Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Greatest I am on Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:47 am

First topic message reminder :

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today’s terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.

There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.

Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.

This is counter to the taxpayer’s wishes.

Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?

If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.

Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?

Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1078
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down


Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by skwalker1964 on Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:50 pm

Greatest I am wrote:If their interests are as shown in reality and are benevolent then those who would go against them should be disenfranchised as they are against the progress shown.
They are holding us back.

Regards
DL

Rich people with a benevolent, non-selfseeking agenda are without question a small minority(*). And why should a rich person get to decide what represents 'progress' more than an ordinary person? The rich tend to be far more detached from the harsh realities of everyday life and therefore could legitimately be considered less able to recognise genuine progress.

(* Also probably a minority among people as a whole, but the not-rich are less in a position to impose their will on large numbers of people - and the benevolent are, in my experience, far more common among the not-rich. As my old mother used to say, you don't usually get rich by being generous.)

skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Greatest I am on Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:50 pm

oftenwrong wrote:It took about eight hundred years for democracy to evolve into Universal Suffrage from the feudal Droit de Seigneur whereby villagers were effectively the property of their local "Lord", much less entitled to a vote.

We probably don't need shameless mischief-makers to start a fresh hare in this 21st.C. thank you, Your Greatness.

No one who can think will think our oligarchies are democracies.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1078
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Greatest I am on Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:53 pm

skwalker1964 wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:If their interests are as shown in reality and are benevolent then those who would go against them should be disenfranchised as they are against the progress shown.
They are holding us back.

Regards
DL

Rich people with a benevolent, non-selfseeking agenda are without question a small minority(*). And why should a rich person get to decide what represents 'progress' more than an ordinary person? The rich tend to be far more detached from the harsh realities of everyday life and therefore could legitimately be considered less able to recognise genuine progress.

(* Also probably a minority among people as a whole, but the not-rich are less in a position to impose their will on large numbers of people - and the benevolent are, in my experience, far more common among the not-rich. As my old mother used to say, you don't usually get rich by being generous.)



This is your reply.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1078
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Shirina on Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:35 am

You must think generous taxpayer's are all pricks who would dismantle the safety net. You are in Boatlady's boat.
No, not all of them are pricks who would dismantle the safety net. But you're not doing the math. Let's go back to the very real figure of 47% here in America. If you remove the vote from 47% of the population, that leaves 53% who can vote. If only, say, 40% of that 53% want to keep the safety nets going - guess what, the nay-sayers win since 60% of the voters have struck it down. Because you have hobbled the part of the population who would most likely vote to keep welfare, there's a damn good chance that the majority of taxpayers, even if only by a slim margin, would vote to dismantle it. In the USA, and I see it also happening in Britain, the corporate fascists have been heavily propagandizing against the poor and needy. Many here in the States have been convinced that the majority of welfare recipients are simply lazy deadbeats and most of the disabled are faking it. They would have no compunction over dismantling the safety net because they're under the misguided (and just plain stupid) idea that yanking the carpet out from under them will force them to find all of those "plentiful" jobs out there with their names on them.
In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation through a vote.
Actually, that's not what it says. Taxation without representation does not equate to no representation without taxes. Those are two independent statements, one having nothing to do with the other.
If not, refute it.
I already have, for the most part. Votes were never meant to be something with a price tag attached. Our Founders and Supreme Court Justices insisted that poll taxes are illegal. Having to pay taxes in order to get a vote would be a poll tax in and of itself. This is such an important concept that it is embedded in the US Constitution. Other nations can do what they wish, but the greatest political minds in America's history has rejected your premise - and rejected it strongly enough to put it in our constitution. In that regard, I really don't have to refute it. Greater minds than my own have already done so.

In addition, no matter what economic ideology one might possess, the political realities must be acknowledged. As I said before, if you took the vote from folks who do not pay taxes, you wouldn't be in power long. Almost certainly there would be a revolt - and I doubt very much that even the taxpayers would agree with such a fascistic move in a supposedly free society. If those in power went after the poor, the middle class will immediately believe they're next. And they probably would be - until the only people who have political power and representation are the top 1%. This is why you do not want to start that pebble rolling down the mountain - because by the time it stops, the subsequent avalanche has destroyed a village.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Shirina on Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:37 am

As my old mother used to say, you don't usually get rich by being generous
A recent study has shown that around 12% of successful business owners are actual sociopaths.

