earning income from investment)
- rich "entrepreneurs" that "hide" their income in the earnings of their private companies, distribute it to family members to minimize to 0 their personal income tax.
- the people who have been injured (mental / physical) and may not be able to work for some period of time. They may have received some form of compensation. Consider PTSD incurred during military service and now un-employed?
- retrenched workers no longer able to find a job from which they would pay income tax.
- people who contribute to society as volunteers but do not have sufficient income to pay income tax.
Are you OK with each of these NOT being exceptions? IDK - are the above reasonable scenarios?

Really the goal is not to disenfranchise citizens but to keep people who take government handouts from voting for more government handouts for themselves.

Is it the case that if you accept government handouts you cannot be someone who pays income tax? Are all Government handouts only to those who do not pay income tax? Perhaps this is to be limited to certain forms of handout: dole? any subsidy for food or transport? ..etc IDK

Given that a person's situation can change fairly quickly, where they may be employed gainfully and then lose their job for whatever reason and be in receipt of a handout, and so in the one year, be in both camps. They would be amongst the lucky ones who could vote for lining their own pockets, in your terms.
Your sliding window would need to accommodate both sides: when you start to pay income tax and when start to utilize a welfare program?
- No Government Assistance utilised for 2 years before you can vote, but they have been earning an income and paying tax for 2 years!?
- No income, no longer paying income tax - you are removed when? After 2 years? And yet they may be benefitting from some Government Assistance while voting...

Under your scheme, those who contribute income tax are the only ones with the right to vote. The concern you raise to exclude others is that they will be voting in their own interests, however are those paying income tax also voting in their own interests? You do not want those who may benefit from a change to income tax rules to vote in their interests - however it not being a straightforward as a vote upon income tax levels.

Note we have not yet looked at which welfare programs.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Why exactly, is allowing people with no skin in the game to tell the government how to spend other people's money fair? It is certainly not fair to me. Maybe it is fair to them. Everything is always fair to somebody. Why exactly, is allowing non-citizens to vote fair? The Biden administration imported 20 million people and are working diligently on registering them to vote. Less than 40,000 votes swung the last Presidential election. I guess Biden knows he needs to cheat again to win again but we're on to the ways they did it last time. So, they did another end run around "we the people" and imported new voters because the old ones don't actually like his policies once they are implemented. Some sound good on paper but that's as far as it goes.

 

[GaP42]

Everybody pays taxes - you are focussed on income tax. Everybody has skin in the game and if an eligible voter has a right to vote. The questions above were not about distinguishing citizens and non-citizens.