Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

White College Boy Believes the Right to Vote Should Be Tied to Money

Posted by on Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:14 PM

What a great idea! Why didn't we ever think of this before?

In the United States, any citizen who is at least 18 years old and not a convicted felon has the right to vote. Most of us accept and celebrate our universal suffrage. But is it a good idea? In my view, no. Not every adult U.S. citizen should have the right to vote. Instead, only those who pay taxes to a government should be eligible to vote in that government’s elections. So, for example, under this system, an adult paying sales tax in Rhode Island but no federal taxes would qualify to vote in Rhode Island state elections but not in federal elections. Restricting the right to vote to taxpayers is moral and practical.

After all, what is a vote? A vote is a piece of control over how the government spends taxpayer money. Every government program, every enforced law and every action taken by the government is funded from tax “revenue.”

It does go on. I bet this kid is already fielding calls from Republican party officials looking to run him for office.

 

Comments (50) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Cato the Younger Younger 1
That's nothing Whitworth University has this clown beat. A member of the editorial board at the Whitworthian actually said the rape comments of the rape candidates for Senate were not only defensable but morally correct.

Did I tell you I burned my diploma I got from that place awhile back?
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on November 14, 2012 at 2:23 PM · Report this
2
Oh yeah, because if you do not pay federal taxes, you are not affected by the federal government. Yeah. I guess so long as I do not pay federal taxes, I can ignore federal laws, right?
Posted by ourkind on November 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM · Report this
3
Isn't this how they ended up with the Republican candidate for the Ohio Senate race this year?
Posted by palamedes on November 14, 2012 at 2:27 PM · Report this
5
Found his mistake.

After all, what is a vote? A vote is a piece of control over how the government spends taxpayer money.


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.
Posted by Ruke on November 14, 2012 at 2:28 PM · Report this
6
I hope this also implies that as a non-citizen resident legal alien who pays taxes at every level, I get to start voting!
Posted by Big Adventure Steve on November 14, 2012 at 2:29 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 7
So corporations that don't pay taxes aren't people?
Posted by Pope Peabrain on November 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM · Report this
8
Sigh.

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?
Posted by catballou on November 14, 2012 at 2:32 PM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 9
Here's the link to my little story that made me puke

ENJOY!!
http://thewhitworthian.com/2012/11/08/ra…
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on November 14, 2012 at 2:33 PM · Report this
10
And libertarians wonder why nobody takes them seriously.
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!
Posted by CbytheSea on November 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM · Report this
Delishuss 11
So this means all of the immigrants here illegally, who pay income, payroll, and Social Security taxes while receiving no refunds or benefits, would get a vote, right?
Posted by Delishuss on November 14, 2012 at 2:35 PM · Report this
12
Don't forget about criminal law. Even if you went along with his (stupid) point that only people who pay taxes have skin in the game regarding how that money is spent, everyone is directly impacted by what actions will send them to prison.
Posted by Fr0zt on November 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM · Report this
13
Ugh. "Your neighbor's money is his money." Yes, and no one is trying to take his money. If your neighbor has a big huge pile of money in his house, yup, that's his No one else is going to take any of it.

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.
Posted by Ben on November 14, 2012 at 2:38 PM · Report this
14
To clarify, I meant that additional federal income tax is paid in that scenario.

The absence of a check written to the feds in April of every year is not equivalent to not paying federal income tax.
Posted by catballou on November 14, 2012 at 2:38 PM · Report this
18
I remember being 20 and thinking I knew everything about how everything should work. Then I turned 23, graduated, and began living in the real world, and I discovered I didn't know anything about anything. I am hopeful that will happen to this kid, too.

Then again, Bobby Jindal is a Brown alum, so who knows?
Posted by Sheryl on November 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 19
I love it. Now, instead of no taxation without representation, it's no representation without taxation. What an assclown.

And what would this mean for Mitt Romney, who didn't pay federal income taxes for a decade?
Posted by keshmeshi on November 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 20
Grip that gun tightly. The black choppers might take it!

(oops, forgot to tell you about the drones, too late, should have worn your tin foil hat!)
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 21
Although, actually, if they made the vote proportional to the percentage of your income you pay in taxes, poor people would control state governments, and rich people would get virtually no representation in federal government. Maybe the idea isn't so bad after all.
Posted by keshmeshi on November 14, 2012 at 2:56 PM · Report this
22
It gets even worse.

"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.
Posted by ourkind on November 14, 2012 at 3:02 PM · Report this
23
I think someone just discovered Ayn Rand.

"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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on November 14, 2012 at 3:03 PM · Report this
The Max 24
I believed in Robert Heinlein when I was 20 too. I never quite believed in Ayn Rand, but I didn't start with her until a little later. But there's a reason why these libertarian models only work within the realm of Science Fiction.
Posted by The Max on November 14, 2012 at 3:05 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 25
@ 18, if this kid comes from as privileged of a background as I imagine he does, then he's going to continue to be shielded from certain harsh realities that the rest of us deal with, including the ones that would teach him better.

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.
Posted by Matt from Denver on November 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM · Report this
26

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!
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on November 14, 2012 at 3:09 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 27
I have a better idea.

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.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on November 14, 2012 at 3:22 PM · Report this
28
"It follows that universal suffrage is immoral. Is it right that someone who pays nothing to a government should be able to vote to decide how that government spends other people’s money? Most would agree that controlling how your neighbor or friend spends his or her money is morally wrong. Why, then, do we accept that it is right when government is the middleman between you and your neighbor or you and your friend?"

because that's what government *means,* that you willingly cede some power for the overall good of a more ordered society.
Posted by drivel on November 14, 2012 at 3:27 PM · Report this
29
#18 - "Bobby Jindal is a Brown alum"

That's racist.
Posted by catsnbanjos on November 14, 2012 at 3:34 PM · Report this
Delishuss 30
Thank God I was lazy when I was 18 and I deemed Atlas Shrugged too long and boring to read for that one scholarship essay contest. Otherwise I might've turned into this douche.
Posted by Delishuss on November 14, 2012 at 3:37 PM · Report this
31
Simple solution to a nonexistent problem. Implement a 1 cent federal sales tax.
Posted by BusyB on November 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM · Report this
treacle 32
Wow. Fortunately this cretin's ideas will go nowhere.
Posted by treacle on November 14, 2012 at 3:57 PM · Report this
Knat 33
Anyone considering such a notion for more than five seconds will immediately start spotting gaping holes in this idea. That's why we don't do this anymore. This sounds like a case of the hypothesis being worked to support the predetermined theory.
Posted by Knat on November 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM · Report this
Dougsf 34
By this logic, perhaps he'd like votes cast by those in the top income brackets to be worth 15% of a point, while single renters might cast a vote worth 25% of a point. Hell, break it all the way down to the most minute jurisdiction—haven't staying in a hotel downtown or rented a car this year? No baseball games for you!

The fact that he really wants his rationale to be "moral" is pretty exceptional, even for a naive college kid.
Posted by Dougsf on November 14, 2012 at 4:33 PM · Report this
35
Wow, I've paid sales tax in many states, but not my home state of Montana because we don't have a sales tax. Should I be able to vote in say, Idaho, just because I paid their sales tax a few times? There are so many problems with this idea, I don't even know where to start.
Posted by Rocky Mountain Ben on November 14, 2012 at 4:38 PM · Report this
36
I'm for it. Republicans don't want to pay taxes. We could let them. And remove them from the voter rolls.
Posted by tkc on November 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 37
Interesting thing about these like-minded folks: they have no facts. All they have are feelings about what "should" work, but nothing whatsoever about data to back it up.

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.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on November 14, 2012 at 5:21 PM · Report this
38
Hey, that would take care of a lot of women voting, since many, like me, are at home with their kids, not paying taxes, just being the takers that we are. Republican problem solved!
Posted by missktkat on November 14, 2012 at 5:36 PM · Report this
39
@29 - Well, I do live in Louisiana.

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.
Posted by Sheryl on November 14, 2012 at 5:49 PM · Report this
venomlash 40
@2: /thread
@22: I just want to beat him over the head with something now.
Posted by venomlash on November 14, 2012 at 6:22 PM · Report this
41
I actually think people who pay federal tax should get NO vote on the grounds that the ability to vote on issues affecting their tax load constitutes a conflict of interest.

To me, that makes as much sense as this kid's argument.
Posted by Clayton on November 14, 2012 at 6:38 PM · Report this
prompt 42
Why stop there - we could restrict voting to land-owning white males too.
Posted by prompt on November 14, 2012 at 6:56 PM · Report this
watchout5 43
Under that logic anyone in the world should get to vote in our elections because they pay some form of US tax. This poor kid was brainwashed. Giving him attention is half his aim.
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on November 14, 2012 at 10:53 PM · Report this
The Third Rail 44
Great idea! Also, if you pay more taxes you should get more votes right? Because you own a bigger share? And you should also be able to buy more votes if you want to. Wait... doesn't this sound familiar?
Posted by The Third Rail on November 14, 2012 at 11:16 PM · Report this
45
@38 has a great idea. Republicans would either have to pay the taxes they owe or be disenfranchised.
Posted by sarah70 on November 15, 2012 at 12:48 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 46
Damn, if you have not yet, click the link to check out this guy's picture.

His face may even be more punchable that Paul Ryan's.

Even "pumping iron photshoot for Time" Paul Ryan.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on November 15, 2012 at 7:21 AM · Report this
npage148 47
@39: I really want to think this is bad satire but I really don't think it is.
Posted by npage148 on November 15, 2012 at 8:52 AM · Report this
LogopolisMike 48
@46 Holy shit -- you weren't kidding.
Posted by LogopolisMike http://logopolis.typepad.com on November 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM · Report this
persimmon 49
Well I guess this will exclude all those pesky politicians and other government employees from voting. Also active duty soldiers. Freeloaders.
Posted by persimmon on November 16, 2012 at 8:43 AM · Report this
50
So much snark here! College is a time of figuring out who you are, what you believe, and generally for EVOLVING. We used to have crazy debates like this one, sometimes until, gosh, after midnight! And it was healthy, spirited, and intellectually stimulating. It's what college is for. Sometimes you had "crazy" ideas that seemed brilliant at the time, but in retrospect was pretty immature and not altogether thought out. So now college kids have these same debates on the internet and—thanks to snarky commentary like most of the above—this rite of passage has become unhealthy, mean-spirited, and unhelpful. Public shaming has never changed anyone's line of thinking for the better—or at least in the direction you'd prefer them to lean—and this goes double for children, which this kid essentially is. He'll probably change his mind in, like, three months (approximately 30 years in teenage time).
Posted by mitten on November 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 51
College kid says something stupid and lacking real world knowledge.

News at 11.

To be fair he is no more privileged and ill informed than most of the stranger staff.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on November 17, 2012 at 3:30 PM · Report this
mtnlion 52
Yeah, this guy's full of it, but I'm leaning towards supporting 50's sentiment.

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.

Posted by mtnlion http://radicalish.wordpress.com on November 17, 2012 at 10:29 PM · Report this
53
Fantastic idea! In fact, once the net calculation is done, benefits directly received (welfare, food stamps, public school benefits) less taxes paid (income and perhaps sales taxes) then the vote should actually be tied to the AMOUNT of taxes paid per capita. Therefore, a taxpayer who pays $0 or a negative amount wouldn't be able to dictate how much money the government takes from taxpayers to pay for public welfare programs, but also a $100 taxpayer's vote wouldn't count as much as a $100,000 taxpayer.

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.
Posted by bleitzel on May 2, 2013 at 8:33 AM · Report this
54
Fantastic idea! In fact, once the net calculation is done, benefits directly received (welfare, food stamps, public school benefits) less taxes paid (income and perhaps sales taxes) then the vote should actually be tied to the AMOUNT of taxes paid per capita. Therefore, a taxpayer who pays $0 or a negative amount wouldn't be able to dictate how much money the government takes from taxpayers to pay for public welfare programs, but also a $100 taxpayer's vote wouldn't count as much as a $100,000 taxpayer.

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.
Posted by bleitzel on May 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy