[From the class of 09]

Nobody is paying you money when you get a tax refund. You're getting the money that they've withheld from you back. It's your money that you earned. You're advocating a fee for the right to vote, basically.

While this could be possible it is not always the case.

Example:
Sarah paid $3000 in fed taxes through payroll deductions
Sarah had gross income of 30k, AGI of 19k, and a fed tax bill of $2,850
Sarah also bought a house in Feb 2010 (first time home buyer 8k) and has three kids (3k)

She could get a "refund" for $8,150 which obviously is well above the $3k she put in over the year.

This is a hypothetical but the principals are very real as 47% paid no fed income taxes for 2009.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-ha ... l?x=0&.v=1

[RubberMallet]

I know it sounds radical but think it all the way through. If you would rather vote then get a tax write off you can always send the IRS a donation for the difference (seriously you can).

Here is my problem with allowing someone who doesn't contribute to the system (which currently is over 45% of the country) a vote, they literally get to tell those who do contribute money to the system how to spend it. How is this fair? or for that matter efficient? Remember the idea is, in or out, no tiered setup if you have a net positve income tax you get to vote.

i've been having children and adding onto my home during the past 5 years which has resulted in my paying almost 0 income tax over the course of 5 years. so you mean to tell me i shouldn't vote now?

To clarify lets assume you aren't a net federal tax and recieve a fed tax refund when you file your taxes. If you chose to accept the refund then no you wouldn't be able to vote. However if you wished to vote all you would have to do is refuse the refund and send the IRS a check for $1. Again this would have to be an in or out system, you couldn't have tiers depending on how large the check you wrote is, it's simply did you put in more than you took out.

Our complicated tax policy is one of the most corrupt and inefficient areas of our government. On a personal level I love it when I receive a tax refund (who doesn't like "free" money), however I know that this money isn't really "free" and I could survive without the refund. I understand the reasons behind many of the tax write offs but at the end of the day why should I get money (from other citizens) to have kids, buy a house, or go to college. If these people want to give me their money I can live with that (if only contributing citizens vote). But if I'm voting to elect canidates that will keep the same policies in place to keep giving me money from other individuals (in other circumstances this would be theft) then I don't view this as good policy (legalized theft is still theft at its core). The effects of this policy would create simplified (and fewer tax write offs) as the voting population got sick of continually paying for these tax refunds. Think of all the money that would be saved if the 45% of tax fillers sent in $1 instead of receiving a government check.

thats the stupidest thing i've ever heard. and yes i've though ALL THE WAY THROUGH it.

whatever website you found that on is dumb as well...yes we know you didn't come up with that on your own..

[From the class of 09]

thats the stupidest thing i've ever heard. and yes i've though ALL THE WAY THROUGH it.

whatever website you found that on is dumb as well...yes we know you didn't come up with that on your own..

Why because it would save the country money? or because it would simplify the tax system (overtime)? Or maybe because it wouldn't allow for politicians to buy peoples votes by taking away the benefit (to the politician) of all the tax credits?

I've heard "this is the dumbest idea ever" multiple times (on this board actually) but very few have a legitimate reason as to why. Sure their would have to be some changes to current tax law but the details could easily be worked out (and would be relatively minor when compared to our current tax system).

As to social issues, if you really care about them paying $1 isn't really asking a lot.

PS: I've stolen pieces of this from fair and flat tax advocates and I'm sure someone else has thought of this before but there isn't a website for this I'll not sure how to take the idea that you didn't think I could come up with this on my own

[ATrain]

Reason #1 why it's the dumb:
1. Unconstitutional

[LUconn]

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

ouch. Any other ideas?

[ALUmnus]

So should the military only defend those that pay certain taxes, too?

Taxes are not set in stone, either. Letting tax law determine who can vote at any point in time is just a tad dangerous, especially when the tax code is in the hands of the very people being voted on.