President Truman once said, "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."

But in business, even your dog will betray you if the money's right.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Greatest I am on Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:33 pm

Shirina

Your last made me laugh. Thaks. I can always use a good laugh.

You have refuted nothing.

Your 47% is not accurate as I prove it with this.
It may be that 47% are net taxtakers but many would still hold a vote as they have earned it.

My basic view is what the law of the land is; no taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation through a vote. IOW, if you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.

The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

Tax is a payment but do not fixate just on that. Payment can be made in various ways so do not think I am going after the poor. In the case of Vets, representation can be earned by serving to protect the country. Those who sometimes pay taxes and at other times take taxes would have to be looked at once a standard is set. If a person pays 15 years out of 20 for instance, he would vote. Someone who only paid 5 years out of 20 and was on the dole or public purse for 15 may not get a vote.

The point is that when more and more fall into the poor categories, their vote can and is bought by the unscrupulous politicians who are elected by promises of a raise in welfare checks.

The rich are getting richer and the poor better off and the middle is squeezed by both side and any election basically becomes a war against the middle thanks to the fact that politicians are owned by the rich.

This is unjust and unsustainable and must end.

You have also faile to refute no taxation without representation.

Remember math and equations from school?

Taxation = representation
Representation = taxation

No tax paid = no representation
No representation = no taxation

The U S went to war against the Brits to keep the last in play.
They have thrown away what they went to war to gain.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1078
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Ivan on Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:49 pm

This gets more and more ridiculous. The phrase "no taxation without representation" was first used by American colonists to explain their grievance that, as they weren't represented in the British Parliament, they shouldn't have to pay taxes to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation

Your attempt to draw parallels between that and mathematical equations is nothing short of absurd. The expression doesn't mean that taxation equals representation, or vice versa. If I said that the sky is blue, it doesn't mean that the sky equals blue; everything which is blue isn't the sky.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7160
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Guest on Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:13 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today’s terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.

The core of democracy?

Read on.

Athenian democracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Participation and exclusion

During the 4th century BC, there may well have been some 250,000–300,000 people in Attica. Citizen families may have amounted to 100,000 people and out of these some 30,000 will have been the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly. In the mid-5th century the number of adult male citizens was perhaps as high as 60,000, but this number fell precipitously during the Peloponnesian War. This slump was permanent due to the introduction of a stricter definition of citizen described below.

The non-citizen component of the population was divided between resident foreigners (metics) and slaves, with the latter perhaps somewhat more numerous. Around 338 BC the orator Hyperides (fragment 13) claimed that there were 150,000 slaves in Attica

Only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens. The percentage of the population that actually participated in the government was about 20%. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, freed slaves, children, women and metics. The women had limited rights and privileges and were not really considered citizens. They had restricted movement in public and were very segregated from the men.

Also excluded from voting were citizens whose rights were under suspension… for some Athenians this amounted to permanent (and in fact inheritable) disqualification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_government

Not so.

Read on.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menare endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
United States Constitution, Amendment 15

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
United States Constitution, Amendment 19

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
United States Constitution, Amendment 24

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.
United States Constitution, Amendment 26

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Democratic Rights

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

The core of democracy.

View on.

National Anthem - Jordin Sparks
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/iVjG4NddwZs

The protectors of democracy.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by skwalker1964 on Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:29 pm

Greatest I am wrote:This is your reply.

Regards
DL

Then it's a weak one. Look at what happens when he isolates China's dot and looks at the regions. If he did the same in the UK/US, you'd see similar inequalities and injustice:

Income inequality in US - Top 1% vs others:


Income inequality in US - top 0.1% vs others


UK income inequality:
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by skwalker1964 on Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:35 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
My basic view is what the law of the land is; no taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation through a vote. IOW, if you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.

No, it doesn't, and it's you not getting it.

