Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2013, 11:16 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(18-02-2013 08:15 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  VAT' are regressive taxes and would disappear in my system. They are anti-poor and allow for the wealthy to pay less as % of earnings than the poor. No. Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote.
In a world of VAT's, it is a country capitalizing on tourists and is a cost of being a tourist.
Your history was not too bad but this "As to the phrase "no taxation without representation" this has never been anything apart from propaganda, at no point and nowhere has the paying of tax equaled the right to vote." is not accurate.
In the U S for example, I am told that in the beginning white males were basically the only ones to vote.
How can you have representation without taxation? Who would pay for the government to exist?
Regards
DL
VAT would disappear in your system, (BTW, Im beginning to dislike you, youve had me reading very boring material relating to taxation, but as there no such thing as bad knowledge this is more of my fault than yours Smile).

What my brief reading tells me is that VAT in the last four decades has represented between 15 and 20% of the UKs GDP, making it the the third largest source of tax income. However, as it was only introduced in 1973, there is a strong arguement there that an alternative could be found for it. What that alternative is in your system you have not provided so there is nothing for me to consider on that matter, making further consideration, beyond accepting an alternative is possible.

As to VAT being a tool to oppress the poor, not so sure I buy that, VAT is levied at varying rates from 0% items such as food, books and various other essentials like jaffa cakes. To 5% for certain items such as " In September 1997 this lower rate was reduced to 5%, and was extended
to cover various energy-saving materials (from 1 July 1998), Sanitary
Protection (from 1 January 2001), children's car seats (from 1 April
2001), conversion and renovation of certain residential properties (from
12 May 2001), contraceptives (from 1 July 2006) and smoking cessation
products (from 1 July 2007)" Blatant copy and paste from wiki there, sorry Smile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in...ed_Kingdom the relevant wiki page should you wish to check it out. It is this rate which seems to me to be most problematic, every item listed deserves to be rated at 0% imo, with the possible exception of the child safety seat, if your rich enough to have a car and a child you can afford the tax, but as a safety seat is mandated by law it is required and probably should not be taxed through VAT. Taxing smoking cessation
products, contraceptives and sanitary protection is imo counter productive. VAT taxation is levied in theory at least at the full amount on luxury items. Maybe your idea of poor and mine differ, but with exception of the 5% rate there is little the truly poor would be buying which VAT would be applied to.

"Your history was not too bad but this "As to the phrase "no taxation
without representation" this has never been anything apart from
propaganda, at no point and nowhere has the paying of tax equaled the
right to vote." is not accurate. " Firstly, thank you, your to kind and your quite right to draw issue with it in some respects I certainly am guilty of not taking the differing voting rights at the time into account, an oversight I concede happily, but to suggest that only those with voting right payed any form of tax is wildly incorrect also. For example I cited excise tax, which is levied on imports into a country and are levied irrespective of weather the importer is a citizen or not. As this cost is passed on to the end consumer, taxation indirectly perhaps is passed on to every consumer. As such my statement is accurate, but is less all encompassing than I implied, these importers are not represented, but are taxed. Thus "No taxation without representation" needs to be amended to "Some taxation without representation" to be accurate, but the truth as in most cases, makes less of a punchy propaganda tool than a good if inaccurate political slogan.


"How can you have representation without taxation? Who would pay for the government to exist?"

I will take these two questions as rhetorical, as they are not questions I am required to answer, I am not the one suggesting overhauling the tax system, instead I will pass them straight back to you to answer. If not those questions, what do you propose as an alternative to VAT, as the shortfall in goverment earnings will be clawed back in some fashion.

PAX

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 11:17 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(17-02-2013 06:46 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "Cut this anarchist crap, would you?"

No, but thanks for asking. Why do you think it bothers you so much?


Bullshit, bothers me. People who talk about the government like it's an evil Iron Man, kidnapping children for slaves and raping all of the women, justifying it by the fact that they have to pay taxes and follow simple rules and regulations, and who think they should be able to isolate themselves inside of a cave, claim it as their own and society is just supposed to quit working and disappear, like they are the only people in the world who exist.

