Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

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

The wealthy are already doing everything they can to manoeuvre people into positions of helplessness or acquiescence. If they were allowed to disenfranchise people by firing them, or cow them by threatening to fire them, there'd be no limits to their freedom to oppress and exploit.

So no.

An American General said, during the Vietnam War, that he intended to "bomb the viet cong back into the Stone Age."

Now we in Britain have a Tory-led Coalition that seems intent upon legislating us back to an earlier, feudal, age.

Should only taxpayers get the vote? Er... no next question.
Having said that the elites would love this to happen. A friend of mine who is a devotee of uber hypocrite Ayn Rand (I know sad innit but we've been friends since school) believes the number of votes a person gets should increase with the amount of money you've got, type of job, how well you're educated etc.

What a stupid question! For a start, everyone pays tax. Even if you don’t pay income tax or council tax, you pay VAT on many of the things that you buy.

However, supposing the question is rephrased to “should only income tax payers be allowed to vote?” Wow, wouldn’t the Tories enjoy that! Throw 700,000 public sector workers out of their jobs, they immediately stop paying income tax, so they lose their right to vote and can’t register their opinions of the Tory economic policies at the next election.

I wonder why Cameron hasn't thought of that one? He’s tried to gerrymander the constituency boundaries so that an already unfair voting system (which the Tories strongly support) is skewed more in his favour (he wasn’t satisfied that 36% of the votes gave him 47% of the MPs). He also doesn’t want prisoners to vote, even though most of them have done less damage to this country than he and his spivs have managed in less than three years.

We’re supposed to live in a democracy, a system of government by the whole population, though I often doubt it with an unelected head of state and upper chamber and with the current aberration of a government in power. This crackpot suggestion would only make matters worse. May I humbly suggest that this thread is a leg-pull which should have been saved for 1st April?

The slow progress towards Universal Suffrage:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/getting_vote.htm

So CEOs that receive corporate welfare to the degree of getting a refund should not be able to vote?

Only sensible people should be allowed to vote. Obviously.

Now define "sensible people".

That's me and all my friends, obviously

The Tories and their supporters would fight tooth and nail against the idea that only 'Income Payers' Should vote.....

The middle-income families who now find themselves about 15%>20% worse off may be debating hard about their loyalties at the next General Election.

skwalker1964 wrote:The wealthy are already doing everything they can to manoeuvre people into positions of helplessness or acquiescence. If they were allowed to disenfranchise people by firing them, or cow them by threatening to fire them, there'd be no limits to their freedom to oppress and exploit.

So no.

Look again for the first time.



It could be better and that is why I posted the O P.

Regards
DL

skwalker1964 wrote:T.

Do you want more of this or less?



Regards
DL

oftenwrong wrote:An American General said, during the Vietnam War, that he intended to "bomb the viet cong back into the Stone Age."

Now we in Britain have a Tory-led Coalition that seems intent upon legislating us back to an earlier, feudal, age.

One of your countrymen gave me this.

It's an interesting idea for academic discussion. Unfortunately that's all it would be because it would be deemed by the ECHR to breach people's human rights on so many levels that we wouldn't have a leg to stand on - we can't even deny votes to prisoners nowadays.

The current system does seem to allow for some fairly obvious abuse. For example, Gordon Brown attempted to buy votes by expanding the welfare state massively - inventing new ways of buying voters' loyalty like tax credits. It nearly worked. In fact the left wing govts in the UK have a track record of spending vast amounts of money on welfare and ending up in financial trouble. It's an easy vote winner because there are a lot more poor people than there are rich people.

Maybe those who get benefits should be excluded from voting.

Regards
DL

KnarkyBadger wrote:Should only taxpayers get the vote? Er... no next question.
Having said that the elites would love this to happen. A friend of mine who is a devotee of uber hypocrite Ayn Rand (I know sad innit but we've been friends since school) believes the number of votes a person gets should increase with the amount of money you've got, type of job, how well you're educated etc.

That would mean following the ideas of the successful instead of the poor.

Can't have that now can we?

