A question for Democrats that I've had for a long time

[Cameramonkey]

Which could be fixed quite simply by returning the voting powers back to where they originally came from.

People who owned land.

Hard to buy a vote when it requires giving people land to even make them eligible to vote. But it is quite easy to buy a vote when the welfare class is allowed to vote, simply promise them more income.

Although erroneously attributed to De Tocqueville, this quote fits well: "A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." (yes, I know we are constitutional republic.)

I have repeated this often. But in truth, it's no longer as simple as that. The point of owning land to be required to vote had more to do with the fact that landowners were the ones who paid the taxes than actually owning the land. Today, there are a lot of people who don't own but still are counted in the tax-paying group by virtue of their employment status. The modern version of that would be to prohibit the franchise to those who receive non-wage/non-retirement benefits (IOW, handouts) from the federal government.

The other alternative is to restore the choice of Senators to the States.

I dont know if he originated the idea, but Neal Boortz had an interesting suggestion to fix our current system. I think it was either in the Fair Tax book or Somebody's Gotta Say It, but his idea was this: Rework the voting so that you get 1 vote for every X dollars NET paid in income taxes.

(bear with me on the generalizations for ease of discussion)

• Middle class Individual that takes a few deductions and credits that dont significantly impact his actual taxes paid? He gets 2 votes.
• Upper class individual that takes every deduction and loophole possible that significantly reduce his actual taxes paid? He gets 1 vote. (his net taxes were lower than the guy above)
• Small business owner who is getting hammered on taxes? Based on her tax return, she gets, say, 3 votes. (she paid more than guy #1)
• Single mom with 6 kids who gets every available public assistance and pays ZERO taxes thanks to tax credits and refunds, she doesn't get a vote.

The idea is intriguing... Allow only those with "skin in the game" to actively participate. After all, if you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, should you really be in control?

Boortz illustrates this idea with the free hosted dinner approach. You and several of your friends are invited by a wealthy friend to dinner. Since the host is footing the bill, should he be forced to abdicate the choice to his guests, or should he, the actual person paying the bill, be the one to decide whether it's Denny's or Shula's Steak house? Yes, the friends may suggest Shula's or Ruth's Chris, but ultimately it should be the host who has the final say as to whether to be excessively generous, or to say "you know, I really cant afford your suggestion, so we need to make a more prudent choice."

Combine the theory above with Approval voting ( Approval Voting ) and we may have ourselves a game changer!

 

[ljk]

Which could be fixed quite simply by returning the voting powers back to where they originally came from.

People who owned land.

Hard to buy a vote when it requires giving people land to even make them eligible to vote. But it is quite easy to buy a vote when the welfare class is allowed to vote, simply promise them more income.

the Dem's already considered owning and ID is too harsh.

 

[UncleMike]

the Dem's already considered owning and ID is too harsh.

Yup....
I'm mystified how they can reconcile the fact that they want us to have all kinds of costly ID's, permits, background checks, and pay Firearms taxes just to exercise our RIGHT to bear arms.
But they say it's an unreasonable burden to have to show a FREE Government ID card to vote.

 

[MisterChester]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Democrat's explanation on the issue.

Why are Democrats so in favor of spending when it comes to other people's money? Isn't that essentially what "tax the rich" does? If it's someone else's money, it's pretty easy to spend, right? Is that it?

Depends on who you ask. I lean more Democrat than Republican and I am not in favor of current spending levels. Both parties are extremely guilty of spending money and adding debt for no good reason in the past decade.

Also part of that question is, do you think there is a limit to the national debt that you would consider that we can't go beyond? And if there is a limit, would you consider cutting spending on social programs or do you think we can just eliminate defense altogether to cover "social justice"?

I feel we have gone way past what is acceptable, yet we won't see a concrete limit. I can see a future president claiming section 4 of the 14th Amendment as a reason to justify eliminating any limit. Personally I feel both defense and social funds should be cut. We spend WAY too much on defense, and the people should take more responsibilities for themselves. I can understand short-term unemployment assistance, everyone gets in a bind like that at some point. I don't think we should eliminate food stamps either but we should drastically reduce how much is spent on them. I would like to see the need for food stamps to be virtually eliminated through better employment and wages, but that is another discussion.

Or do you think we just need to keep raising taxes to cover whatever you want to spend? Is there a limit to the taxes you're willing to make people who aren't you, pay?

I am personally in favor of cutting corporate and business taxes while raising taxes on extremely wealthy individuals, and here is my thought process: Companies hire people and invest in themselves and other entities. Low business taxes allow them to expand, hire, and invest at a greater rate. More people with jobs means more people like you and me have money to spend, which ultimately ends up back in businesses as money spent on consumer goods and services. Very wealthy individuals are not job creators, their companies are. I'm not talking anything crazy, around 3%.

And it's not that all Republicans are all that great at frugality. But really, a few now hated Republicans are the only people in Congress that advocate that we truly reign in spending.

The one thing I can agree with them on.

Your president says we don't have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem. Can you really justify that statement?

He's half right. We have a spending and revenue problem. What does a business do if they are spiraling into debt and not making enough money? Decrease spending and implement other means to earn more money. Why can't the government do this too?

.

 

[Tombs]

I dont know if he originated the idea, but Neal Boortz had an interesting suggestion to fix our current system. I think it was either in the Fair Tax book or Somebody's Gotta Say It, but his idea was this: Rework the voting so that you get 1 vote for every X dollars NET paid in income taxes.

(bear with me on the generalizations for ease of discussion)

• Middle class Individual that takes a few deductions and credits that dont significantly impact his actual taxes paid? He gets 2 votes.
• Upper class individual that takes every deduction and loophole possible that significantly reduce his actual taxes paid? He gets 1 vote. (his net taxes were lower than the guy above)
• Small business owner who is getting hammered on taxes? Based on her tax return, she gets, say, 3 votes. (she paid more than guy #1)
• Single mom with 6 kids who gets every available public assistance and pays ZERO taxes thanks to tax credits and refunds, she doesn't get a vote.

The idea is intriguing... Allow only those with "skin in the game" to actively participate. After all, if you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, should you really be in control?

Boortz illustrates this idea with the free hosted dinner approach. You and several of your friends are invited by a wealthy friend to dinner. Since the host is footing the bill, should he be forced to abdicate the choice to his guests, or should he, the actual person paying the bill, be the one to decide whether it's Denny's or Shula's Steak house? Yes, the friends may suggest Shula's or Ruth's Chris, but ultimately it should be the host who has the final say as to whether to be excessively generous, or to say "you know, I really cant afford your suggestion, so we need to make a more prudent choice."

Combine the theory above with Approval voting ( Approval Voting ) and we may have ourselves a game changer!

I really like the idea there.

The only problem I have is that it affords additional bias to the individuals already funding armies of lobbyist who already carry additional political power.

I would say a percentage of total taxes paid vs income would be slightly better. If an individual wishes to send the government more of their paycheck, they can have additional voting power. That would allow the middle class to forgo a couple nights out for dinner in exchange for being more politically active. And if you didn't care, you could pay the minimum percentage and ignore it entirely.

Would seem as though that would get people more involved in things and make sure people are more politically literate. It would also allow for additional funding.
If politicians made the public feel apathetic, and the choices were both garbage, the government would then lose out on a massive amount of additional income. This would force them to put out superior candidates who would get the public to literally want to throw money at them.

The welfare class would be entirely thrown out of having a say in matters as well. But the working poor would still have as much of a chance as the corporate tycoon.

It seems like a win/win to me. Foul play would be awfully hard and voter fraud would be impossible unless done through taxes which would have a very clear paper trail.
Plus, if you think the government needs to raise taxes, you can start by raising your own!

 

[Cameramonkey]

I really like the idea there.

The only problem I have is that it affords additional bias to the individuals already funding armies of lobbyist who already carry additional political power.

I would say a percentage of total taxes paid vs income would be slightly better. If an individual wishes to send the government more of their paycheck, they can have additional voting power. That would allow the middle class to forgo a couple nights out for dinner in exchange for being more politically active. And if you didn't care, you could pay the minimum percentage and ignore it entirely.

Would seem as though that would get people more involved in things and make sure people are more politically literate. It would also allow for additional funding.
If politicians made the public feel apathetic, and the choices were both garbage, the government would then lose out on a massive amount of additional income. This would force them to put out superior candidates who would get the public to literally want to throw money at them.

The welfare class would be entirely thrown out of having a say in matters as well. But the working poor would still have as much of a chance as the corporate tycoon.

It seems like a win/win to me. Foul play would be awfully hard and voter fraud would be impossible unless done through taxes which would have a very clear paper trail.
Plus, if you think the government needs to raise taxes, you can start by raising your own!

I agree the lobbyists are out of control.

I think the point of Boortz's idea is that it levels the playing field. If you are rich and avoiding paying taxes you wont overpower Joe the plumber who doesnt get those tax breaks. In fact, if you game the system TOO well (For example Romney has a very low tax bracket due to his primary income being investments) you actually LOSE voting power in relation to the average Joe.

In theory, some "rich folk" with a good accountant could easily be overshadowed in voting power by the average American that doesnt get the loopholes and tax breaks.

Under this plan, It all boils down to " As a wealthy producer, do I want to be able to cast more votes and be driving the bus, or keep my cash and let somebody else drive?"

 

[Tombs]

Well, combine the concept with preferential voting, and we'd have an end to the stalemate.

The concept of "throwing away" a vote would be gone. This would finally allow people to vote for who they honestly prefer without the tension of a crucial election being lost.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[beararms1776]

Keeping wages low and increasing taxes and cost of living prices should make people spend a little more.

 

[jamil]

the answer was in there... even put it in parentheses...

I was hoping for a more direct answer. I was looking for Obamites to either justify the president's sentiment, or condemn it. I'm still left wondering if your answer is a back-door condemnation.

Depends on who you ask. I lean more Democrat than Republican and I am not in favor of current spending levels. Both parties are extremely guilty of spending money and adding debt for no good reason in the past decade.

First, thanks for a straightforward answer. I can't disagree with this except it's gone on way longer than a decade, but this last decade has been the worst. One side note, quoting outside of another person's quote makes it much easier to respond.

I am personally in favor of cutting corporate and business taxes while raising taxes on extremely wealthy individuals, and here is my thought process: Companies hire people and invest in themselves and other entities. Low business taxes allow them to expand, hire, and invest at a greater rate. More people with jobs means more people like you and me have money to spend, which ultimately ends up back in businesses as money spent on consumer goods and services. Very wealthy individuals are not job creators, their companies are. I'm not talking anything crazy, around 3%.

I agree about lowering business tax. However, if I thought we needed more tax revenue (which I don't) how could I require other people to do that which I'm not willing to do? It's easy to vote to raise taxes on someone else. If the government really needs more money, and it's only 3%, why can't your tax rate go up 3% more?

He's half right. We have a spending and revenue problem. What does a business do if they are spiraling into debt and not making enough money? Decrease spending and implement other means to earn more money. Why can't the government do this too?

There's a huge difference. Business can't just vote themselves more money. There are a number of ways businesses can increase their incomes. They can always raise their prices, but then their customers can always veto the price increase. The government needs to live within its means, first. And I think no one should be able to vote to increase taxes that they themselves won't pay.

I agree the lobbyists are out of control.

I think the point of Boortz's idea is that it levels the playing field. If you are rich and avoiding paying taxes you wont overpower Joe the plumber who doesnt get those tax breaks. In fact, if you game the system TOO well (For example Romney has a very low tax bracket due to his primary income being investments) you actually LOSE voting power in relation to the average Joe.

In theory, some "rich folk" with a good accountant could easily be overshadowed in voting power by the average American that doesnt get the loopholes and tax breaks.

Under this plan, It all boils down to " As a wealthy producer, do I want to be able to cast more votes and be driving the bus, or keep my cash and let somebody else drive?"

Why keep a tax system that allows all the deductions? Why even allow a tax system where some people can have no skin in the game? I certainly wouldn't advocate a system where people can buy a larger say. We think crony capitalism is bad now?

Why not be more direct about it? Let people choose how much tax they want to pay with some reasonable lower limit, and on what spending categories their tax dollars should be applied? If you're rich, and you want corporate welfare, YOU fund it. If you're a bleeding heart social justice progressive, YOU get to choose how much of your hard earned income goes to subsidize baby mamas' crack habit. Let the government beg me for its funding instead of confiscating my resources for its every whim.

 

[D-Ric902]

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Read more at George Washington Quotes

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty." — George Washington, September 19, 1796

 

[MisterChester]

I agree about lowering business tax. However, if I thought we needed more tax revenue (which I don't) how could I require other people to do that which I'm not willing to do? It's easy to vote to raise taxes on someone else. If the government really needs more money, and it's only 3%, why can't your tax rate go up 3% more?

I'm not saying it can't or I'm not willing. I wouldn't starve either, but a billionaire's 3% is a lot more than my 3%.

There's a huge difference. Business can't just vote themselves more money. There are a number of ways businesses can increase their incomes. They can always raise their prices, but then their customers can always veto the price increase. The government needs to live within its means, first. And I think no one should be able to vote to increase taxes that they themselves won't pay.

I agree for the most part here. What I see to be the problem with a lot of people is that taxes have been at their lowest levels if you compare them to earlier decades and they still complain. Yes, the government should live within its means. Getting there is a different story. It needs to cut spending and raise revenue, and when it gets back in order then we can spend what we make and lower taxes when possible.

 

[jamil]

I'm not saying it can't or I'm not willing. I wouldn't starve either, but a billionaire's 3% is a lot more than my 3%.

Great justification. See how easy it is to spend other people's money?

I agree for the most part here. What I see to be the problem with a lot of people is that taxes have been at their lowest levels if you compare them to earlier decades and they still complain. Yes, the government should live within its means. Getting there is a different story. It needs to cut spending and raise revenue, and when it gets back in order then we can spend what we make and lower taxes when possible.

That past tax rates have been higher doesn't mean the previous tax rates were right, the current tax rates are wrong, and something in between is "better".

So you believe your president's words, that a "balanced" approach is required? That this bloated government doesn't have enough fat to trim without increasing revenue? That the "fair" way to bring it into balance is to raise taxes, and decrease spending? That's all bull****. I dunno, what if your president stopped his aggressive and successful campaign to make more Americans dependent on government? How much you think that would save? What if we weaned welfare dependents from the government teat? What if we made welfare something that helps people help themselves, rather than perpetual dependence? How much would that save? I think, not only would it save a lot of money, it would eventually change the electoral maps red indefinitely.

This whole thread distills into two simple questions:

1. Do people who don't make the money, have a right to tell people who do make the money, to give it away to the people who don't make the money? (Social welfare)
2. Do people who make most of the money, have a right to tell people who make less money, to give what they make away to the people who make most of the money? (Corporate welfare)

Both are wealth redistribution. Both are evil. Neither are justified.

 

[forgop]

Where is pooty22 in this thread?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Oh, and while we are talking taxes, I'll just leave this here..

What is the FairTax | What is a Consumption Tax | Tax Reform Solutions - Americans For Fair Taxation

Not saying Its perfect, but Its intriguing.

Oh, and the next election cycle when you hear a politician saying "my opponent wants to raise your taxes 23%!" without mentioning anything about abolishing the IRS, (it would be shut down) you have yourself a lying, cheating candidate who doesnt deserve your vote. (whether you support the FairTax or not, he is still lying to smear his opponent)

 

[MisterChester]

Jamil, both 1 and 2 are not what we need and I agree. What I'm saying is, welfare for those who are not well off is always going to be around in this country. We need to keep it to a minimum. No crazy lengths of unemployment insurance, and much less spent on food stamps. Quite frankly, it should be where everyone is able to get a job with a livable wage. Under this circumstance, the demand for welfare would be extremely low. In order for this to happen businesses need more tax cuts so they can hire more and pay better wages.

Like I said before, I believe we need both spending cuts and revenue raises to eliminate the debt and balance our budget. It is almost mathematically impossible to accomplish this by spending cuts alone. Even it was possible, it would take even longer. You're not just cutting back, you're also decreasing the gap. When we actually get there, then we can cut the taxes we previously increased.

I'm all for getting people off the government teat. It is one's responsibility to make an income if they need to, and it should not be through government unless they are employed as a worker by it.

edit: I also think a good idea is to give tax credits to businesses that hire more people. For instance, if it costs a business X amount of money to hire Y amount of people, their tax credit should be half or more of X.

 

[MisterChester]

Oh, and while we are talking taxes, I'll just leave this here..

What is the FairTax | What is a Consumption Tax | Tax Reform Solutions - Americans For Fair Taxation

Not saying Its perfect, but Its intriguing.

Oh, and the next election cycle when you hear a politician saying "my opponent wants to raise your taxes 23%!" without mentioning anything about abolishing the IRS, (it would be shut down) you have yourself a lying, cheating candidate who doesnt deserve your vote. (whether you support the FairTax or not, he is still lying to smear his opponent)

23% on top of the 7% I already pay on state taxes?

 

[Cameramonkey]

23% on top of the 7% I already pay on state taxes?

Its IMPERATIVE that you follow the link. Yes, 23% FEDERAL SALES tax on all new items sold at the retail level. No tax collected on wholesale or used (unlike VAT), and the most important part...

THE IRS IS ABOLISHED AND FEDERAL INCOME TAXES ARE NO LONGER COLLECTED.

You no longer file taxes in april, etc.

 

[MisterChester]

Its IMPERATIVE that you follow the link. Yes, 23% FEDERAL SALES tax on all new items sold at the retail level. No tax collected on wholesale or used (unlike VAT), and the most important part...

THE IRS IS ABOLISHED AND FEDERAL INCOME TAXES ARE NO LONGER COLLECTED.

You no longer file taxes in april, etc.

Well if that ever happened, we'll see huge demand increases on used goods. Something tells me that would do a lot of harm to some markets.

 

[jamil]

Jamil, both 1 and 2 are not what we need and I agree. What I'm saying is, welfare for those who are not well off is always going to be around in this country. We need to keep it to a minimum. No crazy lengths of unemployment insurance, and much less spent on food stamps. Quite frankly, it should be where everyone is able to get a job with a livable wage. Under this circumstance, the demand for welfare would be extremely low. In order for this to happen businesses need more tax cuts so they can hire more and pay better wages.

Like I said before, I believe we need both spending cuts and revenue raises to eliminate the debt and balance our budget. It is almost mathematically impossible to accomplish this by spending cuts alone. Even it was possible, it would take even longer. You're not just cutting back, you're also decreasing the gap. When we actually get there, then we can cut the taxes we previously increased.

I'm all for getting people off the government teat. It is one's responsibility to make an income if they need to, and it should not be through government unless they are employed as a worker by it.

edit: I also think a good idea is to give tax credits to businesses that hire more people. For instance, if it costs a business X amount of money to hire Y amount of people, their tax credit should be half or more of X.

I agree with most of what you said. I disagree with the concept of "living wage", which implies minimum wage. People should be compensated according to value. I completely disagree with the idea of tax credits for anything.

Its IMPERATIVE that you follow the link. Yes, 23% FEDERAL SALES tax on all new items sold at the retail level. No tax collected on wholesale or used (unlike VAT), and the most important part...

THE IRS IS ABOLISHED AND FEDERAL INCOME TAXES ARE NO LONGER COLLECTED.

You no longer file taxes in april, etc.

I just can't get behind a national sales tax.

Well if that ever happened, we'll see huge demand increases on used goods. Something tells me that would do a lot of harm to some markets.

And this is one reason why.

I still favor a voluntary tax system. Let the government beg us for money. It would ensure our government understands its place as submissive to its rightful masters.