The ones who bother me even more, are the hypocritical, incorrect, contradictory ones, who only go against things that they personally dislike, or see as no benefit to themselves personally, but when it comes to whatever protects their entitlements and self-interests, those things are what they can live with.

Quote:"It was a completely different society at the time, but they were liberals"

I know. Then they were called liberals. Later the name was changed to classical liberal and later still it was changed to libertarian. Democrats and republicans used to be on opposing sides of the slavery debate, with the democrats pro slavery. Funny how names, definitions and positions change over time, isn't it?

That's just another piece of complete, dog shit, that people like to toss around-- "The words changed meaning magically." Get the fuck out of here, with that bullshit!

Those people, they used to be progressive Democrats. Why? They had Democratic power, they could use it to benefit themselves, and they could receive benefits that they agreed with and liked from the system. They used to be able to own slaves, beat the living shit out of blacks, deprive them of rights, and still get welfare, but ultimately when blacks got the same rights and benefits as their white counterparts, something magical did change, a certain party eventually thought it would be a good idea to get some of those old Democratic, white, voters on their side, so a few campaigns, rhetoric ploys, political maneuvers latter, the same people who use to like Democratic, governmental power, all of a sudden liked Republican, governmental power, and the same people that used to be progressive and liberal, all of a sudden are conservative and/or libertarian. Democratic and Republican, hasn't changed. People's views have shifted on whether, or not, they need, want, benefit from and/or like Democratic power versus Republican power, federal, governmental power and law.

As far as liberal being changed to libertarian, that's just complete bullshit. I've never heard any person, who wasn't a complete, fucking idiot, call John Locke, Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson a libertarian. That was my original point, thanks for bypassing and ignoring it. Libertarian and liberal, describe different things. Libertarian and republican, also describe completely different things. Libertarian is a term that is almost synonymous with anarchist i.e. voluntary association, anti-authoritarian in the sense of a organized, governmental system. Liberal is a word that describes an open-minded view toward equality, progress and change within a society. Republican is rule of law, usually minus a monarch/king and involving the people.

What we can deduce from our Founding Fathers is that they were liberal and republican, just out of those terms. You can't assume that they would have had a view of government consistent with that of a libertarian, today, because the circumstances were different. They were reacting to divine rule of authoritarian kings, in a society that was a hell of a lot simpler, less complex economically, less technological and scientific advancements were made and known, less people, less infrastructure and so on. I'm not saying they would still be liberals with the knowledge and circumstance of today, but what I do know, is back then a conservative would have been alright with religious rule, divine rule, rule by a king, likely against forms of free speech, press, etc., and a libertarian wouldn't have even wanted the Constitution, if any government at all.


Quote:And you know this about every person who calls himself a libertarian or a conservative how?

I was talking about the bosses, and that likely might have excluded a lot of the sheep, so I'll point that out to start. I didn't mean to extend it to "every person who 'calls' himself a libertarian or a conservative", so sorry if it came off as a generalization.

I would know that is the case for a lot of prominent, behind the scenes big shots, because they don't even hide the shit. They are conservative and libertarian, because they want just enough government to protect their own assets and continue to grow wealth and success, mainly for themselves and people like them, is a part of their platform. It's not a hidden conspiracy. They are open about it, in their views and actions.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 11:21 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(18-02-2013 11:08 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(18-02-2013 08:22 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  I will really take this seriously from one who cannot equate free and services to money when we are talking about the economy.
Regards
DL

Your argument was shit, regardless of that. Why do you insist on going around believing shit, that is just incorrect?

Services do not always require money, and also, we were not talking capitalistic, market economics, we were talking about government, voting and taxation.

Regardless, of all of that, your argument still was complete bullshit.

Do you just read and respond to, what it is that benefits your own, incorrect views?
And repeated stating his arguement is differing varieties of fecal matter, this is an example of good debate to you?