Better to build on failure instead of success.

Regards
DL

Ivan wrote:What a stupid question! For a start, everyone pays tax. Even if you don’t pay income tax or council tax, you pay VAT on many of the things that you buy.

However, supposing the question is rephrased to “should only income tax payers be allowed to vote?” Wow, wouldn’t the Tories enjoy that! Throw 700,000 public sector workers out of their jobs, they immediately stop paying income tax, so they lose their right to vote and can’t register their opinions of the Tory economic policies at the next election.

I wonder why Cameron hasn't thought of that one? He’s tried to gerrymander the constituency boundaries so that an already unfair voting system (which the Tories strongly support) is skewed more in his favour (he wasn’t satisfied that 36% of the votes gave him 47% of the MPs). He also doesn’t want prisoners to vote, even though most of them have done less damage to this country than he and his spivs have managed in less than three years.

We’re supposed to live in a democracy, a system of government by the whole population, though I often doubt it with an unelected head of state and upper chamber and with the current aberration of a government in power. This crackpot suggestion would only make matters worse. May I humbly suggest that this thread is a leg-pull which should have been saved for 1st April?

I cannot speak to your countries situation but did reprint what your one of your countrymen said just above. Have a look.

If you are deluding yourself into thinking your system is democratic and not oligarchic then that Carlin link is for you.

Regards
DL

willingsniper wrote:So CEOs that receive corporate welfare to the degree of getting a refund should not be able to vote?

My basic view is what the law of the land in many countries in the past was; 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.

Regards
DL

oftenwrong wrote:Only sensible people should be allowed to vote. Obviously.

Now define "sensible people".

That would be by consensus but I do have a sample of what not sensible to a friend of mine.

The question for me is who should be labeled a citizen and who is a ward?

If you don't contribute you are a ward - IMO. A citizen contributes a ward does not.

You are saying that everyone in America regardless of IQ and knowledge should have the right to vote?
This guy can vote listen to his reasons. He says he likes that Barrack is black…he comments that being black is good. Does that imply being white is not? I don’t think he has the ability to make decisions that affect the nation – having a person with downs syndrome vote is the equivalent of letting pre-teens vote.



He is probably a good kid but his reasoning ability is that of a pre-teen at best. Even a high functioning person with downs needs supervision and cannot be trusted to manage their funds because they lack impulse control. It’s a symptom of the disorder in the DSVM.

I think that it is the majority of voters fall somewhere in between Dan (the boy in the video) and those who have some basic reasoning ability - that is what got us in the mess we are in. This kid is motivated by emotion like so many are - he is simply parroting the meme he' heard in the media, nothing more.

There is also a thought that a Democracy will only last until the people learn that they can vote themselves money from the treasury. Again, prophecy coming true.

Regards
DL

There's no democracy surrounding an individual's qualification for a Bank Account or a Credit Card.

Just a "rating".

How does the pictured individual get one of those?

GIA

For example, Gordon Brown attempted to buy votes by expanding the welfare state massively - inventing new ways of buying voters' loyalty like tax credits.

Evidence of this assertion, please.
I personally am finding the tenor of your posting on this thread to be offensive in the extreme.
For your information 'democracy', the noun, refers to rule by the 'demos', another noun.

demos (plural demoi)
1.(political science) The common populace of a state, the people.
2.(greek history) municipality, an administrative area covering a city or several villages together

We live in a democratic state, which means that the people have a right to a say in the way they are governed. This right confers a degree of protection for the more vulnerable against the rapacity and greed of the 'successful' members of the state, which is right and proper.
If you don't like that, I suggest you find a desert island and found your ideal state, featuring survival of the fittest, which is actually what is meant by your comment 'build upon success' - I'll be interested to hear how it goes for you once you're old and feeble

Greatest I am wrote:
Look again for the first time.

It could be better and that is why I posted the O P.

Regards
DL

Very interesting - but seemingly irrelevant to the original question of taxation and voting rights, and even more so to my comment about the attempts by the rich to disenfranchise anyone whose interests might not align with theirs.