[From the class of 09]

Reason #1 why it's the dumb:
1. Unconstitutional

Obviously here, you would be refereing to the 24th amendment, which was passed due to segregation and trying to keep African Americans out of the polls. The poll taxes at the time were a flat rate that everyone had to pay. If we did this today, it would look like this: $100 for Bill Gates and $100 for the college student at LU trying to vote. Obviously, this put a much bigger strain on the college kid then it would Mr. Gates. This amendment without a doubt was needed and solved the problem of limiting the African American vote.

The problem that we are dealing with today is not one of unequal voting writes but of abused voting writes. As I’ve mentioned the current tax system has allowed for nearly half of the US to become dependant on the other half. As of last year 53% paid for 47%. What happens when these numbers are reversed? Are you telling me that when 51% find that they can go through life and enjoy the many things that our fed government provides without having to pay for it they will volunteer to pay? With an ever increasing national debt and national buget how can we continue down a road that so obviously ends in failure.

My proposal wouldn’t be a flat tax for everyone (the upper class would continue to have to pay the lions share of the tax bill) as through practice the upper class has to pay their entire income tax bill when the college student only has to refuse to accept the government hand out (and send in $1). If both did their part, they both would receive the same right to vote.

Yes, we would have to amend the constitution but it’s happened before I have to believe it could happen again.

[BJWilliams]

Reason #1 why it's the dumb:
1. Unconstitutional

Obviously here, you would be refereing to the 24th amendment, which was passed due to segregation and trying to keep African Americans out of the polls. The poll taxes at the time were a flat rate that everyone had to pay. If we did this today, it would look like this: $100 for Bill Gates and $100 for the college student at LU trying to vote. Obviously, this put a much bigger strain on the college kid then it would Mr. Gates. This amendment without a doubt was needed and solved the problem of limiting the African American vote.

The problem that we are dealing with today is not one of unequal voting writes but of abused voting writes. As I’ve mentioned the current tax system has allowed for nearly half of the US to become dependant on the other half. As of last year 53% paid for 47%. What happens when these numbers are reversed? Are you telling me that when 51% find that they can go through life and enjoy the many things that our fed government provides without having to pay for it they will volunteer to pay? With an ever increasing national debt and national buget how can we continue down a road that so obviously ends in failure.

My proposal wouldn’t be a flat tax for everyone (the upper class would continue to have to pay the lions share of the tax bill) as through practice the upper class has to pay their entire income tax bill when the college student only has to refuse to accept the government hand out (and send in $1). If both did their part, they both would receive the same right to vote.

Yes, we would have to amend the constitution but it’s happened before I have to believe it could happen again.

Improper word usage...

[From the class of 09]

So should the military only defend those that pay certain taxes, too?

Taxes are not set in stone, either. Letting tax law determine who can vote at any point in time is just a tad dangerous, especially when the tax code is in the hands of the very people being voted on.

Military (or any services payed for by our taxes) have nothing to do with this.... not sure where you are going with that

Also as I've mentioned whatever the change to the tax law would be it couldn't take your right to vote away. All you would have to do is refuse any refund you may qualify for and send the IRS $1 assuming you qualified for a refund.

[From the class of 09]

Reason #1 why it's the dumb:
1. Unconstitutional

Obviously here, you would be refereing to the 24th amendment, which was passed due to segregation and trying to keep African Americans out of the polls. The poll taxes at the time were a flat rate that everyone had to pay. If we did this today, it would look like this: $100 for Bill Gates and $100 for the college student at LU trying to vote. Obviously, this put a much bigger strain on the college kid then it would Mr. Gates. This amendment without a doubt was needed and solved the problem of limiting the African American vote.

The problem that we are dealing with today is not one of unequal voting writes but of abused voting writes. As I’ve mentioned the current tax system has allowed for nearly half of the US to become dependant on the other half. As of last year 53% paid for 47%. What happens when these numbers are reversed? Are you telling me that when 51% find that they can go through life and enjoy the many things that our fed government provides without having to pay for it they will volunteer to pay? With an ever increasing national debt and national buget how can we continue down a road that so obviously ends in failure.