No rainbows without rain = true

No rain without rainbows = false

The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

There has to be logic in the statement in the first place for it to be sound. Yours has none.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Shirina on Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:07 pm

My basic view is what the law of the land is; no taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation through a vote. IOW, if you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.
In the United States, you do not have to earn the right to vote. It is a birthright. Many will claim it is even a God-given right. As such, the right to vote is inalienable - it cannot be taken away. Those who do not pay taxes do not forfeit the right for their children to go to taxpayer-funded public schools. They do not lose police protection, access to fire services, they are not barred from using libraries, driving on roads nor are they exempted from being protected by our military forces. They are also not banned from eating American food since much of our agriculture is subsidized by the federal government. The list is enormous, and "tax takers" would have to be banned from using any good or service provided through taxation. We could even take it a step further by saying that people who do not own homes cannot send their kids to public schools because property taxes are the main source of local school revenue -- where do we end this travesty? Once you strip the vote from a massive part of the population, including disabled people who, through no fault of their own, are "tax takers," it won't stop there.
Your 47% is not accurate as I prove it with this.
The 2010 census says otherwise. If you make below a certain income, you do not pay income tax. If you're now claiming that "tax takers" can vote if they have a job, then you're moving the goal posts.

Also, you haven't addressed the issue of all the other taxes the poor and disabled pay - why should they have to pay those taxes if they cannot vote?
The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.
As i said before, we can go anywhere with this logic. Why not allow only property owners to vote? How about just business owners? How about just people who own businesses that employ over 1,000 people or gross $2 million or more in revenue? Why not allow only CEOs to vote? Or people with offshore bank accounts? Oh yeah ... speaking of that, do you realize that the wealthy have squirreled away over $26 trillion in offshore tax havens? THEY'RE not paying their taxes, either, which is why their money is in the Cayman Islands or in Switzerland instead of American banks. Oh, but THEY can vote. You see why the logic is only sound if you apply the rule to everyone equally. It is also only sound if the "tax takers" are exempt from ALL taxes. Yet that's not how you're laying it out - as per usual, the rich still get to vote despite their tax evasion tactics, the poor still have to pay all of the other taxes but can't vote. It is inherently unfair and is illegal because it punishes status instead of wrong-doing. See the vagrancy laws mentioned earlier.
Tax is a payment but do not fixate just on that. Payment can be made in various ways so do not think I am going after the poor. In the case of Vets, representation can be earned by serving to protect the country. Those who sometimes pay taxes and at other times take taxes would have to be looked at once a standard is set. If a person pays 15 years out of 20 for instance, he would vote. Someone who only paid 5 years out of 20 and was on the dole or public purse for 15 may not get a vote.
First of all, that is ridiculously complicated and would require legions of taxpayer-funded government jobs to monitor and keep track of who is eligible and who isn't. It would cost the government millions in mailing notifications to people who lose the vote and to those who have gained it. But more importantly, our political representatives were never meant to represent only a portion of the population. That isn't how democracy works. Like I've already said, the greatest political minds in America have considered and rejected your premise. Only extremist right-wing loons (i.e. fascists) have ever suggested taking away voting rights, and only other extremist right-wing loons (i.e. fascists) agree with them.

I'm an extremely logical person to the point of being cerebral - yet there are times when logic alone is a poor guide in making decisions. This is one of those times. There's not a single right that we have that I cannot argue down with logic
The point is that when more and more fall into the poor categories, their vote can and is bought by the unscrupulous politicians who are elected by promises of a raise in welfare checks.
You said you weren't going after the poor but you just did. The vote can also be bought by the wealthy, and it usually is. This is what happens: A politician can claim that they're going to expand welfare to get the votes of the masses while simultaneously receiving massive campaign contributions from the wealthy. Then, once the politician wins the election, he is free to expand welfare - or not - as he sees fit. Most of the time, the politician is going to favor those who donated to his campaign rather than those who voted for him. When it comes time for the House and Senate to vote on a welfare expansion bill, the opposition just has to stick a ridiculous "rider" on the bill to make it unpassable. Or the bill can be fillibustered to death. Or the bill is sacrificed to get votes for a more important bill. Then the politican can throw up his hands and say, "Hey, I tried!" while catering to his more wealthy constituents. Want fewer regulations on businesses? Here you go. Want lower taxes for the top 1%? Here you go. Want to raise insurance premiums by 30%? Here you go.

