Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Did I tell you I burned my diploma I got from that place awhile back?
Government is the mechanism for enforcing the collective will of the people over the people. Taxes aren't something you give to get services that you want. Taxes are something we take to get services that we want. In the absence of a (semi-) voluntary taxation system, the poors would find other, less-voluntary means of getting the things they wanted out of you.
This is what happens when children move to the grown up table. They try really hard to converse with the adults, but in actuality they just parrot what they have heard others say.
Federal income tax is paid when there is a deficit between the tax applied to the household's earned income less any applicable deductions or credits and the amount already paid in payroll taxes. The federal government collects their payment from every paycheck. If you work, you pay federal income tax. Can someone please explain this to the boy wonder with the dumb ass haircut?
ENJOY!!
http://thewhitworthian.com/2012/11/08/ra…
What'd be awesome about his system is those who pay taxes (thus can vote) could then say only the top 10% in terms of taxes paid can vote, on and on. Then only the highest tax payer can vote!
If your neighbor decides to trade something to someone else for money, then only some of that money given up by the other person becomes your neighbor's money. Some of it becomes the government's money.
If the government comes to you in the middle of April and says "Give us our money," they are not stealing money from you. You have been holding on to some of their money. That money was never yours. If they say to you "Here is your money," they are not giving you a gift. They have been holding on to some of your money. That money was never theirs.
If you do not want a government to be a party to your transactions, leave the dominion of that government.
The absence of a check written to the feds in April of every year is not equivalent to not paying federal income tax.
Then again, Bobby Jindal is a Brown alum, so who knows?
And what would this mean for Mitt Romney, who didn't pay federal income taxes for a decade?
(oops, forgot to tell you about the drones, too late, should have worn your tin foil hat!)
"Thus, if person A contributes 100 times more than person B in income taxes, person A should have 100 times more voting power than person B. This is the logical extension of the earlier case."
I want to slap this kid so fucking hard.
"Consider the business world. If you own stock in a company, your shareholder’s vote is in proportion to your ownership of the company."
Except the government is not like a company.
You cannot fire or sell-off the worst performing state(s).
"What I am proposing is not a radical, backward idea from a time when voting restrictions were used to exclude certain groups from voting on the basis of gender or race."
Yes you are.
Instead of denying it, try explaining WHY it was a good idea back then.
"Apart from being moral, ..."
Do NOT confuse morality, okay?
Either your idea stands on its own or it does not.
"If only those contributing voted, money would be spent less freely, since voters would begin to treat the public tax dollars more like their own money."
You might want to look at who was pushing for the last two wars which were paid for by borrowing money.
Here's a final thought for you.
When only the richest get to decide the direction of government, what is to stop them from using government to funnel MORE money to themselves?
Your plan looks more like autocracy than democracy.
Seriously, this is why the Estate Tax is such a great thing. THAT forces the little pricks to go out and truly earn their way.
This is actually the situation right now because of Government subsidies and access to low cost capital from the Fed.
So in a nutshell, Person A makes his money by receiving subsidies from the Government in the first place. Person A would get 1000 dollars from Government, pay $100 in taxes, then get 100 votes. He would use the 100 votes to get a bigger contract and get $10,000 -- and pay $1000 taxes and get 1000 votes...and so on, until only a very few people, say, oh, 1%, had all the votes.
Yikes...I think I've heard that story before!
Since old, white, heterosexual, christian males run the majority of multinational corporations in this country, it's only logical that they should be the only ones who get to vote.
because that's what government *means,* that you willingly cede some power for the overall good of a more ordered society.
That's racist.
The fact that he really wants his rationale to be "moral" is pretty exceptional, even for a naive college kid.
This goes up & down the conservative/libertarian crowd. Keeping taxes low for those who have the greatest wealth improves things for everybody, eh? Prove it. Show me the numbers. Demonstrate w/ a real-world example that such ideas are worth it.
Fact is, you can't. It just doesn't work like that.
A part of me really hopes that this was a really clumsy attempt to imitate Jonathan Swift's brand of satire in "A Modest Proposal," but I'm afraid that he is really sincere.
@22: I just want to beat him over the head with something now.
To me, that makes as much sense as this kid's argument.
His face may even be more punchable that Paul Ryan's.
Even "pumping iron photshoot for Time" Paul Ryan.
News at 11.
To be fair he is no more privileged and ill informed than most of the stranger staff.
The main thing he's guilty of is shamelessly putting it all out there: a terribly stupid idea that he will one day soon realize is quite stupid and immoral indeed, forever on the interweb.
If any of my drunken debates were on the internet from when I was a lass, I'd look like a jackass too. I'm a better person now because I've had those conversations in a safe place.
As a caveat, the vote still applies to citizens only, and the Constitution still guarantees the public safety, etc., so while taxpayers would have the ability to self-determine how much they would be willing to pay for public assistance, they would not be able to ignore basic human rights type services, fire, police, military.
As a caveat, the vote still applies to citizens only, and the Constitution still guarantees the public safety, etc., so while taxpayers would have the ability to self-determine how much they would be willing to pay for public assistance, they would not be able to ignore basic human rights type services, fire, police, military.