Honestly, I mean really.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 12:42 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
In the interest of intellectual honesty, your words were "minus some of the harshness", not "minus... the harshness". There's a very important distinction to be made there, as I'm sure you would agree.

"Who was the one that generalized their culture of parenting?"

It is a fact that around 90% of parents in the US and the UK admit to hitting their children. Many of them as young as 6 months old. Since the reliability of self reporting is questionable and since we can logically assume the most common lie to that question would be no, I think it's quite safe to generalize.

"Also, it's only a correlation between parents views and kids views."

It's not a correlation, its an analogy. Most people have the same fundamental views as their parents. But their behavior is a direct result of their early childhood experiences and that is a demonstrable, measurable fact. The human brains is very complicated, so we can't predict the actual behavior of an adult who was abused as a child but we can absolutely categorize personality disorders based on childhood traumas and we can predict the existence of future personality disorders via brain scan, because abuse and neglect of infants/toddlers causes biological damage to the brain.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 01:17 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
"People who talk about the government like it's an evil Iron Man,"

I'm not against government any more than I'm against gods. What I'm against is violence and falsehood. Government, by definition, is a violent monopoly. Don't blame me for that, I didn't create it. ;-)

"The ones who bother me even more, are the hypocritical, incorrect,
contradictory ones, who only go against things that they personally
dislike,"


I agree. Which is why I oppose politics. What you've described there is the fundamental essence of politics.
""The words changed meaning magically." Get the fuck out of here, with that bullshit!"

I never mentioned magic. There are many reasons why the meanings of words change, which is why etymology is an important part of examining historical data. And understand, I'm not attempting to sell you some idea or win a debate over semantics. The facts are what they are and if you care to do the research, you'll find that out. There is plenty of literature that predates modern historical definitions of liberal which calls people like Locke, Jefferson, et al liberals. As for the founders of the US, they were largely deists who opposed (at least in words) religious rule, economic controls, and other government interventions that modern libertarians oppose. Likewise, as with most libertarians of today, they were strong proponents of a constitutional government, which is why they created one. You can argue all you like that they weren't libertarians and from the perspective of verbiage, you'd be correct. However, to argue that they weren't libertarians in the philosophical sense it to argue that H.H. Holmes wasn't a serial killer because there was no such phrase in the nineteenth century.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 01:32 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Everyone decides they want to have the power to vote under this system. They all decide to get work but there is only enough jobs to go around for 50% of the group.

What happens to people who want to pay into the system but cannot due to a crippling worldwide economic "ponzi" scheme?

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 03:13 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(18-02-2013 11:21 AM)Humakt Wrote:  And repeated stating his argument is differing varieties of fecal matter, this is an example of good debate to you?

Honestly, I mean really.

No, because a debate is where both sides contribute.

Shit, damn, mother fucker-- I can't see why that part bothers you.

You ever hear of this thing called substance. I started by pointing out why his argument was invalid, and then repeated my original point, along with elaborating further, and the only part you managed to see, was the word "shit".

Good job.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 03:48 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(18-02-2013 12:42 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "Who was the one that generalized their culture of parenting?"

It is a fact that around 90% of parents in the US and the UK admit to hitting their children. Many of them as young as 6 months old. Since the reliability of self reporting is questionable and since we can logically assume the most common lie to that question would be no, I think it's quite safe to generalize.
That number seems unusually high. Do you care to cite the statistics you're referring to?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 04:03 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(18-02-2013 12:42 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  In the interest of intellectual honesty, your words were "minus some of the harshness", not "minus... the harshness". There's a very important distinction to be made there, as I'm sure you would agree.

"Who was the one that generalized their culture of parenting?"

It is a fact that around 90% of parents in the US and the UK admit to hitting their children. Many of them as young as 6 months old. Since the reliability of self reporting is questionable and since we can logically assume the most common lie to that question would be no, I think it's quite safe to generalize.

"Also, it's only a correlation between parents views and kids views."

