Hypothetical: voting and taxes

[kgbsquirrel]

So, while laying here I had a thought, it sligghtly paralels the old thought that only land owners should vote. Basic idea is thus: in a manner resembling the voting in a corporation where your vote carries a weight based on your total stock holdings, what if your vote, as a citizen, carried a weight based on your personal tax payments. Example: I paid 8000 roughly in taxes last year and person B paid only 800. My vote would carry 10 times the weight or affect of person B's.

My immediate thought is that it would make it difficult for people who pay nothing into the system to vote themselves government handouts (other peoples money). Thoughts?

[Jamisjockey]

Creating a wealthy ruling class is problematic at best.  Rules and laws will be bent to benefit them only.
The true issue is that even a republic is still motivated by mob rule. When your representatives are elected by a simple majority of those who bother to vote and then laws are written by a simple majority of representatives.
Simple majority is mob rule.

[birdman]

Hmm...the unintended consequences could be interesting.  

In the long run, it wouldn't create a wealthy ruling class per se that would enact laws to benefit them only, as they would need to pay proportionately more taxes to stay "in power" so the only way for them to benefit, and retain power to keep benefiting, would be to reduce the entire tax burden (less spending), which is good...right?

People want to pay less taxes, so the vote in people who will do so, eventually, everyone would pay the same minimal tax, and you'd have appropriate representation.  If anyone passed laws raising taxes, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Of course, since the rich would pay more taxes, it would rapidly become an oligarchy...of course, the only way they could keep power was by paying taxes, which they don't want, so see above.

And then there is that whole constitution thing, and one could spin your plan as putting the rich in charge and disenfranchising poor people, which ironically, in the long run, it wouldn't.

Interesting thoughts though.

So last year there were I think like a trillion or so paid in income tax (not bothering to look it up, but I think that's within 50%), or about $3000 for every person, or about $4000 for those of voting age.

So basically, warren buffet would be equal to Santa Fe.

[Tallpine]

Everyone pays the same "citizenship tax" and gets one vote.

No tax, no vote.

Dot guv has to run on per capita tax.

[MicroBalrog]

Nope. No good.

Government doesn't only exist to keep taxes low.

[De Selby]

Wait, so you're essentially saying that we should allow people to buy more influence in Government with their income?

How could that possibly go wrong!

We have a hard enough time as it is preventing economically powerful agents from violating the rights of the poor.   A vote buying system will be a good ticket to de facto slavery.

[KD5NRH]

Creating a wealthy ruling class is problematic at best.  Rules and laws will be bent to benefit them only.

But the OWS crowd is sure that the wealthy are the ones not paying taxes.

[Jamisjockey]

Everyone pays the same "citizenship tax" and gets one vote.

No tax, no vote.

Dot guv has to run on per capita tax.

100% voluntary to pay the taxes, and I'd say we're getting somewhere.

[zahc]

The true issue is that even a republic is still motivated by mob rule. When your representatives are elected by a simple majority of those who bother to vote and then laws are written by a simple majority of representatives.

Mob rule is supposed to be avoided through our constitution. If it was just followed as written, the system would work pretty well.

I have often proposed more accountability for representatives. Right now, they can get away with about anything unless there happens to be a revolution while they are in office. As it is, they are pretty safe from torches-and-pitchforks action.

If a law is found to be unconstitutional, every representative who voted for it should be jailed.

[Jamisjockey]

Mob rule is supposed to be avoided through our constitution. If it was just followed as written, the system would work pretty well.

I have often proposed more accountability for representatives. Right now, they can get away with about anything unless there happens to be a revolution while they are in office. As it is, they are pretty safe from torches-and-pitchforks action.

If a law is found to be unconstitutional, every representative who voted for it should be jailed.

16th amendment proves the holes in the constitution.

[MicroBalrog]

16th amendment proves the holes in the constitution.

Being able to be amended is not a hole.

[TommyGunn]

Being able to be amended is not a hole.

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_amendment

That's what the 16th amendment did.

[Perd Hapley]

The true issue is that even a republic is still motivated by mob rule. When your representatives are elected by a simple majority of those who bother to vote and then laws are written by a simple majority of representatives.
Simple majority is mob rule.

