Yes, but who is this 50% you're talking about?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

People who don't make enough to pay in.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

50%? Is the number really that high? But anyway reading the post below changed my mind.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How did it change your mind?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because every citizen deserves to vote, even if they don't pay taxes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Why? Let's say you were forced to live in a house with 10 people. Five of them we'll call Group 1 and the other five will be Group 2. Now for the sake of this argument, pretend you're in Group 1. Every person in Group 1 has a job. Everyone in Group 2 doesn't have a job. Every so often, all ten people in the house get to vote on something that is needed/wanted for the household (like a new roof or pool in the backyard or something). Obviously since the people in Group 1 are the only ones with jobs, they're the ones who pay for whatever it is the house decides to purchase, yet all 10 people are allowed to vote. Is that fair? Why should people in Group 2 deserve to vote at all?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because it affects them. The vote wouldn't be for something luxurious, like a new pool. It might be for example, fix the leak in the roof or the broken smoke detector. The taxes affect everyone. Someone too poor to pay taxes might vote to put more money in education, because their children go to public school. A taxpayer who does not have children will vote for the money to go to, say, building roads said person commutes on every day. The non-taxpayer didn't put in money, but still has the right to have their opinion considered. They obey the laws and contribute to this country. No one should be too poor to afford to vote.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You don't know what Group 2 would vote for. They could very well vote for a new pool over a new roof or perhaps a big screen TV over a new front door that keeps the house secure from thieves. I mean, they're not paying for any of it so why would it matter to them? The point I'm trying to make is that sadly there are people who love spending other people's money whether it be for things they need or things they don't need. It's an easy thing to do when it's not coming from your wallet. Of course opinions of everyone should be considered and persuasion is always an option. For example, a person in Group 2 could persuade a person in Group 1 to vote a certain way. However, the ones who do the spending should be the ones who get to ultimately decide where their money goes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well, yes, there are people who abuse their privilege for selfish reasons. But is it okay to take away someone's right to vote because they are too poor? For elections solely based on tax dollars, maybe we could regulate so that their vote wouldn't count as much? What's being spent on goes a long way, the effect might be there after the non-taxpayer gets a job and starts to pays taxes. It might not be right to take away their voice altogether. They've paid taxes before and now suddenly they can't say where their old money goes to because they don't have new money going in. The government can always make regulations. Like, if you're unemployed for over 2 years you can't vote on a tax decision. Things like that. But I think taking away someone's ability to vote altogether is a little harsh.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well people who have once paid taxes deserve a vote more so than people who have never paid at all. The ones who have never paid are the ones I was referring to throughout my argument. I think we've found some middle ground though. Of course due to various different circumstances, their opinions should definitely be considered, but the vote of someone who pays should be weighted more than someone who isn't paying or contributing in any way.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You're an idiot. We elect representatives for the job of allocating monies as required. Also, your arrogance disgusts me. Did you really say that half our damn country should not be able to have a say in what happens? Guess what, moron....some of the wealthiest people and business aren't paying taxes either so just shut up. If you want a plutocracy fuck off and go find one.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

OP was implying that in his post... that //everyone// (meaning the poor, middle class, AND wealthiest people) who doesn't pay taxes should have no say in where the money is spent. Perhaps you should take the energy you've used being rude and allocate it towards thinking a little bit.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I am sorry... I am the rude one? Currently 109 imbeciles think that money is the end all be all and that people who lack money for whatever reason should suffer even more than they already do by also having their right to vote away? Screw that. No, what needs to change is people's priorities in this fucking country.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Calling OP an idiot and moron is rude. When you start calling people names you automatically lose your argument. Oh and just completely ignore my statement about all people who don't pay taxes, even the wealthy. The post isn't about who lack money, it's about people who aren't paying taxes but still have the right to decide where other people's tax money goes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They're still affected in almost every way by it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You know that that figure's complete bullshit, right? They still pay taxes, just not federal income tax. I hate it when people mindlessly spout that figure without understanding what it means. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Even Bill O'Reilly understood that, that figure was complete bullshit. And Mitt Romney, almost definitely does not pay income tax only capital gains.

by Anonymous 11 years ago