My proposal wouldn’t be a flat tax for everyone (the upper class would continue to have to pay the lions share of the tax bill) as through practice the upper class has to pay their entire income tax bill when the college student only has to refuse to accept the government hand out (and send in $1). If both did their part, they both would receive the same right to vote.

Yes, we would have to amend the constitution but it’s happened before I have to believe it could happen again.

Improper word usage...

oopss I updated my office package and somehow it dropped spell and grammer check

[WinthropEagleFan]

So in elections for county officials in the county I live in, should only people that pay property taxes be able to vote? (Since a majority of the revenue that comes into the county comes in via property taxes on homes and automobiles)?

[From the class of 09]

So in elections for county officials in the county I live in, should only people that pay property taxes be able to vote? (Since a majority of the revenue that comes into the county comes in via property taxes on homes and automobiles)?

I don't think you realize how loaded that question is around these parts

I would just stick with looking at the Fed Tax for simplicity.

[RubberMallet]

I've heard "this is the dumbest idea ever" multiple times (on this board actually) but very few have a legitimate reason as to why.

its so dumb that there really isn't the need to come up with a reason why. all of the merits are pretty obvious.

[LUconn]

You're still ignoring all of the social, non-spending related policy that politicians decide.

[WinthropEagleFan]

So in elections for county officials in the county I live in, should only people that pay property taxes be able to vote? (Since a majority of the revenue that comes into the county comes in via property taxes on homes and automobiles)?

I don't think you realize how loaded that question is around these parts

I would just stick with looking at the Fed Tax for simplicity.

So you're saying that in an election where I voted on 14 individuals, 4 state constitutional amendments, and 1 local county bond referendum question...that my right to vote in that election would be completely dependent on my contribution to FEDERAL tax system, despite the fact that only 2 of the races I voted on yesterday were federal (one US senate seat and one US house seat)?? None of the other candidates I voted on have any influence on federal taxation. So should there be separate elections held for federal/state/county elections? Or should poll workers have to look up your federal tax status in order to figure out what ballots/races you can vote on?

Federal office holders and federal policy is very important, but is only one piece of the voting process, so tying federal taxation to local elections just seems silly to me.

[RubberMallet]

So in elections for county officials in the county I live in, should only people that pay property taxes be able to vote? (Since a majority of the revenue that comes into the county comes in via property taxes on homes and automobiles)?

I don't think you realize how loaded that question is around these parts

I would just stick with looking at the Fed Tax for simplicity.

So you're saying that in an election where I voted on 14 individuals, 4 state constitutional amendments, and 1 local county bond referendum question...that my right to vote in that election would be completely dependent on my contribution to FEDERAL tax system, despite the fact that only 2 of the races I voted on yesterday were federal (one US senate seat and one US house seat)?? None of the other candidates I voted on have any influence on federal taxation. So should there be separate elections held for federal/state/county elections? Or should poll workers have to look up your federal tax status in order to figure out what ballots/races you can vote on?

Federal office holders and federal policy is very important, but is only one piece of the voting process, so tying federal taxation to local elections just seems silly to me.

b-b-b-but it somehow saves money and prevents corruption!!#!#!!

[ATrain]

What happens if the Fair Taxers have their way and we eliminate the IRS and only go with a national sales tax?

The entire plan is suddenly not even valid.

[From the class of 09]

b-b-b-but it somehow saves money and prevents corruption!!#!#!!

It saves money very simply as the 47% now currently receiveing a net tax "refund" don't get the refund. Or at least won't indefinitely as the law is changed by the voters. That much is obvious so not sure what your getting at. Everyone needs to have skin in the game that is the goal.

[From the class of 09]

What happens if the Fair Taxers have their way and we eliminate the IRS and only go with a national sales tax?

The entire plan is suddenly not even valid.

Then everyone is paying taxes and voting. I'm a happy guy

[Kricket]

The funny thing is the fair tax, flat tax, and 09' tax system (whatever is being described), none of them have the slightest chance of ever existing in the United States ever again, unless you're setting a flat tax rate of 100%...

[RubberMallet]

b-b-b-but it somehow saves money and prevents corruption!!#!#!!

It saves money very simply as the 47% now currently receiveing a net tax "refund" don't get the refund. Or at least won't indefinitely as the law is changed by the voters. That much is obvious so not sure what your getting at. Everyone needs to have skin in the game that is the goal.

*facepalm* the role of gvt is not just fiscal policy. the idea that if you don't put money into the gvt you don't get to make decisions on who gets to spend it is too simplistic and impossible of an ideal. you don't seem to be understanding this.

[From the class of 09]

So in elections for county officials in the county I live in, should only people that pay property taxes be able to vote? (Since a majority of the revenue that comes into the county comes in via property taxes on homes and automobiles)?

I don't think you realize how loaded that question is around these parts

I would just stick with looking at the Fed Tax for simplicity.

So you're saying that in an election where I voted on 14 individuals, 4 state constitutional amendments, and 1 local county bond referendum question...that my right to vote in that election would be completely dependent on my contribution to FEDERAL tax system, despite the fact that only 2 of the races I voted on yesterday were federal (one US senate seat and one US house seat)?? None of the other candidates I voted on have any influence on federal taxation. So should there be separate elections held for federal/state/county elections? Or should poll workers have to look up your federal tax status in order to figure out what ballots/races you can vote on?

Federal office holders and federal policy is very important, but is only one piece of the voting process, so tying federal taxation to local elections just seems silly to me.

At an earlier time in history I would agree that the federal and local governments were different entities but in the current system federal funding pays for an unreal number of both local and state projects to the point where if you try and differentiate (funding at least) its a waste of time. If you could have an efficient way to break it down by municipalities I wouldn't necessarily be against it.

[From the class of 09]

b-b-b-but it somehow saves money and prevents corruption!!#!#!!

It saves money very simply as the 47% now currently receiveing a net tax "refund" don't get the refund. Or at least won't indefinitely as the law is changed by the voters. That much is obvious so not sure what your getting at. Everyone needs to have skin in the game that is the goal.

*facepalm* the role of gvt is not just fiscal policy. the idea that if you don't put money into the gvt you don't get to make decisions on who gets to spend it is too simplistic and impossible of an ideal. you don't seem to be understanding this.

I understand what you're saying in that the government goes beyond fiscal policy however fiscal policy is a LARGE portion of it. As far as social policy goes anyone can still vote they just have to pay a dollar. If you care about your social position at all you can put up a dollar. Very very rarely could you find a social postion that doesn't involve federal spending to one degree or another which is the point.

As fare as being simplistic thats the beauty of it impossible probably as we've seen on this board it's a crazy idea and everybody likes their "free" government check.

[RubberMallet]

It saves money very simply as the 47% now currently receiveing a net tax "refund" don't get the refund. Or at least won't indefinitely as the law is changed by the voters. That much is obvious so not sure what your getting at. Everyone needs to have skin in the game that is the goal.

*facepalm* the role of gvt is not just fiscal policy. the idea that if you don't put money into the gvt you don't get to make decisions on who gets to spend it is too simplistic and impossible of an ideal. you don't seem to be understanding this.

I understand what you're saying in that the government goes beyond fiscal policy however fiscal policy is a LARGE portion of it. As far as social policy goes anyone can still vote they just have to pay a dollar. If you care about your social position at all you can put up a dollar. Very very rarely could you find a social postion that doesn't involve federal spending to one degree or another which is the point.

As fare as being simplistic thats the beauty of it impossible probably as we've seen on this board it's a crazy idea and everybody likes their "free" government check.

eyeyiyiyiyi

[jmdickens]

instead of this whole refuse and pay a dollar to vote.....

No income tax period. Dont replace it with a national sales tax either.....

09' Im not going to ask how much you paid in taxes this past year, but think about how many of us on this board alone you are arguing should not get to vote....