Huh? The laws of our national government, and of 49/50 states, require that bills be passed by two legislative houses (not a simple majority), then signed by an executive (not a simple majority). (Unless, of course, a veto is overridden by a super-majority.)

Those bills can later be struck down by those most anti-democratic and un-mob-rule-ish of institutions, the courts.

[MicroBalrog]

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_amendment

That's what the 16th amendment did.

Yes. I'm failing to see how this is a 'loophole'.

[Jamisjockey]

Yes. I'm failing to see how this is a 'loophole'.

Even the amendment process is absolutely fallible.  Without the 16th amendment, the states could tell the federal government to *expletive deleted*ck off.
Since the federal government controls the purse strings, it controls  the states like little puppets. 
When the national drinking age was raised several states held out and said no.  So, the federal government withheld federal highway funds.

A country of gullible voters, a sprinkling of class warfare, and bam! the Federal government gets unstoppable power to tax and spend.
We act like class warfare is a new construct, but its EXACTLY how the 16th amendment came into being.

[HankB]

I've often considered the virtues of the plan outlined in kgbsquirrel's post . . . it really ticks me off that some parasite has the SAME say in how .gov spends MY tax dollars as I do.  

Rich guys who use "loopholes" to avoid paying tax will dilute the value of their vote by doing so. People who are on the dole - welfare, food stamps, etc., and pay no taxes at all would get NO vote; I mean, why should people who contribute nothing - NOTHING! - have a say in how things are run?

The only real problem I see is that some of the "47%" really shouldn't be disenfranchised; the senior citizen who retired after WORKING for over 4 decades has, IMHO, EARNED a vote. Same for the low-ranking enlisted man in the military with a family who may pay little or no tax on his meager pay - would anyone say he's not contributing to his country?

[grampster]

One should be able to answer a few, say 5, questions having to do with the election that one is voting upon.  As to whether that is "unfair" to the poor or those who can't read, I would counter with the fact that public education is free and if one did not take advantage of it, too bad. 

[brimic]

Here's how I see this scenario playing out over a relatively short period of time:

1. laws will be made to significantly increase the level of income before any taxation can be collected.
2. Most taxes other than those that apply to high income earners will be abolished and replaced with 'fees' or 'surcharges' government gasoline 'fee', food 'fee', electrical service surcharge, etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would rather try a government model outlined in Heinlein's TMIAHM- All laws have to have a 2/3 supermajority approval from one house of representatives, and another house of congress is put in place with the purpose of repealing laws- 1/3 plurality is all that is needed to repeal any law. If a special project or program is wanted, the congressmen have to figure out a way to pay for it themselves.

[Jamisjockey]

I've often considered the virtues of the plan outlined in kgbsquirrel's post . . . it really ticks me off that some parasite has the SAME say in how .gov spends MY tax dollars as I do.  

Rich guys who use "loopholes" to avoid paying tax will dilute the value of their vote by doing so. People who are on the dole - welfare, food stamps, etc., and pay no taxes at all would get NO vote; I mean, why should people who contribute nothing - NOTHING! - have a say in how things are run?

The only real problem I see is that some of the "47%" really shouldn't be disenfranchised; the senior citizen who retired after WORKING for over 4 decades has, IMHO, EARNED a vote. Same for the low-ranking enlisted man in the military with a family who may pay little or no tax on his meager pay - would anyone say he's not contributing to his country?

While it could be argued that the rich have more skin in the game and therefore would not vote more government power....lets consider this.
You make a million a year and pay 100,000 a year with deductions.  10%.
Joe the bank manager makes 100,000 a year and pays 10,000 with deductions.  
He is a contributing member to society.  Successful by most measures.  Yet by virtue of being 10x wealthier than Joe, you get 10x the say.  Even though Joe is not a leech.
1 person 1 say.  
For me, the water muddies when one is 100% dependant on the government for their existance.  You live on Welfare, Chip, food stamps and section 8 housing?  What then is your contribution to society?  Breathing? Consuming resources?  
I do not agree with means testing voting.  But voting should be the reward of citizenship. Consuming without contribution is not citizenship.  
I would argue that when one recieves more benefit from their relationship with government then they contribute, then what rights to vote for more benefit do they have?