The middle class isn't being squeezed by the poor. That is right-wing propaganda and you're drinking the Kool-Aid. The rich are getting richer because the government has been bought and paid for by corporate special interests and lobbyist groups like the National Rifle Association and the Catholic Church. You should see the video where the CEO of Goldman-Sachs actually leans into President Reagan while he's giving a speech and tells Reagan to "hurry up." It takes steel cajones to tell the president to "hurry up" - cajones or a hell of a lot of power over the presidency. The poor may decide who wins an election, but the wealthy decides what politicians do once they win.
thanks to the fact that politicians are owned by the rich.
If you know this, then why on earth would you want to hand the rich even more power by stripping the poor of what little power they DO have? That isn't exactly logical, either.
You have also faile to refute no taxation without representation.
I haven't "failed" to refute it since I'm not debating it. I'm only debating "no representation without taxation."
Taxation = representation
Representation = taxation
Actually, no. This logic is not bullet proof. For instance:

Water = wet therefore wet = water. Actually, wet does not equate to water because you could be soaked in orange juice. This is a fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
They have thrown away what they went to war to gain.
Actually, no. The first income tax was levied during the Civil War by Abraham Lincoln.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Greatest I am on Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:25 pm

Notice that you are all creating equations with everything but what is given.

That tells me that you cannot refute what is given.

All services must be paid for and you try to deny that government services must be paid for.

My logic is sound.

As to the right to vote. B S.
No representation without taxation.

If you do not contribute to the system, you have no right to negate the vote of those that do. That is a taxpayer right IMO.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1078
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by oftenwrong on Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:32 pm

Greatest I am wrote:Notice that you are all creating equations with everything but what is given.

That tells me that you cannot refute what is given.

All services must be paid for and you try to deny that government services must be paid for.

My logic is sound.

As to the right to vote. B S.
No representation without taxation.

If you do not contribute to the system, you have no right to negate the vote of those that do. That is a taxpayer right IMO.

Spoken like a true Fascist.

Black shirts are available in YOUR size, Your Greatness.

avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11898
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by bobby on Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:13 pm

Everyone who lives in Britain pay taxes either direct or indirect, everything we eat, wear or heat our homes with is taxed, so that in itself tells me that everyone in the UK is eligible to vote
avatar
bobby

Posts : 1939
Join date : 2011-11-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by oftenwrong on Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:36 pm

What bobby reminds us is that we pay further taxes when we dispose of our already-taxed income.

Which explains why the gap between the "Haves" and the "Have-nots" is ever-widening, because poor people have to spend all their income, whilst the privileged stick most of theirs in the Bank.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11898
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Shirina on Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:01 am

Notice that you are all creating equations with everything but what is given.
I didn't create an equation, I only debunked yours as a logical fallacy.
That tells me that you cannot refute what is given.
Compare the size of my posts to yours. How much of what I've said have you refuted?
All services must be paid for and you try to deny that government services must be paid for.
Nope, never said that.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how it's at all fair for someone to lose the right to vote as long as they're still paying so much as a penny in taxes of any kind.
As to the right to vote. B S.
Every democratic society disagrees with you.
If you do not contribute to the system, you have no right to negate the vote of those that do. That is a taxpayer right IMO.
Logical fallacy 1: Argumentum ad nauseum. Just because you keep repeating yourself without a refutation of other arguments doesn't mean what you say is true.
Logical fallacy 2: Argument by proclamation. Just because you make a declarative statement and call it fact does not make it a fact.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Guest on Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:53 am

Greatest I am wrote:
Notice that you are all creating equations with everything but what is given.

You’ve given nothing; accordingly, having been given nothing with which to create equations, I’ve created no equations.

Greatest I am wrote:
That tells me that you cannot refute what is given.

You’ve given nothing; accordingly, having been given nothing to refute, I’ve refuted nothing.

Greatest I am wrote:
All services must be paid for and you try to deny that government services must be paid for.

