- November 2nd, 2010, 4:53 pm
#326667
Also just wanted to bring to your attention that if we followed your idea of taxing everyone a flat 20% (assuming that this was a effective 20%) then by practive you would be limiting the vote to people who pay a net tax (as everyone is voting and is taxed). With my originally proposed idea of allowing people who currently can live in the system without having to pay any income tax I would actually be giving them a choice between:
A: collect whatever government refund you are entitled to under the current tax code
or
B: don't claim your refund check and write the IRS a check for $1 you get the right to vote
Again I know this initially sounds radical but look at it this way, if you truely can't afford to pay any tax and need the government refund you are allowed to take the refund. If you continue to just take the refund year after year the law will change as the people paying for your refund (and voting) get sick of paying it continually. If on the other hand you choose B you have to pay $1 to the US government for all the services and protection it provided plus the amount they refunded you (or just don't accept the refund initially).
In this way it couldn't cause a class warfare because the only thing the voters could do is stop providing tax refunds to the lower class which in turn would allow them to vote. Also please remember that I'm not talking about SS which in theory (not in practice) is a seperate trust not part of the government's operating budget (and believe me that rant needs its own thread).
Kricket wrote:I think you'd be setting up class warfare like never before. Imagine making very little money and feeling like you have no say in how things are going because you have no vote. You can do one of two things, make more money and try to meet a tax bracket that you have no say over, or get mad at the system. I think the latter would happen more often, and for good reason.I think we are on the same page and if we could get a flat or fair tax passed I would be all for it.
I would argue people with more money already have a bigger say in politics than people with less money. Almost 100% of Congress was extremely wealthy before they got elected, meaning money influences who gets elected in the first place, no need to compound it by granting them a bigger vote.
Lastly, the people who are wealthy would use their vote to essentially guarantee that they stay that way, and their children stay that way, etc. Essentially it'd be a caste system which is exactly the opposite of what America was founded for. Everyone should have a fighting chance to be a success and when you take away that initial right to vote, you just may be taking away that fighting chance.
As others have stated, some people who pay no taxes have legitimate reasons for not doing so. They aren't required to pay. Sometimes that's through no fault of their own.
I really do understand where you're coming from on your idea, nobody likes people who are simply lazy, not pulling their weight deciding elections. However, under this current system, over 50% pays no national income taxes at all, and I don't think that's entirely their fault. I think the weight is just getting way too heavy.
Why not simply advocate passing an amendment stating that everyone pays a flat rate on the national income tax. If you make 2 million pay X%, if you make 20,000 pay X%. That way everyone pays taxes and nobody would want to raise taxes in the first place. Involvement in voting would for sure increase as half the people who never paid taxes now would be paying. Corruption would be greatly reduced as politicians would no longer be able to grant a tax break to certain corporations. The big guy and little guy would have the same fighting chance at success (my Father owns a small business that one day I may take over someday, I get sick of seeing big corporations getting a break when we forget about the little guy). The amount of paperwork and auditing in the government would be greatly reduced, thus leading to lower taxes in the first place. The size of the government would inevitably shrink as everyone would be united in one tax bracket, voting for less taxes.
Yes, this isn't a new idea, but I think it would work. The idea would be to unite voters and encourage voting (hopefully change voters mindset) rather than excluding some voters and creating class warfare (which is what the left loves). I hope that makes sense.
Also just wanted to bring to your attention that if we followed your idea of taxing everyone a flat 20% (assuming that this was a effective 20%) then by practive you would be limiting the vote to people who pay a net tax (as everyone is voting and is taxed). With my originally proposed idea of allowing people who currently can live in the system without having to pay any income tax I would actually be giving them a choice between:
A: collect whatever government refund you are entitled to under the current tax code
or
B: don't claim your refund check and write the IRS a check for $1 you get the right to vote
Again I know this initially sounds radical but look at it this way, if you truely can't afford to pay any tax and need the government refund you are allowed to take the refund. If you continue to just take the refund year after year the law will change as the people paying for your refund (and voting) get sick of paying it continually. If on the other hand you choose B you have to pay $1 to the US government for all the services and protection it provided plus the amount they refunded you (or just don't accept the refund initially).
In this way it couldn't cause a class warfare because the only thing the voters could do is stop providing tax refunds to the lower class which in turn would allow them to vote. Also please remember that I'm not talking about SS which in theory (not in practice) is a seperate trust not part of the government's operating budget (and believe me that rant needs its own thread).
- By LU Armchair coach