Posted on 03/22/2010 5:52:13 PM PDT by RightOnline
I may be alone in feeling this way, but I am now convinced that it is time to resurrect an old concept.
You don't pay Federal income taxes (and I don't mean because you have ample write-offs)? You don't vote.
Yes, I fully understand the complexities of such a stance. I know the cries of "Jim Crow" that will blare from the left-wing media, et al. Still, our recent history (culminating in yesterday's passing of Washington's biggest power grab in decades) shows the efficacy of such a policy.
We've all seen the recent numbers that reveal what percentage of Americans actually pay taxes. Too few pulling the cart; a cart with a growing number of citizens piling in, hanging on, being dragged. That number will do nothing but increase, especially with impending "Immigration Reform" (read "amnesty").
It has been said that democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch. Whoever said it was a genius, and explains why we are supposed to be a representative republic vs. a democracy. However, we now know better.
We have a huge percentage of our population demanding more from an ever-shrinking taxpayer base. I'm the first to admit that there are times when a helping hand is a wonderful thing. Any of us who've been laid off can attest to this. However, if we allow those who depend on or even demand "government largesse" should not be allowed to vote to put those into office who are hell-bent to continue to drain the productive.
This is exactly why we have Barack Obama in office. This is exactly why we have so many Democrats in Congress. This is exactly why we have so many Democratic governors, state legislatures, and mayors. It's also why we now have this "health care" monstrosity.
If you have nothing to lose and can only gain, why would you vote for anyone other than the candidate(s) promising more benefits?
What about at home moms?
Currently, this would be unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment would be needed before such a law could be enacted.
No representation without taxation. No one should pay no taxes as long as anyone is paying.
Amen!
You would have to repeal the 24th Amendment.
See, you raise one of the problems with such an idea. Stay-at-home moms. And how about retirees who live on pensions and social security? Is that earned or unearned income? How about full-time college students?
No, we just need a different set of judges. You won't find anything about this in the Constitution; they just made it up. And so long as this generation of judges is in office, we are doomed.
What about em? File Married.
then Vote.
Stay-at-home moms, by and large, can stay at home because they are married to men who have jobs that provide sufficiently for their wives not to have to work.
That means they’re taxpayers in most cases. If not? Neither should be allowed to vote.
just eliminate income tax in favor of consumption tax
We’ve come a long way from our forefathers...”taxation without representation...” Now, the 50% or so who pay no federal income taxes demand “representation without taxation.”
Not necessarily. The text of Section 1 of the 24th amendment reads:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
All this means is that you cannot deny suffrage to someone who fails to pay tax. However, people who do not pay tax are not failing to pay a tax because they have no tax to pay.
I prefer the “only people in the U.S. legally can vote” option. It would definitely help, if the U.S. Constitution would finally be fully enforced, for always. From FDR’s days as POTUS on, there have been way too many unconstitutional actions done by, both, politicians and judges, at each and every level.
One upon a time, a long, long, time ago, some started a revolution
based on their opposition to “taxation without representation”.
“Equal representation without equal taxation” is at least as bad a concept.
I don't remember very many people complaining about the poll tax.
When they got rid of the poll tax I do remember some grumbling about deadbeats voting.
Good question. Retirees who live on pensions worked and payed taxes for many years. They earned the right. Social security? Same thing. You don't pay FICA taxes for years, you don't get spit. They earned the right. Just my opinion, but I can easily see the other side's view when it comes to those who live exclusively on Social Security (e.g. their votes would focus on ensuring the continuation of their current income stream). Still, they played by the rules of the day throughout their productive, income-producing years. I say they vote.
I understand. I don’t suggest the revival of poll taxes....but voter registration cards need to be annual vs. “permanent”. You can’t prove you paid taxes during the last fiscal/calendar year? You don’t vote.
Yep. They do tend to identify ‘luxury’ taxes which get more tax $ out of rich people and put working class people out of work. But they can’t get it progressive in the $0-200k range.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.