h a l f b a k e r yYou could have thought of that.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Voting points.
No taxation without representation!1776/Representation based on taxation!2002 | |
Every day that goes by a smaller number people are paying a greater percentage of taxes, if this continues for much longer the top 30% of tax filers will be paying 100% of all federal taxes.
If the economy goes into a deep recession the tax revenue will dry up quickly, with a projected 60+% of the
U.S. population receiving benefits they will not stand for any cuts in their goverment programs.
Out of fear of a backlash from the masses the politicians will drain the top 30% dry killing future tax revenue streams. This will lead to the first U.S. dictatorship.
To prevent this the U.S. must change the voting laws so that every voter gets one point per dollar paid in taxes. After each election the number of points will be added up and the candidate with the most wins.
This will force the elected officials to institute a tax that charges a flat fee to each citizen so that it can comply with one man one vote(One vote one tax!).
Long live individual liberty! Death to collectivism.
[link]
|
| |
Ouch! Sounds like a rant to me. |
|
| |
Buying votes? Well at least it would be open corruption in the U.S. |
|
| |
When the 'rich' candidate gets power, to maintain his place he'll have to give the other rich people tax relief, giving them more cash - and more votes. Meanwhile the impoverished must meet the shortfall in tax revenue, with reduction in benefits no doubt. This scenario will spiral out of control, leading to an uprising of the masses. Out of the ensuing chaos will emerge the first U.S. dictatorship. |
|
| |
I don't accept your premise stated in the first paragraph. Can you provide a source for all those percentage figures you quote? |
|
| |
You missed the whole point, The less a person pays in taxes the less power they have at the voting booth. So if they cut taxes on the "rich" the fewer points they will have, Because the points are based on how much a person pays in taxes not on the amount of cash they have. |
|
| |
Yes, but by cutting taxes on the rich, you have to raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, and thus the division betwix rich and poor increases. |
|
| |
CMP - Apologies I got it (a little bit) wrong - but still...one man one vote? or One dollar one vote? The principle of my argument is the same. Whomever decides the taxation policies can directly control the distribution of votes. They could tax a particular social group heavily and then allocate them benefits to compensate...remember politicians are a wily breed. |
|
| |
For a democracy, i.e. government for the people by the people, there must be a clear distinction between voting rights and any other social factor (apart from maybe criminals but even thats debatable). This way, if taxes are unpopular they are voted against. |
|
| |
'if theres a recession' - thats hard luck! Nobody is promised prosperity. If a recession hits a country and it is the current governments fault then the electorate should vote for change. (Thats how its supposed to work) |
|
| |
//Long live individual liberty!// |
|
| |
So, i can shoot you without retribution, right? |
|
| |
You guys are a bunch of static brains. All enconomic systems are dynamic not static. Thats why when Russia implemented a 13% flat tax in January 1,2001by April 16, 2001 tax revenues were 62% higher than the previous year . In November 2001 tax revenue equaled 16% of GDP, three years earlier it was only 9% of GDP. |
|
| |
Thats why the Russian economy grew 5% in 2001. |
|
| |
But you don't suggest a flat tax here. |
|
| |
You suggest giving those that get taxed more more power, nowhere do you suggest a flat tax. |
|
| |
Hey Jinbish you messed up again!! |
|
| |
The U.S. is not a democracy its a republic based on the rule of law not the rule of the majority. Democracies are systems were the goverment has 100% of the power, that power is directed by the will of the majority at the expense of individual liberty. |
|
| |
When you say that if the taxes are unpopular the people should vote to change them i.e. majority rule. The whole point is that 70% of the voters will not be paying any federal taxes, so the taxes will not change. |
|
| |
Seven wolves and three sheep have a vote on what they should have for dinner. Guess how the vote will turn out. Three less voters. |
|
| |
Individual liberty is based on the rule of law and all laws must apply equally to each INDIVIDUAL, because individuals have rights not groups. A right is something a individual is born with, it cannot be given to you at the expense of another individual. If a persons rights are taken away by another person i.e. the right to life, you forfit your rights. |
|
| |
My liberty ends where your nose begins and vice versa. |
|
| |
I suggested a flat fee per citizen, but a flat tax will also be just fine to me. |
|
| |
//Individual liberty is based on the rule of law// |
|
| |
But isn't law based on collectivism? Without collectivism, there can be no laws agreed upon, and thus liberty (i.e freedom to do as one wishes) is independent of law. However, laws are in place to protect _some_ liberties, but not _all_ liberties. |
|
| |
Republic: A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them. |
|
| |
Hm, sounds like a democracy to me. A republic is a style of democracy. Just as a federation and confederation is a style of union. What you describe as a democaracy is called a direct democarcy. This is yet another form of democracy. |
|
| |
Assume that 20% of taxpayers pay 80% of tax (the actual figures are irrelevant). For this to be revenue neutral, a small number of people would each gain a lot, and a large number of people would each lose a little. If introducing this measure is the platform of one party, they would never be elected. If the party in power implemented it, they would lose the next election.
This variant on plutocracy is, in fact, used in the British Trade Union Congress, where a delegate from a large union has more votes than a delegate from a small union (despite the fact that the union members are not necessarily consulted about how the delegate will vote). The three largest unions (the public sector, the transport, and the electricians, last time I checked) effectively control TUC policy. |
|
| |
Many years ago there was an article in one of the UK newspapers that did an analysis on the taxation system at the time. What they discovered is that by simplifying the tax system so that there were no exemptions or banding (flat tax) the rate that would be used to raise the same amount of revenue would be 10%. The basic rate at the time was 30%. |
|
| |
By raising the flat rate to 11% you could afford to pay those on benefits sufficiently more to negate the reduction in income that they would incur from taxation. Always seemed a good idea to me. No idea what the rate would be now, but I would be surprised if it was the same as the current basic rate. |
|
| |
"The USA is not a democracy"? |
|
| |
As I understand it, the USA is a republic, which is democratic. That doesn't mean it is a democracy, just that it shares some key features. There hasn't been a real democracy (in the original sense) in government for millenia, after all. |
|
| |
I'm not sure about the figures in [PeterSilly]'s first para above. Quoting from www.taxfreedomday.co.uk, "People on a modest £10,000 a year see a quarter of their income being siphoned off in tax and national insurance before they even open their wage packet. And there's not much point looking out for a better job, because the rate increases so fast if you do. If you get up to the dizzy heights of a £17,500 salary, you won't even see one-third of it because that's how much goes to the Chancellor." |
|
| |
I'd like to hear CMP expound his theory of rights a little further, if at all possible. |
|
| |
"If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side (Orson Scott Card)." People vote by their pocket books. No matter how much logic people try and use, the rich will always try and institute policy that results in less money being taken from them, and the poor will always vote to try and take more money from the rich. And politicians will always get elected that promise to give us pigs more slop. |
|
| |
I'm not voting for or against this idea. If I was to vote for it, I wouldn't be saying that I think his idea should be implemented just the way he says it. I just think that he makes a valid point, sort of. If we really are going to believe in a system of no taxation without representation, maybe those who support the governement the most, should have more of a say in what it does... |
|
| |