I do not “try to deny” any such thing. Read all words that I’ve authored in my post…

RockOnBrother wrote:
The core of democracy?

Read on.

Not so.

Read on.

The core of democracy.

View on.

The protectors of democracy.

… and identify all words of denial thereof.

Greatest I am wrote:
My logic is sound.

Your logic is nonexistent.

Greatest I am wrote:
As to the right to vote. B S.

As to the right to vote, read.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menare endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
United States Constitution, Amendment 15

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
United States Constitution, Amendment 19

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
United States Constitution, Amendment 24

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.
United States Constitution, Amendment 26

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Democratic Rights

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Perhaps residents of your isolated portion of that island of bitter weeds respect not the unalienable human rights to vote of all men gender inclusive.

Greatest I am wrote:
No representation without taxation.

Then stand down, sir, from your claim to representation; I pay far more of the taxes which, proportionately speaking, fund, and thus provide for, the common defense of your isolated portion of that island of bitter weeds upon which you securely reside than do you. As one of the primary taxpayers, I’ll be voting in your stead for your MP.

Greatest I am wrote:
If you do not contribute to the system, you have no right to negate the vote of those that do. That is a taxpayer right IMO.

I contribute far more to your system of defense (defence) than do you (you may spell “defence” with a “c” if you so choose”); thus, you have no right to negate my vote for your MP.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by skwalker1964 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:57 am

I suggest we all now stop nourishing the
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by oftenwrong on Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:54 am

Concur.
But the unmasking was a plus.

avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11898
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by boatlady on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:08 pm

I LOVE that picture
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3787
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Ivan on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:45 pm

In the days when letters to newspapers were the most common way of exchanging views, once a discussion had passed the point when anything new or meaningful was being said, the words "this correspondence is now closed" would appear. I think Steve Walker is suggesting that we may have gone past that point with this ridiculous thread.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7160
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Guest on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm


No worries, mate. No one can out-silly me. Well… maybe Jimmy Kimmel (and Steve Colbert, and John Stewart, and…)
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by oftenwrong on Sat Feb 16, 2013 5:30 pm

Maybe what the Home Page needs is a "graveyard" section, to which Moderators may consign any thread which has passed its bored by date.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11898
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Ivan on Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:13 pm

Administrators can lock a thread and let it 'sink' down the board. Is that what you want? Do the 'ayes' have it?
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7160
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by bobby on Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:35 pm

Aye!
avatar
bobby

Posts : 1939
Join date : 2011-11-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Phil Hornby on Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:03 pm

I demand a recount...

Division! - clear the Lobby... Rolling Eyes
avatar
Phil Hornby
Blogger

Posts : 3977
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by oftenwrong on Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:22 pm

Any attempt to measure the "validity" of a thread could rapidly denude this Board of all content.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11898
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by skwalker1964 on Sun Feb 17, 2013 12:07 am

I'd leave it open. The initial question may have been stupid/outrageous, but some of the info that came in response to it was excellent. The persistence of GIA in arguing by assertion killed any pretence of validity to the point of view anyway, and while I don't quite agree with OW's point, I think blocking a thread that's non-abusive, doesn't breach copyright etc might undermine the reputation of the forum
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Guest on Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:07 am


SKWalker,

Moreover, given these points of law in various jurisdictions in both southern and northern hemispheres…

United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites

… The United Nations grants permission to Users to visit the Site and to download and copy the information, documents and materials (collectively, “Materials”) from the Site for the User’s personal, non-commercial use…

Retrieved 10 October 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/terms/

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Fundamental Freedoms, Number 2

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication…
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Number 14

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

… and given that these principle as propagated in the modern world originate in the UK, it seems seemly to support others’ rights to freedom of speech/expression even when one vehemently disagrees with that speech.


Last edited by RockOnBrother on Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : typos)
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by boatlady on Sun Feb 17, 2013 12:37 pm

I think if paper were being used to perpetuate this nonsensical posing on the part of one contributor, I would have wanted to close this thread long ago - as only patience is being eroded, and as Steve says, some quite interesting thoughts and information are emerging, the planet is not really at risk from wasteful use of resources, I say, let it go on.
GIA has tried his best to force his rather bizarre opinions (if they are indeed his opinions and not just mischief-making), and I think we're all clear that we don't accept the validity of his arguments.
As moderator, I believe I may have the casting vote on this, so I say, for the present, let it stand.
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3787
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Shirina on Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:09 pm

I really don't see what the issue is with this thread. No rules have been broken so there is no justification whatsoever for even suggesting the thread should be locked. I, for one, will refuse to hang my name above the door of any forum where censorship is practiced willy-nilly based on the whims of the membership or staff. Unless one can clearly point out a violation of the terms of use policy for either Cutting Edge in particular or Forumotion in general, I would appreciate it if EVERYONE stopped complaining about what topics of discussion others decide to initiate. I don't care how strongly you disagree or how obvious you think the answer is, it doesn't matter. The LAST thing we need is for people to feel inhibited whenever they consider offering up a topic for discussion. The rules are there for a reason, one of which is NOT so we can make-up more rules as we go along simply due to ill-feelings about a specific topic. If we start doing that, then it means each and every new rule is permanently binding in the future to every other thread and poster - or we may as well get rid of rules altogether and let moderators moderate whimsically with no foundation or justification for their decisions. It will be the rule of "because I feel like it" instead of the rule of law. I'm tired of seeing decent discussions wrecked because certain posters would rather complain about the existence of the thread rather than actually argue the topic. THOSE are the posts I'm going to start deleting and THAT is when I'll start locking threads.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Greatest I am on Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:34 pm

bobby wrote:Everyone who lives in Britain pay taxes either direct or indirect, everything we eat, wear or heat our homes with is taxed, so that in itself tells me that everyone in the UK is eligible to vote

Sure. All pay regressive anti-poor VAT's.

Some pay with funds earned and some pay with funds earned by others and doled out by government.

See the difference?

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1078
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Greatest I am on Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:41 pm

Shirina wrote:
Notice that you are all creating equations with everything but what is given.
I didn't create an equation, I only debunked yours as a logical fallacy.
That tells me that you cannot refute what is given.
Compare the size of my posts to yours. How much of what I've said have you refuted?
All services must be paid for and you try to deny that government services must be paid for.
Nope, never said that.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how it's at all fair for someone to lose the right to vote as long as they're still paying so much as a penny in taxes of any kind.
As to the right to vote. B S.
Every democratic society disagrees with you.
If you do not contribute to the system, you have no right to negate the vote of those that do. That is a taxpayer right IMO.
Logical fallacy 1: Argumentum ad nauseum. Just because you keep repeating yourself without a refutation of other arguments doesn't mean what you say is true.
Logical fallacy 2: Argument by proclamation. Just because you make a declarative statement and call it fact does not make it a fact.

Quantity does not mean quality.

Any rights any citizen has is just what the consensus say they are.

You are all for the rights of the taxtakers who do not contribute to our systems but ignore the rights of the taxpayer to not have his vote negated by those who vote only to take more from those who have it without working for it.

You did add many issues to the O P that wants to KIS and speak about the so called right to vote and not the other issues you brought up.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1078
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Greatest I am on Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:45 pm

[quote="RockOnBrother"]
As to the right to vote, read.
[/color]
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menare endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
[Edited by skwalker1964 to remove excessive quotation]

"are endowed by their Creator "

Prove that such a creator even exists before saying what he endows.

Regards
DL


Last edited by skwalker1964 on Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:23 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Excessive quotation removed for brevity & good housekeeping)
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1078
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by skwalker1964 on Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:21 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
"are endowed by their Creator "

Prove that such a creator even exists before saying what he endows.

Regards
DL

GIA, please only quote the sections you're responding to and not entire, long messages that don't bear on what you say in your responses. I'm also teetering on the edge of editing out your comments on the basis that you're going off-topic - from your own topic.

Rock was quoting the US & Canadian Constitutions and demonstrating that the right to vote is enshrined for all in those documents. The existence or otherwise of God is irrelevant to both that point and to the topic of this thread (though it was self-evident to those Founding Fathers). If you want to debate the existence of God, then join in one of the threads on the 'Religion and related issues' board.

Be a little more civilised and a little less irrelevant in your posts, please.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Shirina on Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:36 pm

Quantity does not mean quality.
Well, if you'll pardon the conceit for a moment, far too many people have praised my posts for there to be much of an argument that my posts do not have quality as well as quantity. Every keystroke I make causes a degree of pain and discomfort, so I don't write fluff.
Any rights any citizen has is just what the consensus say they are.
Yep, and only the lunatic fringe and right-wing fanatics believes voting rights should be based on income or taxation status. In the US, this is even enshrined within our Constitution. As I said before, voting isn't just about welfare benefits. I think the poor have just as much of a right as anyone to vote on things such as the quality of their schools, how much pollution a company can dump into their drinking water, whether their sons and daughters are sent overseas to fight a war (an overwhelming number of soldiers come from poor households which gives the poor a HUGE right to vote on foreign policy), and a hundred other issues that have nothing at all to do with welfare.
You are all for the rights of the taxtakers who do not contribute to our systems but ignore the rights of the taxpayer to not have his vote negated by those who vote only to take more from those who have it without working for it.
That's right, I am. I stand right up and proudly admit it. LEARN from history, my friend. Look at the French Revolution. Look at the Iranian Revolution. Look at the Arab Spring. Look at any number of small African nations. See what happens when a nation fails to provide a strong safety net for those who are disabled, down on their luck, elderly, unemployed or unemployable. I know the dangers of willingly giving more power to those who are already prone to abusing it. All you seem to see are dollar signs - or pound signs in your case - and thus you ignore the ethical, moral, and pragmatic reasons why basing everything on economics is a piss poor way of doing things. Our economic model is already unsustainable - it is done, an evolutionary dead-end. The whole concept of going to work, earning a paycheck, and then spending your money is on life support even as we speak. We as humans are going to HAVE to figure out an entirely new way of doing things. Why? Simply put, technology is going to ultimately strip away most of the jobs even as the population continues to explode. How can we employ all of these people? Answer? You can't. If you want to see the future of manufacturing, look up 3D printing. It's going to make factories obsolete in less than 100 years. Mark my words. What happens to the tens of millions around the world employed in manufacturing? We won't even need to go to the store to buy most of what we want because we'll be able to make new things right in our own homes. There goes the retail sector of employment ... on and on.
You did add many issues to the O P that wants to KIS and speak about the so called right to vote and not the other issues you brought up.
Keeping it simple when the issue is complicated is disingenuous. Minimalizing is a form of deflection.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Greatest I am on Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:59 pm

Hogwash.

The issue is voting and not what we will do when manufacturing puts us out of work.

I do not care what happens in 100 years in this O P.

The U S went to war for no taxation without representation.
That means no representation unless it is paid for.
No free rides IOW.

You seem to think I would dismantle the safety net and nowhere do I indicate such foolishness.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1078
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Guest on Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:01 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Prove that such a creator even exists before saying what he endows.

I shall not. I will, however, present proof beyond a reasonable doubt unto a moral certainty that these words, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, exist within the Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America, published 4 July 1776. Read:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Ivan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:09 pm

The U S went to war for no taxation without representation.
That means no representation unless it is paid for.
It means nothing of the sort. It means we're not going to pay taxes if we are not going to have a say in what is done with our money.

Anyone who can write such drivel needs to go back to school and take a course in deductive logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7160
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Greatest I am on Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:17 pm

Ivan wrote:
The U S went to war for no taxation without representation.
That means no representation unless it is paid for.
It means nothing of the sort. It means we're not going to pay taxes if we are not going to have a say in what is done with our money.

And will not have a say if we do not pay.
Governments cannot exist if not paid for.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1078
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by skwalker1964 on Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:32 pm

Greatest I am wrote:Hogwash.

The issue is voting and not what we will do when manufacturing puts us out of work.

I do not care what happens in 100 years in this O P.

The U S went to war for no taxation without representation.
That means no representation unless it is paid for.
No free rides IOW.

You argue like an idiot. No taxation without representation meant they were paying and not getting a say. That doesn't mean you can only get a say if you pay. The two propositions are entirely separate.

If you just keep repeating the same nonsense I'll have to ask to have the thread locked.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum