Voting Rights


disneyr

New member
disneyr I never earned enough money to qualify for a home loan so I figured that the only way that I could ever own a home was to build it myself with Cash Money. It took me 11 years 2 months to build my home. It was worth the wait.
In NC a citizen does not have to be a licensed building contractor to build their own home, but you do have to pass the building inspections and you have to live in the home for at least one year before the home can be sold. That is not a problem for me. I built it to live in.

Very admirable. I sincerely laud you for your effort and your achievement. You are part of an infintesimal few in the U.S. I definitely think you should have the right to vote.
 

Hoganbeg

Member
I would submit, first and foremost, as any financial endeavour with any hope of success, all overhead must be passed on, or else the endeavour is doomed from the start. Any business that accepts taxation without passing said taxation on to their customers and ultimately to the end users, is not "maximizing shareholder value". to allow taxes to come straight out of profits is impermissible. If not passed on, it would have to instead be taken out of salaries of employees fired or not hired.

No corporation not doomed to go out of business pays any taxes. All corporate taxes are passed on to the individual beneficiary of the corporations products and services is the corporation is not to go out of business. To claim otherwise is... disingenuous.

I think you are making a lot of unfounded assumptions and blanket statements. No one said anything about a corporation, "maximizing shareholder value", or employees. The original statement was about not passing on the taxes somehow being disingenuous. That could only be so if one were, in fact, passing on the taxes but claiming otherwise. To actually not pass the taxes on to the renter could accurately be called stupid, but not disingenuous.
 

BC1

,
All US citizens 18 and older should be able to vote with out any restrictions what so ever. As for Felons, once they have served their time all of their constitutional rights should be fully restored.
Would you restore a convicted multiple child killer/rapist's right to legally buy a gun?

What if it was your child he killed? Would you still restore his rights? Sort of changes the perspective, doesn't it.
 

BC1

,
Ummm. Yeah. Consider it additional incentive to get back on your feet. You don't have to work for a corp to be earning your own money and be off of the public dole. You can start your own business or just work odd jobs under the table. My only issue is public assistance. The details of why are irrelevant. Whether you're a good person who just fell on temporary hard times or a bad person sucking the system dry, public dole should deprive you of your rights to vote in the next election.
Such thinking violates everything America stands for. The election of a president is based in part on his performance in creating jobs and growing the economy. When massive layoffs occur the policies of elected officials come in to question. It is the right of the people to vote them out, to replace them with someone who will stoke the economy and create jobs. THAT is what defines democracy and America.

We the people. Not we the people who work. Remember, the other shoe may drop for you someday and you might see this issue differently when you can't make ends meet. Shall we take away your right to fix it?
 

Grognard Gunny

New member
I think I would limit my "franchise" granting to those who pay Fed Income Taxes. Given that 42% of citizens do NOT owe or pay Fed Income Taxes, that would either push them to "get a dog in the race" (so to speak) and PAY some taxes at the Fed level or, at least, would take their "tax the rich" class warfare ideas off the table.

Now, granted they pay local taxes through other means... so they can vote in local elections. But Fed level? NYET!

Why would I want to do this? To keep no loads from voting further "loads" on us productive taxayers.... a great portion of which goes to feed, clothe and house the no loads. The "no-loads" (and their supporters) are consistant in only one thing, whining about the more prosperous not paying their "FAY-AIRE" share. Since the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all Fed income taxes, it could be observed that nearly all of the taxes isn't "FAY-AIRE" enough for them? If not, what IS?

Nope. You want to have a voice on tax levels, you have a dog in the race..... see how YOU like it. (Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of supporting your sorry butts anyway.)

GG
 

CathyInBlue

Tool Maker
Remember, the other shoe may drop for you someday and you might see this issue differently when you can't make ends meet. Shall we take away your right to fix it?
What under Heaven and Earth makes you think I was exempting myself from any of this? I've drawn unemployment in the past, and it would have been proper that I not be permitted to vote, being on the public dole as I was. `Course, that was not in the last two years, so it would not prejudice my right to vote in the upcoming Presidential election.
 

CathyInBlue

Tool Maker
The original statement was about not passing on the taxes somehow being disingenuous,
That could only be so if one were, in fact, passing on the taxes but claiming otherwise.
If such a detail were so important, then it would have been stated. Since it was not stated, it was not a part of the scenario being described.
To actually not pass the taxes on to the renter could accurately be called stupid, but not disingenuous.
This is the point I was making.
 

BC1

,
What under Heaven and Earth makes you think I was exempting myself from any of this? I've drawn unemployment in the past, and it would have been proper that I not be permitted to vote, being on the public dole as I was. `Course, that was not in the last two years, so it would not prejudice my right to vote in the upcoming Presidential election.
No! Don't ever restrict your own rights. Don't ever relinquish your right to vote. Give up nothing! If masses of people are losing their jobs due to poor economic policies, it is their will that something be done. It is their voice that will change things. Unemployment is not a handout... you're not on the dole. The money comes forom state unemployment tax paid into the government out of your earnings. Same with Social Security and workmen's comp. I've paid into these system for 30 years. If I become disabled or lose my job, that's MY money being repaid, not the government's. I would much rather have not paid the tax and invested the money myself... I'd be better off.

And trust me, the income on my rentals barely covers the property taxes. I own a two-family with (school) property taxes of nearly $10,000 per year. The rent is $19,200 per year. That leaves me $9,200 per year for mandated upkeep. When a renter has three kids they place a burden of as much as $45,000 per year on their school district. Their rent doesn't even come close to footing the bill. I favor school tax to be shared equally by everyone. Since everyone must atten school until a certain age then everyone benefits. Everyone pays and everyone votes.

Creating a sub-class of American citizens is against every principal on which this country and democracy was founded.
 

festus

God Bless Our Troops!!!
I agree that in order to vote you must be
1. a high school graduate.
2. pay income tax
3. be self supporting...the people who make the money should have the say in how it is spent.
4. not be a felon
5. FINALLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY BE A US CITIZEN
 

dcselby1

Denny
Let me start by saying I agree with you guys on many things. However, one issue I consistently see on these threads with which I disagree with you is on who should be allowed to vote. Allow me to explain.

I will acknowledge that there is no "right" to vote found in the Constitution. The Constitution, via the 15th (making it illegal to keep anyone from voting on account of race), the 19th (making it illegal to keep anyone from voting on account of sex), 23rd (paving the way for DC residents to vote in presidential elections), 24th (abolition of poll taxes) and 26th (18-year olds can't be denied on account of age) amendments, simply tells states that people can't be denied suffrage on those grounds, meaning technically, the states are free to deny suffrage on any other grounds. Typically the only groups not heretofore mentioned who have been denied suffrage "rights" are children and felons.

I regularly read on these forums from many on here that many of you believe that anyone who isn't a homeowner shouldn't be allowed to vote. I can unserstand why you'd feel that non-citizens, people who receive public aid, felons, etc shouldn't be able to vote, but people who don't own homes? Why? That would automatically eliminate people who live with their parents, college students, and people like myself who work but don't make enough money to pay a monthly mortgage. I can't speak for other renters, but I work, I pay taxes, I pay my rent and utilities on time every month, I haven't made a bunch of babies I can't afford, I don't have a criminal record, and none of my personal expenses are taxpayer-subsidized. So why do you guys feel I'm not worthy of the priviledge to vote?

By the way, I happen to believe that ALL adults (yes even felons and those receiving public aid) should be able to vote, because EVERYONE has a stake in the decisions elected officials make, even if that stake is one that working home owners don't like.
Sounds like some are trying to reinvent the wheel! When this country was founded, only white men with property were routinely permitted to vote (although freed Blacks could vote in four states). White working men, almost all women, and all other people of color were denied the franchise. I guess there a couple of theories on this. One that it was a holdover from the "class" system of Europe or the thought that property owners were more likely to be educated and well read enough to understand the issues and take the responsibility seriously.
As for felons, they have lost the great privilege to vote as part of their punishment. Personally I think that, based on voting statistics, most convicted felons probably didn't vote much before they were convicted.
It would be interesting, though to see the voting stats of property owners versus non-property owners. I really don't think it would make any difference in the numbers of people who take their citizenship seriously, though, given the apathy of most Americans when it comes to voting! I'm always amazed when people speak ill of the politicians they didn't even elect! Or, when it comes to Election Day, people complain that both candidates are "worthless," but the great majority of those who vote on Election Day have NEVER voted in the primaries that actually determine WHO finally runs.
 

dcselby1

Denny
All US citizens 18 and older should be able to vote with out any restrictions what so ever. As for Felons, once they have served their time all of their constitutional rights should be fully restored.
I don't understand the concern about everyone being able to vote. Most people don't.
 

CathyInBlue

Tool Maker
"Perhaps what he had in mind was what Prof. Alexander Frazer Tytler has written, that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority, he said, always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship. Unfortunately, we can't argue with the professor because when he wrote that we were still colonials of Great Britain and he was explaining what had destroyed the Athenian Republic more than 2000 years before." -- Ronald Reagan

Well, here we are. The Democrats are dead set against cutting one red cent from their pet entitlement programs because those are the bribes with which they pay off the people on them to vote for Democrat candidates, even in the face of an exponentially growing debt. This can only end in one of two ways, dictatorship as Reagan mentioned, or gutting entitlements. The only way to gut entitlements is to get people to stop voting for politicians who promise to continue growing the entitlements. The only way to do that is to disenfranchise those living on the public dole.

And I don't care if you think the money you get out of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid is just your own money that you paid in. That's wrong. They are Ponzi/Madeoff Schemes. They rob the future to pay the present.

And I really don't like the idea of making the paying of personal income taxes a condition of the franchise. It complicates the move from an income tax to no income tax at all and a fair tax/national sales tax. And, if someone is retired and living on their own savings, they're not paying income taxes anymore, but they're not on the public dole, and THAT is the deciding criteria, as far as I'm concerned for keeping people from voting themselves more of the government's largesse.
 

cmhbob

Sig fault.
So you're okay with people avoiding funding Medicare, etc ("get paid under the table"), but not with people actually receiving those benefits that were funded.

Are you on drugs?
 

BC1

,
"Perhaps what he had in mind was what Prof. Alexander Frazer Tytler has written, that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority, he said, always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship. Unfortunately, we can't argue with the professor because when he wrote that we were still colonials of Great Britain and he was explaining what had destroyed the Athenian Republic more than 2000 years before." -- Ronald Reagan

Well, here we are. The Democrats are dead set against cutting one red cent from their pet entitlement programs because those are the bribes with which they pay off the people on them to vote for Democrat candidates, even in the face of an exponentially growing debt. This can only end in one of two ways, dictatorship as Reagan mentioned, or gutting entitlements. The only way to gut entitlements is to get people to stop voting for politicians who promise to continue growing the entitlements. The only way to do that is to disenfranchise those living on the public dole.

And I don't care if you think the money you get out of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid is just your own money that you paid in. That's wrong. They are Ponzi/Madeoff Schemes. They rob the future to pay the present.

And I really don't like the idea of making the paying of personal income taxes a condition of the franchise. It complicates the move from an income tax to no income tax at all and a fair tax/national sales tax. And, if someone is retired and living on their own savings, they're not paying income taxes anymore, but they're not on the public dole, and THAT is the deciding criteria, as far as I'm concerned for keeping people from voting themselves more of the government's largesse.
I agree on you position of the Dems keeping entitlements to garner votes. Same reason I don't want convicted felons to vote. They're sure not voting republican.

I'm pretty much retired at 50 years old and living on investments. And I pay an enormous amount of income tax on the profits from those investments. I'm also paying property tax at New York State's criminal level... $12,000 per year on a primary residence. Nearly $10,000 on a rental property. I also paid 30 years into social security and I want my money when I reach retirement age. One must also remember that social security and state unemployment benefits are subject to federal tax. So these people are still paying some tax.

When we consider stripping the rights of people because they don't pay enough tax we should think about the types of taxes we all pay. That's the real bunko scheme:

• Accounts Receivable Tax
• Building Permit Tax
• CDL License Tax
• Cigarette Tax
• Corporate Income Tax
• Dog License Tax
• Federal Income Tax
• Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
• Fishing License Tax
• Food License Tax
• Fuel Perm it Tax
• Gasoline Tax
• Hunting License Tax
• Inheritance Tax
• Inventory Tax
• IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),
• IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
• Liquor Tax,
• Luxury Tax,
• Marriage License Tax,
• Medicare Tax,
• Property Tax,
• Real Estate Tax,
• Service charge taxes,
• Social Security Tax,
• Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
• Sales Taxes,
• Recreational Vehicle Tax,
• School Tax,
• State Income Tax,
• State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
• Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
• Telephone Federal Universal Service Fe e Tax,
• Telephone Federal, State and Local Su rcharge Tax,
• Telephone Minimum Usage
• Surcharge Tax,
• Telephone Recurring and
• Non-recurring Charges Tax,
• Telephone State and Local Tax,
• Telephone Usage Charge Tax,
• Utility Tax,
• Vehicle Lic ense Registration Tax,
• Vehicle Sales Tax,
• Watercraft Registration Tax,
• Well Permit Tax,
• Workers Compensation Tax.

Very few people can even expalin what these taxes are for.
 

CathyInBlue

Tool Maker
So you're okay with people avoiding funding Medicare, etc ("get paid under the table"), but not with people actually receiving those benefits that were funded?

Are you on drugs?
Yes and no, respectively.
My concern is not with allowing those who pay into the system to control the distribution of wealth within the system. My concern is with not allowing those who remove wealth from the system to control the distribution of wealth within the system. Historicly, people paying into the public coffers have not been a problem, with respect to political corruption. People taking out of the public coffers are.

How about this as a compromise... working only at the federal level, if the amount of direct monetary benefits you receive from the federal government is no more than 10% of the sum of all of the taxes you pay to the federal government, THEN you get to vote in federal elections. You get a benefit of $100 from the government, you can still vote so long as you paid at least $1000 to the government in the same period. Get $100.01 in benefits while paying $1000, no vote. Get $100 in benefits while paying $999.99, no vote. Etc.

And any benefit that is truly in a lock box, you can only get out what you put in, would be exempted, but right now, that would not include Social Security.
 

Pinnacle Safety

New member
So if im not a homeowner I shouldn't be able to vote on a issue that affects home owners even if Im closing on a home next week or next yr/ what if im a felon thats a homeowner what can I vote on? If Im on assistance but get off 90 days after the election I cant vote even though everything affects me anyway? I question why you dont want people to vote do you think everyone that doesint fit your criteria really affect voting that much ? I beg to differ and say for the most part they dont excersise their voting rights anyway and if they did most of them are under educated and easy to sway and the others probably see things your way anyhow to conclude the problems are the politicians whos vote that really count going to the highest bidder
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Wow, this thread turned out far better than I could've ever hoped!

Anyway, I would be remiss if I didn't explain why I feel how I feel about my position. In my opinion, to tell one group that they can't vote while others can sends the message that the nonvoting group is not as important and their issues don't matter. EVERYONE, rich or poor, felon or nonfelon, on public assistance or not, is affected by the decisions elected officials make and therefore, EVERYONE should have the opportunity to decide who makes those decisions that affecct them.
 

CathyInBlue

Tool Maker
Case in point of what I was saying above:
Social Security Disability Insurance On Brink Of Insolvency | FoxNews.com

Pinnacle: If you close the deal, to the point where you can't back out of it, on or before the day of the election, then you would be able to vote on any property tax referenda in the system I described.

Tatted: True, but there's also the issue of sustainability. Manifestly, allowing politicians to pander to the lowest common denominator of government entitlements is responsible for them growing to the point that they are about to eat the entire federal budget alive. This is an untennable situation. It's going to end one of two ways. One) the system stops promissing what it can't deliver and people accept that. Two) Zimbabwe, 1999.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
CathyInBlue:222121 said:
Case in point of what I was saying above:
Social Security Disability Insurance On Brink Of Insolvency | FoxNews.com

Pinnacle: If you close the deal, to the point where you can't back out of it, on or before the day of the election, then you would be able to vote on any property tax referenda in the system I described.

Tatted: True, but there's also the issue of sustainability. Manifestly, allowing politicians to pander to the lowest common denominator of government entitlements is responsible for them growing to the point that they are about to eat the entire federal budget alive. This is an untennable situation. It's going to end one of two ways. One) the system stops promissing what it can't deliver and people accept that. Two) Zimbabwe, 1999.

They are politicians, so no matter what, pandering is what they've always have and always will do. Who are we to decide who they should or should not be pandering to? (Provided that they don't take bribes or kickbacks or otherwise do anything criminal of course)
 

buddy

New member
Cathy, if you realize that renters pay property taxes, how can you promote a law that does not let them vote on the taxes? They do have a stake in it. And what about renters who have kids in the local schools? No voting for them on the property taxes that affect their kids education because they don't own their home? Am I accurately stating your position?
I was always going to choose the lifestyle of owning rather than renting because that is the lifestyle I want and made many years ago. And I don't like the idea of not being able to vote on the issues that would affect me in the future because I did not own a home in the present.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,666
Members
74,275
Latest member
zxclord123
Top