Here's how I see this scenario playing out over a relatively short period of time:

1. laws will be made to significantly increase the level of income before any taxation can be collected.
2. Most taxes other than those that apply to high income earners will be abolished and replaced with 'fees' or 'surcharges' government gasoline 'fee', food 'fee', electrical service surcharge, etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would rather try a government model outlined in Heinlein's TMIAHM- All laws have to have a 2/3 supermajority approval from one house of representatives, and another house of congress is put in place with the purpose of repealing laws- 1/3 plurality is all that is needed to repeal any law. If a special project or program is wanted, the congressmen have to figure out a way to pay for it themselves.

Do want. 

[Ron]

The problem is not the constitution or the civil right to vote. The problem is the failure of our nongovernmental institutions, the family, religious and civic institutions. We have abandoned our cultural heritage and sold it for "a mess of pottage" in the name of "progress".

It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  -John Adams

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Thomas Jefferson

There is no modern philosophy or political philosophy that would formulate a philosophy of individual inalienable rights. The best they got are social constructs that shift with the sands of time.

The foundation is gone, the rest is just history waiting to happen.

[Jamisjockey]

The problem is not the constitution or the civil right to vote. The problem is the failure of our nongovernmental institutions, the family, religious and civic institutions. We have abandoned our cultural heritage and sold it for "a mess of pottage" in the name of "progress".


There is no modern philosophy or political philosophy that would formulate a philosophy of individual inalienable rights. The best they got are social constructs that shift with the sands of time.

The foundation is gone, the rest is just history waiting to happen.

The road to hell is always paved with good intentions.  Many people who promise morality simply deliver more government, more oppression and less freedom.
A government should be able to function without removing the rights of the people regardless of who is in power.

[RevDisk]

I've often considered the virtues of the plan outlined in kgbsquirrel's post . . . it really ticks me off that some parasite has the SAME say in how .gov spends MY tax dollars as I do.  

Rich guys who use "loopholes" to avoid paying tax will dilute the value of their vote by doing so. People who are on the dole - welfare, food stamps, etc., and pay no taxes at all would get NO vote; I mean, why should people who contribute nothing - NOTHING! - have a say in how things are run?

The only real problem I see is that some of the "47%" really shouldn't be disenfranchised; the senior citizen who retired after WORKING for over 4 decades has, IMHO, EARNED a vote. Same for the low-ranking enlisted man in the military with a family who may pay little or no tax on his meager pay - would anyone say he's not contributing to his country?

The last paragraph shows the flaws. As an E1, I would essentially have no vote. If that ever happens, **** you (collectively, not any one person) and **** this country. In addition to sales taxes, income taxes, fees, tolls, FEAT, gasoline tax, excise taxes, tobacco taxes, I'd be very honked off about paying for a system that gave me absolutely no voice in it. I'd have even more right to be honked off than the folks who signed the Declaration of Independence.  

No direct income tax payment != paying no taxes.

OTOH, if you had the Senate elected by some "tax dollars equal representation" and the House by popular vote, you'd avoid most of the problems. I just don't think it'd be worth it, when you could return to the original purpose of the Senate by the states electing the Senators instead of some Byzantine "purchasing votes" system.  

As de Selby pointed out, there are inherent problems with being able to directly buy power. A judge once sat me down, and gave me a length of string. On one side of the string is illegal, the other is legal. He told me to pull it as tautly as I possibly could. He grabbed the middle of the string, and could still work it back and forth a bit. THAT is the real purpose of lawyers and courts. That fuzzy grey area. He told me the string was determined by the law itself, the prevailing attitude of the Court system, and society itself. Often in unspoken ways that no one consciously decides. Now, which way the string flexes is determined by circumstances, intelligence/skill and lastly, flat out money/power.

You need two out of three to be very likely to win in court. Of the three, money is the biggest because it can provide the rest. If you can hire a good lawyer that can provide intelligence and murkiness in the circumstances, you will never get the death penalty unless you are REALLY outside that flex space. Even then, it's unlikely.

Now, folks that say money can buy anything are also wrong. It provides advantage, but not an absolute one. You can blow millions on lawyers and still lose, if you are WAY outside of that flex space. Or you're stupid and the circumstances are bad.

Same goes with politics. Heck, Whitman spent $144 million trying to buy the California governor election. Some elections are just plain decided before the ballot box is open. Things are too far outside the flex space. Within that flex space, ayep. Circumstances, intelligence/skill and money do matter. And again, money can, but does not always, buy the other two. And money is not necessarily the best determination of a person's ability to make good political decisions.

While I agree, it's less than optimal that a person with poor decision making abilities that is a significant net tax loss (say a stereotypical "welfare queen" or dodgy CEO on corporate welfare) has an equal vote. But the alternatives tend to be much much worse.

"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"
- Robert Heinlein

[Ron]

A government should be able to function without removing the rights of the people regardless of who is in power.

According to whom and why?

Where do these supposed rights come from?

What is more important? The individual or the collective? Why?

We have abandoned the ethical and religious base that provided the correct answers to the above questions.

Our society by and large has adopted an ethic or what I call an anti-philosophy (philosophic materialism) that when asked the above questions will answer them differently than those who hold more traditional and classical views of reality.

A dirt poor ethical human with no property who believes that God Almighty has imbued all humanity with inalienable rights generally can be trusted to vote.

A dirt poor human who believes morality is situational and that we are nothing more than a step away from the chimpanzee is not a reliable vote for liberty.

[Jamisjockey]

According to whom and why?

Where do these supposed rights come from?

What is more important? The individual or the collective? Why?

We have abandoned the ethical and religious base that provided the correct answers to the above questions.

Our society by and large has adopted an ethic or what I call an anti-philosophy (philosophic materialism) that when asked the above questions will answer them differently than those who hold more traditional and classical views of reality.

A dirt poor ethical human with no property who believes that God Almighty has imbued all humanity with inalienable rights generally can be trusted to vote.

A dirt poor human who believes morality is situational and that we are nothing more than a step away from the chimpanzee is not a reliable vote for liberty.

Says you.  Personally I have no belief in god nor need for a god, and yet I find myself craving more freedom then the average "moral and religious" type is willing to allow.
Progress is not always a bad thing.  I would argue that the average "progessive" we are fighting against together is in fact devolving society, not evolving society.  Human freedom should be the next step in human evolution, yet at every step it is stymied for "progress" or "morality".

[RevDisk]

According to whom and why?

Where do these supposed rights come from?

What is more important? The individual or the collective? Why?

We have abandoned the ethical and religious base that provided the correct answers to the above questions.

Our society by and large has adopted an ethic or what I call an anti-philosophy (philosophic materialism) that when asked the above questions will answer them differently than those who hold more traditional and classical views of reality.

A dirt poor ethical human with no property who believes that God Almighty has imbued all humanity with inalienable rights generally can be trusted to vote.

A dirt poor human who believes morality is situational and that we are nothing more than a step away from the chimpanzee is not a reliable vote for liberty.

Problem is that folks that do believe in the God Almighty tend not to agree on all the particulars of God's will. What if they believe owning firearms is only an inalienable right of the Faithful? Or that (insert other group) are heretical swine with no inalienable right to exist. Or that on the basis of some genetic condition, some folks have no inalienable right to reproduce?

All of these things have happened in this country. Some of them, quite recently. Like, "within our lifetime".  Sterilization of undesirables was occurring into the 1970s.

Religion is not the sole criteria of being able to make good decisions. Some ethical/moral framework is necessary for any society to exist. Religion origins or influence is common, but not inherently a sign that is a GOOD framework. See the Aztecs. I don't believe Aztec sacrificing unconsenting slaves is a good moral or ethical framework. Or are you trying to say that you believe only your particular religion can/does provide a valid moral and ethical framework? If so, why does Shinto Japan seem to exist just fine? Or Hindu India? Buddhist Bhutan?