It's not a correlation, its an analogy. Most people have the same fundamental views as their parents. But their behavior is a direct result of their early childhood experiences and that is a demonstrable, measurable fact. The human brains is very complicated, so we can't predict the actual behavior of an adult who was abused as a child but we can absolutely categorize personality disorders based on childhood traumas and we can predict the existence of future personality disorders via brain scan, because abuse and neglect of infants/toddlers causes biological damage to the brain.

Okay, fair enough, but I doubt you missed my point. It seemed as if you were inclined to ignore my point, to go on a rant about parenting techniques that you personally disagreed with, irrelevant to my point.

It's never "safe to generalize". Stereotyping and prejudice is never okay. Lacking wisdom is never okay. Playing guessing games, and drawing irrational, illogical inferences, just because you see them as reasonable, isn't okay.

The correlation I was talking about was between kids views, along with their parents views, and their views as adults, especially political and ideological. My point is that there isn't causation between parents views, and that there are also other factors such as cultural, society experiences and influences, pop culture, their peers, etc, that play a role.

I wasn't talking about abuse, so I think it's safe to say the latter point about kids having personality and mental disorders because of abuse or extreme conditions during infancy and early childhood, wouldn't apply to what I was saying.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(18-02-2013 01:17 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "People who talk about the government like it's an evil Iron Man,"

I'm not against government any more than I'm against gods. What I'm against is violence and falsehood. Government, by definition, is a violent monopoly. Don't blame me for that, I didn't create it. ;-)

"The ones who bother me even more, are the hypocritical, incorrect,
contradictory ones, who only go against things that they personally
dislike,"


I agree. Which is why I oppose politics. What you've described there is the fundamental essence of politics.
""The words changed meaning magically." Get the fuck out of here, with that bullshit!"

I never mentioned magic. There are many reasons why the meanings of words change, which is why etymology is an important part of examining historical data. And understand, I'm not attempting to sell you some idea or win a debate over semantics. The facts are what they are and if you care to do the research, you'll find that out. There is plenty of literature that predates modern historical definitions of liberal which calls people like Locke, Jefferson, et al liberals. As for the founders of the US, they were largely deists who opposed (at least in words) religious rule, economic controls, and other government interventions that modern libertarians oppose. Likewise, as with most libertarians of today, they were strong proponents of a constitutional government, which is why they created one. You can argue all you like that they weren't libertarians and from the perspective of verbiage, you'd be correct. However, to argue that they weren't libertarians in the philosophical sense it to argue that H.H. Holmes wasn't a serial killer because there was no such phrase in the nineteenth century.

"Government, by definition, is a violent monopoly" would be just a blatantly incorrect statement, and that is what I was addressing.

You also can't just run away from that. We don't govern in a way that doesn't allow for debate and opposing opinion. If you live in a dictatorship, that would be one thing, but a government doesn't have to be centralized, or in the power of few or one. The problems of people having different opinions, wanting total control, being violent, or whatever other problems you might see, aren't going to randomly go away, if you decide to be less organized. Government is a system that can provide an adequate means in which to resolve issues, differences and economical and social problems within society.

I already addressed those latter points (in your last paragraph); you can't just continually ignore my points. I don't care if people today view the history of liberal ideas, the Enlightenment era, etc., and find certain points that they agree with, and associate themselves with those people, without taking into account the context of the relative circumstances.

I'll try to say it again: You can't call them libertarian, even philosophically, by the standards of today, because they didn't have the same culture, experiences, circumstances, societal problems, economical problems, size/scale, access to technological advancements and advancements in science and engineering, etc.

I'm also not saying that they would have been liberal today, because without them being aware of the things I mentioned, you really can't make that judgement. The circumstances were completely different. However, you can't label them as libertarians either, because it's not taking into account the context of the circumstances they were in. There are libertarians, or people who call themselves libertarians today, who do not agree that we should have had a Constitution, so it would be completely insane to assume that people who would fall under the category of libertarian back then would have supported a Constitution, if they would have supported any form of government at all.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: