Opposite of Taxation Without Representation

The last several months I've had a thought bouncing around in my head.



We all know that Taxation Without Representation is bad, bad enough, in my opinion to revolt over (don't tell DC). But isn't there a point at which representation without taxation is also unfair?



When 50% of the country doesn't pay taxes, yet is able to vote themselves more tax money from those that do pay, it seems like almost as big of a problem as having to pay taxes without any representation.



What are your thoughts?

I was thinking along these lines yesterday. The government will need to increase my taxes more to pay the non payers. At some point it would make sense to quit working and get on the handout wagon. At that point the country would be ripe for destruction from within.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Amusing article. hope it changes some votes in the future.



This is the real problem with our country, they (congress/representatives) were (supposedly) voted in and are voting the way their constituents want them to vote. People just don't get that the real problem is spending. And they aren't willing to part with or decrease their favorite government program.



The American people have chosen this path whether you, I or hawkwing like it or not.



Unfortunately, this is the kind of stuff that leads to civil unrest.

That's a good angle Hawk. The problem is the politicians buy votes with others hard earned money and now there are more of them than us.



Bbot, that is an amusing article, scary too.

The loyal opposition responds: Having who pays taxes as the metric for deciding who votes is not a good idea. I think it is a slippery slope to other curtailments of our right to vote. I'm sensitive but in Idaho for decades Mormons were denied the right to vote merely for professing faith in church doctrine. I know that is very different from what you are saying, but once down the slope.....when will it end? There are also many issues that do not involve taxes. They involve war for example. Are we going to deny people the right to select a candidate who advocates nuclear war with Iran because he does not pay any taxes? And which taxes? Some rich people pay no income taxes or so few that what they pay as a percentage is smaller than what many poor people pay. Some people pay no property taxes because they rent. Does that boot them out? Well just some thoughts from my way of seeing things.

Hawk, I expressed your idea to my friend that runs a talk show here. It will be talked about on that show.



It isn't a good idea to allow those who won't work to receive from those who do either.



Renters pay the property owner who has to take part of the rent to pay the property tax. It's the same principle as the business owner passing on his tax to the consumer. It's a way for the politician to come off as the benefactor while the business owner is castigated for high prices and profits.

BoiseBYU wrote:
The loyal opposition responds: Having who pays taxes as the metric for deciding who votes is not a good idea. I think it is a slippery slope to other curtailments of our right to vote. I'm sensitive but in Idaho for decades Mormons were denied the right to vote merely for professing faith in church doctrine. I know that is very different from what you are saying, but once down the slope.....when will it end? There are also many issues that do not involve taxes. They involve war for example. Are we going to deny people the right to select a candidate who advocates nuclear war with Iran because he does not pay any taxes? And which taxes? Some rich people pay no income taxes or so few that what they pay as a percentage is smaller than what many poor people pay. Some people pay no property taxes because they rent. Does that boot them out? Well just some thoughts from my way of seeing things.

I also see a lot of problems with the idea. But, let me ask you this, oh liberal one ;) , what thinks thou of voter ID?

Which taxes should you have to pay to vote? Simple, the taxes for whichever election in which you want to vote. Want to vote in a local election? Better be paying property tax (whether through your mortgage or rent or cutting a check to the local government). Want to vote in state elections? Better be paying state income taxes. Want to vote in a federal election? Better be paying federal income taxes.



But my state doesn't have income tax! Well, then your state can designate a sales tax or property tax as sufficient. I'm not sure of any state without some form of state level tax.



But you should NOT be able to vote in a federal election if you don't pay federal income tax.



But I don't have an income? I live off my investment, I can't vote? No. You better designate some of your investment income as actual income then, so you can qualify.



Voting is a right, but it is also a responsibility and not enough people have enough skin in the game to take responsibility to properly exercise that right.

I am against requiring taxation to vote. I would be more in favor of a flat tax that is revenue neutral. I am also in favor of voter ID. I had a discussion with one of my liberal friends on the matter, and in the end, I think he agreed that since democracy and the voice of the people is the very essence of democratic government, we should be ensuring that such power is preserved by the people in a way that does not disenfranchise proper citizens from voting. Almost everyone has a driver's license. If not, they could get a free state ID to vote with. That doesn't seem like too much of a burden to ensure that people are not messing around with the sacred right to vote.