Greatest I am wrote:

willingsniper wrote:So CEOs that receive corporate welfare to the degree of getting a refund should not be able to vote?

My basic view is what the law of the land in many countries in the past was; 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.

Regards
DL

Everyone pays taxes. There are many taxes all pay at least some.

15 August 1867

The Second Reform Act doubles the electorate, and was passed by a minority Conservative government led by Frederick, Earl of Derby. Its orchestrator was Benjamin Disraeli, who permitted larger extensions to the franchise than the Liberals would have countenanced. It virtually doubled the electorate, enabling one-third of adult males in Britain and one-sixth in Ireland to vote in parliamentary elections. In a few urban constituencies, working men were an electoral majority. A separate act for Scotland was passed in 1868.

The current system does seem to allow for some fairly obvious abuse. For example, Gordon Brown attempted to buy votes by expanding the welfare state massively - inventing new ways of buying voters' loyalty like tax credits. It nearly worked. In fact the left wing govts in the UK have a track record of spending vast amounts of money on welfare and ending up in financial trouble. It's an easy vote winner because there are a lot more poor people than there are rich people.

Maybe those who get benefits should be excluded from voting.

LOL! Greatest I Am, you're flagrantly wrong in every thing you've posted. America was born from a rebellion caused by taxation without representation. Removing the vote from anyone amounts to the same thing. As someone said, even low-income and benefit receivers pay taxes in the form of VATs, sales taxes, property taxes, school taxes, social security taxes, gasoline taxes, sin taxes, and a host of others. Should we make low-income folks immune from ALL taxes? That would be the only fair way to do it - which, ironically, might make them far less poor and able to pay taxes. What a vicious circle.

But this insane idea has been said by the right-wingers here in the US, as well, but NONE of them ever talk about all of the other taxes and how unfair it is to make low-income folks pay THOSE taxes yet lose the right to vote. Income tax is only the most visible tax, but it certainly isn't the only one. And perhaps if these low-life employers paid people more money, there wouldn't be so many people needing benefits. Remember, GIA, that companies in both our nations are subsidizeing wages with welfare. I wrote a post on that once already, and that is one major reason why many earn too little to pay taxes.

Citibank actually wrote a top echelon memo that discussed ways to sabotage the "one man, one vote" system here in America. They even described themselves as the "managerial aristocracy." The reason is because a "one man, one vote" system is the one time in a capitalist society where the poorest among us are just as powerful as the richest - and the wealthy elite HATE it. Anyone of sound mind ought to pay careful attention of what the wealthy elite do not like because it usually means it is benefiting the common man and not the top 1%.

As far as Gordon Brown buying votes with welfare expansion ... so what? That's what politicians do. In fact that's how they're supposed to operate. If a large portion of the electorate are so poor that they don't pay taxes and need welfare, and if those people want an expansion of assistance programs, then that's exactly what a politician should do. Give the people want it wants. It's not "buying" votes, it is courting votes.

And therein is the reason why the wealthy elite despise the "one man, one vote" system. The top 1% are, well ... a little out-numbered, wouldn't you say? In the United States, the 2010 census indicated that 47% of all Americans are considered low-income (and do not pay income taxes) or are receiving government assistance. That's where Romney received his information in regards to his famous "47%" remark at a $10,000 per plate fund-raising dinner, and it was partially responsible for losing the presidency. You can't ignore 47% of the population nor can you anger that many people by stripping them of the vote - because if you do, then those folks may decide to "vote" by other means. Remember that our revolution against Britain was over far less.

What you suggest, GIA, is stripping our lands of democracy and turning it into a plutocracy - and though we're not far from that now, the "one man, one vote" system is the only thing keeping us from becoming one openly. Every time a politician receives a big campaign contribution from billionaires and corporations, votes are being bought and favors are being curried - and the common person has NO power over that. Thus again we have a measure of what is known as status discrimination. In the USA, most vagrancy laws have been rendered unconstitutional because they punish status rather than actual wrong-doing, and stripping the poor of the vote would be doing exactly the same thing - and would meet with the same result. If we can continue allowing campaign contributions (buying votes) from billionaires, corporations, and well-funded special interest groups, it would be hypocritical to prevent the poor from "buying votes" with their sheer numbers. Status discrimination.

Now, to debunk the argument that people on benefits shouldn't vote, well, the problem there is that the only people who could vote on welfare would be people who don't need it. Imagine if the 53% of Americans consistently voted against any welfare at all? What then happens to the 47% who can't vote? Can we seriously suggest that we write-off nearly half the population? 150 million people? If that were to ever happen, the civil unrest in this country would make the storming of the Bastille look like amateur hour. And remember: a LOT of our lower-ranked soldiers are eligible for (and do receive) food stamps. Plenty of military experience there to fuel a proper revolt.

Money is not supposed to be the bread and butter of politics. It should never determine who can vote, which is the reason why the US Constitution implicitly forbids poll taxes. Any nation that allows vote-buying with taxes is no better than anything Gordon Brown ever proposed, and stripping voting rights from the poor would be handing over power to corporate fascists. After all, the poor don't just vote for welfare expansion. They also vote for minimum wage laws, the right to unionize, better health care, regulation of banks and industry, pollution control, and a wide range of other topics that the rich would love to dispense with.

Greatest I am. If your crackpot theory had any credence, Gordon Brown would have won the election of 2010. Unfortunately, most of the poorest people don’t bother to vote because they feel alienated from society – go and study some psephology. Tax credits were introduced in the UK because employers weren’t paying a living wage.

Gordon Brown has given up his right to a Prime Ministerial pension; I somehow doubt that multimillionaire Cameron, who claimed the maximum mortgage allowance for an MP, disability living allowance for his late son and even the cost of having wisteria removed from his chimney, will do likewise when that joyful day arrives that he is kicked out of office. Gordon Brown has written a book and gives all the proceeds to charity. Gordon Brown is a tireless campaigner for the eradication of world poverty and the education of girls in the developing world. When history books are written about the early 21st century, I suspect they’ll be a lot kinder to Gordon Brown than the Murdoch-brainwashed voters of the UK were in 2010.

This thread is a leg-pull, isn’t it? Next you’ll be telling us that Thatcher didn’t abuse our 'current system' when she sold off our public housing stock to gain blue collar votes and then sold cheap shares in our public utilities for the same purpose. Or that the Tories didn’t create ‘booms’ and bribe voters with tax cuts just before elections, that we all then had to pay for with ‘busts’ like Black Wednesday afterwards.

It is not totally unknown for threads to harbour a correspondent who merely enjoys creating mischief. Known to the Chinese as someone who sows Dragon Seeds.

This is all about pulling our gentleman's sausage isn't it?

First of all everyone pays taxes as Ivan has pointed out, so everyone has the right to vote.

Secondly, Government is not just about taxes its about the creation of new laws or legislation, foreign and domestic policy, law and order, health and education. Everyone deserves a say/vote on these and other issues

blueturando wrote:First of all everyone pays taxes as Ivan has pointed out, so everyone has the right to vote.

Secondly, Government is not just about taxes its about the creation of new laws or legislation, foreign and domestic policy, law and order, health and education. Everyone deserves a say/vote on these and other issues

Well said!

oftenwrong wrote:There's no democracy surrounding an individual's qualification for a Bank Account or a Credit Card.

Just a "rating".

How does the pictured individual get one of those?

Not quite the issue at hand.
Truth is if every vote is important, that individual or one like him could be the difference in who win's an election.

Regards
DL

boatlady wrote:GIA

For example, Gordon Brown attempted to buy votes by expanding the welfare state massively - inventing new ways of buying voters' loyalty like tax credits.

Evidence of this assertion, please.
I personally am finding the tenor of your posting on this thread to be offensive in the extreme.
For your information 'democracy', the noun, refers to rule by the 'demos', another noun.

demos (plural demoi)
1.(political science) The common populace of a state, the people.
2.(greek history) municipality, an administrative area covering a city or several villages together

We live in a democratic state, which means that the people have a right to a say in the way they are governed. This right confers a degree of protection for the more vulnerable against the rapacity and greed of the 'successful' members of the state, which is right and proper.
If you don't like that, I suggest you find a desert island and found your ideal state, featuring survival of the fittest, which is actually what is meant by your comment 'build upon success' - I'll be interested to hear how it goes for you once you're old and feeble

If you are so blind that you think we live in democracies and not oligarchies, ---- and you think that what I see as generous taxpayers are greedy rapacious people, ----- then not only do you see yourself as such, if you are a taxpayer, you are also a poor judge of political systems.

Have another look at that Carlin clip, for the first time.

Regards
DL

skwalker1964 wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
Look again for the first time.

It could be better and that is why I posted the O P.

Regards
DL

Very interesting - but seemingly irrelevant to the original question of taxation and voting rights, and even more so to my comment about the attempts by the rich to disenfranchise anyone whose interests might not align with theirs.

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

willingsniper wrote:[
DL

Everyone pays taxes. There are many taxes all pay at least some.[/quote]

Simplistic tail tucking.

Sure, all pay taxes. But taxpayers earn the funds they use to pay them while taxtakers take those funds without earning them to pay those taxes.

Regards
DL

oftenwrong wrote:15 August 1867

The Second Reform Act doubles the electorate, and was passed by a minority Conservative government led by Frederick, Earl of Derby. Its orchestrator was Benjamin Disraeli, who permitted larger extensions to the franchise than the Liberals would have countenanced. It virtually doubled the electorate, enabling one-third of adult males in Britain and one-sixth in Ireland to vote in parliamentary elections. In a few urban constituencies, working men were an electoral majority. A separate act for Scotland was passed in 1868.

Working men who contributed to the wealth of the country.
Not non-working men who were draining it.

Regards
DL

Shirina wrote:

The current system does seem to allow for some fairly obvious abuse. For example, Gordon Brown attempted to buy votes by expanding the welfare state massively - inventing new ways of buying voters' loyalty like tax credits. It nearly worked. In fact the left wing govts in the UK have a track record of spending vast amounts of money on welfare and ending up in financial trouble. It's an easy vote winner because there are a lot more poor people than there are rich people.

Maybe those who get benefits should be excluded from voting.

LOL! Greatest I Am, you're flagrantly wrong in every thing you've posted. America was born from a rebellion caused by taxation without representation. Removing the vote from anyone amounts to the same thing. As someone said, even low-income and benefit receivers pay taxes in the form of VATs, sales taxes, property taxes, school taxes, social security taxes, gasoline taxes, sin taxes, and a host of others. Should we make low-income folks immune from ALL taxes? That would be the only fair way to do it - which, ironically, might make them far less poor and able to pay taxes. What a vicious circle.

But this insane idea has been said by the right-wingers here in the US, as well, but NONE of them ever talk about all of the other taxes and how unfair it is to make low-income folks pay THOSE taxes yet lose the right to vote. Income tax is only the most visible tax, but it certainly isn't the only one. And perhaps if these low-life employers paid people more money, there wouldn't be so many people needing benefits. Remember, GIA, that companies in both our nations are subsidizeing wages with welfare. I wrote a post on that once already, and that is one major reason why many earn too little to pay taxes.

Citibank actually wrote a top echelon memo that discussed ways to sabotage the "one man, one vote" system here in America. They even described themselves as the "managerial aristocracy." The reason is because a "one man, one vote" system is the one time in a capitalist society where the poorest among us are just as powerful as the richest - and the wealthy elite HATE it. Anyone of sound mind ought to pay careful attention of what the wealthy elite do not like because it usually means it is benefiting the common man and not the top 1%.

As far as Gordon Brown buying votes with welfare expansion ... so what? That's what politicians do. In fact that's how they're supposed to operate. If a large portion of the electorate are so poor that they don't pay taxes and need welfare, and if those people want an expansion of assistance programs, then that's exactly what a politician should do. Give the people want it wants. It's not "buying" votes, it is courting votes.

And therein is the reason why the wealthy elite despise the "one man, one vote" system. The top 1% are, well ... a little out-numbered, wouldn't you say? In the United States, the 2010 census indicated that 47% of all Americans are considered low-income (and do not pay income taxes) or are receiving government assistance. That's where Romney received his information in regards to his famous "47%" remark at a $10,000 per plate fund-raising dinner, and it was partially responsible for losing the presidency. You can't ignore 47% of the population nor can you anger that many people by stripping them of the vote - because if you do, then those folks may decide to "vote" by other means. Remember that our revolution against Britain was over far less.

What you suggest, GIA, is stripping our lands of democracy and turning it into a plutocracy - and though we're not far from that now, the "one man, one vote" system is the only thing keeping us from becoming one openly. Every time a politician receives a big campaign contribution from billionaires and corporations, votes are being bought and favors are being curried - and the common person has NO power over that. Thus again we have a measure of what is known as status discrimination. In the USA, most vagrancy laws have been rendered unconstitutional because they punish status rather than actual wrong-doing, and stripping the poor of the vote would be doing exactly the same thing - and would meet with the same result. If we can continue allowing campaign contributions (buying votes) from billionaires, corporations, and well-funded special interest groups, it would be hypocritical to prevent the poor from "buying votes" with their sheer numbers. Status discrimination.

Now, to debunk the argument that people on benefits shouldn't vote, well, the problem there is that the only people who could vote on welfare would be people who don't need it. Imagine if the 53% of Americans consistently voted against any welfare at all? What then happens to the 47% who can't vote? Can we seriously suggest that we write-off nearly half the population? 150 million people? If that were to ever happen, the civil unrest in this country would make the storming of the Bastille look like amateur hour. And remember: a LOT of our lower-ranked soldiers are eligible for (and do receive) food stamps. Plenty of military experience there to fuel a proper revolt.

Money is not supposed to be the bread and butter of politics. It should never determine who can vote, which is the reason why the US Constitution implicitly forbids poll taxes. Any nation that allows vote-buying with taxes is no better than anything Gordon Brown ever proposed, and stripping voting rights from the poor would be handing over power to corporate fascists. After all, the poor don't just vote for welfare expansion. They also vote for minimum wage laws, the right to unionize, better health care, regulation of banks and industry, pollution control, and a wide range of other topics that the rich would love to dispense with.

You must think generous taxpayer's are all pricks who would dismantle the safety net. You are in Boatlady's boat.

You are correct in that VAT's are regressive And the ones who profit the most from these are the rich.
If they did not have the poor on their side as a voting block then the middle would scrap those regressive taxes.

Your history on why the U S went to war against the Brits is accurate.
The U S knew that taxation should pay for representation.
They go together hand in glove and must coexist. One without the other is wrong.

My basic view is the same; no taxation without representation which is the same as no taxation gets no representation. The same as what the U S fought for. 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.

Do I have that about right?

If not, refute it.

Regards
DL

blueturando wrote:First of all everyone pays taxes as Ivan has pointed out, so everyone has the right to vote.

Secondly, Government is not just about taxes its about the creation of new laws or legislation, foreign and domestic policy, law and order, health and education. Everyone deserves a say/vote on these and other issues

This has been dealt with.
Taxtakers pay that tax with free money taken from the taxpayer.

Regards
DL

Ivan wrote:Greatest I am. If your crackpot theory had any credence, Gordon Brown would have won the election of 2010.

As I pointed out, that post was given to me by a Brit. I do not track your politics.

The point to consider is that those who did vote for him just for more handouts negated taxpayer votes and had an effect on the outcome of the election.

It is like here in Canada when the Green party and the Pot party, mostly Liberals, draw votes away from the Liberals and allow for Conservative votes to have a greater effect.

I would not doubt that the Pot party is a freindly flag black op from Conservatives. If not then I am sure they are happy that they exist as it dilutes the Liberal vote.

Regards
DL

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.

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.)