Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain income
threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of dedication
and success capability. In truth, they don't have enough numbers to
significantly influence election results by much anyway.
What should be required is that people who are living from government
benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You have a
dependency class voting for those who promise to take money from the people
who are working and provide it those who are not. Self-support should be a
pre-requisite for the franchise.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Right. It has been abused. That needs to be watched for. But the
idea that any sub-literate knucklehead without a hint of what animates
our laws should be able to vote is terrifying. That's how you
get a nation demanding that a "conservative" president fund all manner
of social do-gooding that is fundamentally illegal.
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
If it's illegal the Supreme Court will knock it down. If they don't
then in your mind it's because they are part of the conspiracy. Now
I'm getting it.
Your tinfoil hat isn't working--maybe you should get some titanium
No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet.
There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in
the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing
Other People's Money.
My point is the elderly, ill or disabled ......Indeed there are those among
us whom cannot through no fault of their own support themselves. To deny
these as less worthy to vote than those blessed with good health is quite
despicable. And I would suggest quite contrary to the basic ideals of a
freedom loving people. How with a clear conscious can one support such
How can you support the forced redistribution of personal property by
threat of government force? I am all for helping those who are in need
by no action on their own part. I am NOT for being forced to do so with
the government's gun in my ear while some third party decides for me just
who is and who is not worthy of *my* assets.
The issue I was specifically addressing is whom is allowed to vote......
On taxation itself, society as we know it as well as the ability to earn
said taxed income would not exist without a tax funded Government. People by
their very nature would not voluntarily send in sufficient funds to finance
even a shell of what we have today. Oddly worldwide as well as historically
countries that spend money and tax their people have the highest standard of
living and are the most productive societies. One may rationally argue that
being on the lower end of the curve works better U.S. Vs Europe but
societies with little or no tax do not do well at all......Rod
Is it that they are wealthy because they are taxed or that they are
taxed because they are wealthy? Taxing people who don't have
anything to tax is a losing proposition.
And the fact that people would not voluntarily send in funds in the
amount that they are taxed shows how far from the truth the assertion
that the US is a "democracy" actually lies.
But not a realistic position......there is always someone to tax.
It does prove that taxes do not destroy a country otherwise the poorest
least taxed countries would prosper....incidentally I do feel a Government
should tax and spend as little as possible but they are responsible for
fulfilling the publics mandate for desired services or functions.
I'd be happy to question our level of freedom in a country that requires me
to wear a seatbelt or that requires a permit(permission) to trim a parking
strip tree etc.....however the likely failure of voluntary taxation only
demonstrates that grocery stores can't survive on the honor system
either.....its human nature. Realistically people vote every year for taxes
via whom they elect, school levies they pass....majority rule is a bitch
when yours is a minority position. Rod
Does a majority in the US want those "services or functions"? And
don't say "if they didn't they'd vote the suckers out"--that is a very
naive view of American politics. At every election we vote some of
the suckers out and with every election the new suckers just go do the
same thing the old ones did but with a different line of bullshit.
I've seen no armed guards searching people leaving grocery stores. In
point of fact they _do_ substantially survive on the honor system. In
fact some local stores are almost completely on the honor system--it's
quite easy to sneak things through the automated checkout.
So find me a candidate who will promise to lower taxes and keep that
promise. Remember Bush Senior and "read my lips, no new taxes" and
then what does he do, he turns right around and signs a tax increase.
Or is it your contention that the majority in the US wants higher
They are going to get them. The current Bush has run us in debt for an
unnecessary war to the point where our grandchildren's grandchildren
will still be paying the costs (even assuming we can get out within a
reasonable period, which probably isn't the case). All done without a
tax increase, and, in fact, with a tax cut for those making over 100K.
Whoever gets elected next is going to have to raise taxes, and quite
probably by a considerable amount.
Look for it.
There is another way than the American way, apparently. I left Holland
almost 40 years ago, so my personal experiences don't really count, but
the Dutch have a "new" healthcare system: Government mandated health
insurance, paid for by the subscribers in some sort of income-adjusted
fashion. It apparently has very high compliance by the subscribers, and
is a work in progress. There are descriptions in the current issue (Dec
13 2007) of the New England Journal of Medicine. One of the 2 articles
on the subject is here:
Of course, the language of the NEJM isn't exactly geared to the average
man/woman, but possibly you can get the gist of it. Keep in mind that
taxes in Holland are higher than here. Moreover, the Dutch are trying to
"wean" themselves off of a rather extreme welfare state (financed in the
60-70's by the sale of government-owned natural gas). The Dutch seem
convinced that they like that "welfare state", but now realize that they
have to pay for it, AND they are willing to do so.
> as possible but they are responsible for fulfilling the publics mandate
> for desired services or functions.
I'm curious about how far you think that responsibility goes. If the public
desires universal "free" health care, for example, is the government responsible
to tax and spend enough to make that possible? What if the public desires
universal free ivy league quality higher education, or universal housing, or
universal sirloin steaks at hamburger prices?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.