As for spending, I posted another thread about a letter I sent to my congressional reps. I don't care if we argue about how to spend money. Let's all just agree to only spend the money we have.

BroncoBot wrote:

The loyal opposition responds: Having who pays taxes as the metric for deciding who votes is not a good idea. I think it is a slippery slope to other curtailments of our right to vote. I'm sensitive but in Idaho for decades Mormons were denied the right to vote merely for professing faith in church doctrine. I know that is very different from what you are saying, but once down the slope.....when will it end? There are also many issues that do not involve taxes. They involve war for example. Are we going to deny people the right to select a candidate who advocates nuclear war with Iran because he does not pay any taxes? And which taxes? Some rich people pay no income taxes or so few that what they pay as a percentage is smaller than what many poor people pay. Some people pay no property taxes because they rent. Does that boot them out? Well just some thoughts from my way of seeing things.

I also see a lot of problems with the idea. But, let me ask you this, oh liberal one ;) , what thinks thou of voter ID?

I think voter ID is proper as long as it is reasonable.

I would happily give up the right to vote if I didn't have to pay taxes. How about that for a compromise? Sort of like a reverse poll tax.

jvquarterback wrote:
I would happily give up the right to vote if I didn't have to pay taxes. How about that for a compromise? Sort of like a reverse poll tax.

I'm not a fan of giving up rights.

jvquarterback wrote:
I would happily give up the right to vote if I didn't have to pay taxes. How about that for a compromise? Sort of like a reverse poll tax.

Interesting... I'd have to think about that. Seems the majority of voters these days simply want to take rights away anyway... at least you could hold onto your money.

I just wish that my vote counted as much as someone in Florida, New York, or Florida...

Schmoe wrote:
I just wish that my vote counted as much as someone in Florida, New York, or Florida...

No Utah or Idaho votes should be counted in presidential elections, because more federal tax dollars come to our states than are sent to Washington..... ;)

Is paying taxes as a requirement to vote really that bad? Why? If someone is so rich that they actually pay no taxes why should they get a vote in how my money is spent? If someone is so lazy they refuse to work why should they be able to vote themselves free iPhones from you and I?



Now, I know the idea is overly simplified, but it's a starting point of a discussion. There are issues like long term disability and retirement and other issues, but you have to start somewhere.

hawkwing wrote:
Is paying taxes as a requirement to vote really that bad? Why? If someone is so rich that they actually pay no taxes why should they get a vote in how my money is spent? If someone is so lazy they refuse to work why should they be able to vote themselves free iPhones from you and I?



Now, I know the idea is overly simplified, but it's a starting point of a discussion. There are issues like long term disability and retirement and other issues, but you have to start somewhere.

Students generally pay no taxes, but would like to have a say in their future (I know I do). With the current system, a lot of employed people still would not be voting due to the fact that they aren't contributing... at the moment. 18 year old kid with a paper route who doesn't pay taxes should certainly has the right to vote. I think voter ID laws are a much bigger concern.



I'm with Boise on this one, it creates a very slippery slope that could get ugly very quickly.

I don't like it when people say 50% of Americans don't pay taxes as if that is something bad. We should aim to increase that number to 100% not seek to lower the number, particularly at the federal level.



That said if the states want to institute a land ownership requirement for voting I might actually buy some land. I have no incentive at all to own now. They can always raise my taxes or take it away by eminent domain anyway. Didn't North Dakota have a ballot initiative to end property tax? If it passed that is the only state in the union I would consider buying property in right now.

If Congress only made laws about spending, I would agree. Unfortunately, they make laws that concern far more than what is done with tax dollars--laws that affect many of our other rights. Hence, I don't think requiring paying taxes works for having a vote--unless we move to a true democracy on spending issues, rather than just a representative democracy for all issues.



If we, the people, directly voted on how tax revenues were spent, then yes, I would agree that you should pay taxes to vote on how they are spent.