Representation without taxation
 

I think that people should not vote unless they pay taxes. 47% of the population are slackers and should, therefore, not be allowed to cast a ballot.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/0...hout-taxation/

Donna2--- I agree 1000%. I, also, think that there shouldn't be early voting. I do it all the time, but I don't think it is right. While I'm ranting , I think absentee ballots should be only for shut-ins and people who are really going to be out of town, on election day. I'm, also, not happy with "groups" rounding up people and bringing them in by the bus loads. My guess is that they have been told how to vote. It would be nice if the voter could read English. I thought you had to know a certain amount of English to be an American citizen. I'm done venting.

I agree there are a substantial number of folks who on their own
 

or with the help of an accountant or attorney work around the system to pay taxes. Most of the financially able to easily pay their share of taxes. These and other free loaders can come under the label "slackers".

There are, however, in the numbers reported those who are not capable of paying taxes, legitimately. Example? An elderly person who lives strictly on SS, in a nursing home.

I would be more interested in the number of people who do not pay taxes that are earning more than $50,000 per year and above.

The other real source of taxes, not very often discussed, are the many U.S. corporations that just pay zero taxes. And the almost all foreign entities that pay no taxes. These are well known to our illustrious leaders in Washington and just like all other special interest groups in their favor....no action taken.

How can our representatives AND we the people.... in good conscience at a time this country is in it's most precarious financial crisis, getting worse by the day.....allow such blatant negligence to continue?

btk

I understand and somewhat agree with your post but my intend was to point out how the "slackers" are now the "tipping point" on elections"
They will vote for the candidate who promises the most free stuff. (entitlements)
This will lead us down the path to ruins.

Sally Jo. You will get no arguments from me.

Donna, I agree with pretty much you usually say. Here, I don't know what you are calling "entitlements". If it is Medicare, Social Security, VA....those are not "free stuff". And, no, I didn't vote for the current administration; and, yes, I can hardly wait to vote them out.

Sorry, that is why I put "entitlements" in quotation marks. Social Security is the only legitimate "entitlement" because I put into it every week for over 45 years. I will gladly remove myself from the SS ranks if they give me every penny plus accumulated interest that I put into it. Also, the veterans deserve to be taken care of because they "earned" it too.
If people want "free" health care they can join the military any time they want.
A society can afford to take care of those who do not wish or cannot take care of themselves if there is money left over. A society that is sinking into the ruins because we spent our grand children's future, can hardly afford to just go deeper into debt.

Donna2: So (just to pick an example) someone who invested all their money in tax-free municipal bonds (you know, the stuff that governments sell to finance construction of roads, schools, etc) and lives off that income shouldn't be allowed to vote?

A family of four that earned under $50,000 but PAYS their mortgage and may have some one-time tax credits (like energy efficiency credits, etc) shouldn't be allowed to vote?

You *are* aware that poll taxes are unconstitutional? I'll quote the 24th Ammendment:

"...or other tax" pretty much covers it all.

I think you really know what I was getting at. There are millions that are actually making a profit from the government at tax time. People will vote their pocket book. When politicians promise "free" stuff, people who don't pay taxes, will and even those who do, will vote for that candidate.
That kind of voting at the polls will surely bankrupt the nation.

So why don't you say what you mean....stop using code words. You want to keep the "welfare people" from voting because they don't "pay taxes". So would it follow that those people who do pay taxes should get more of a vote depending on how much of a tax bill they paid. So for example if you pay $10,000 you get one vote. But $20,000 1.1 votes.... The more you pay the bigger the vote.

Sounds really democratic to me.

Apparently you only read what you want to read. Are you saying that 47% of the non-tax paying population is on welfare? Sheeeeesh

No you said 47% of the population didn't pay taxes....then you talked about entitlements.

So I would only say this: "What does the constitution say about voter eligibility?"

Best to go by that.

You accused me of talking in "code" I say that you were hoping I was talking in code so you could bait me with your left-wing talking points.

The whole meaning of my post was "Taxation without Representation"

Now we have representation without paying taxes. And yes, there is a generation or two with an entitlement mentality. Last I heard, health care is not in the constitution. You can pursue happiness. You also can pursue your own health care. Nobody can make you happy but yourself.
Another question: Howe can you keep having more entitlements with less and less people contributing? Again, 47% of the people in the USA do not pay taxes but expect other people to pay for it for them. They feel entitled.

Sounds to me the best solution would be a "poll tax". You don't vote unless you pay the tax. OOPS! The Supreme Court ruled that practice was unconstitutional.

I am not worried about who votes, or when they vote, or who takes them to the polls. My problem is where are the over 50%, of the eligible voters, who just do not vote. I even bet they are ones that sit around and bitch the most when things don't go their way. Americans should be ashamed of it's voting percentage. Are we not the citadel of democracy?

You have made some silly posts in the past but this may be the silliest !

:1rotfl: Thanks, I needed that. LOL

I wonder if we could get the 50% non-voting public to vote if we changed the ballots only slightly.

In addition to every candidate on the ballot, we add "None of the above".

I mean, even in South America, they got to vote "NO".

So let me understand....in your mind it is perfectly ok for Donna2 to suggest that people who don't pay taxes should not be able to vote, even in light of the constitution. But my little parody of turning her post around is just silly.

Sure....

Donna...the largest entitlement programs funded by the US government, which represent almost 50% of the budget, are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid...not to mention the latest unfunded entitlement the Medicare prescription drug benefit. But you take SS and Medicare of the table because you are entitled to those.......

She was making a point, and I suspect you knew that. You have often said that we on here take you too literally.

It was, and is, as silly silly thing to accuse someone of ! I dont know Donna but in reading her posts it would seem to me that she would be more likely to defend the constitution with much vigor.

You overreacted and attacked on an issue that DOES NOT EXIST ! And you knew it !

If you even scanned what she attached, you would find the author saying "it aint gonna happen" and that the entire conversation was to point out that HALF of american citizens do not pay one cent to the federal government via federal income taxes.

The article then ends by advocating growth of the voters, not the reduction.

You are much too quick to want to make an issue out of nothing.

There is also on the other side the concern about efforts to allow convicted felons to vote and also illegal immigrants which will be an issue very shortly !

From my point of view....ABSOLUTELY on Social Security...the government has taken from me for YEARS and I will make a deal...gimme what you took and I will be happy ! So, from my point of view....YES I do feel entitled to Social Security !

Every thing cost money. Nothing is free. The USA is going bankrupt. What don't you understand? People paid into SS and have a right to get it back. I have been putting into it for 57 years. Is that hard to understand?

Well it seems that the Governor of Virginia has a plan for the felons...now they have to write an essay, to him, on why their vote should be reinstated.

By the way I paid my taxes this year as always.

I am still working so I still putting into SS and Medicare. No one put in money for the prescription benefit that was an explanation of the Medicare entitlement program. Were you so outraged when GW Bush expanded this program without any funding? Is that when the Tea Parties started? This is a socialist program....did you ever call G W Bush a socialist?

I have been putting into the program since I was 16 years old for a told now of 44 years. My retirement age is 65 and I have absolutely no plans to work after retirement. So I will have paid for nearly 50 years. In studies that have been done most likely I will not get everything I paid into the program back. In fact it maybe bankrupt before I retire.

Yes the country is in trouble but we all need to be honest about how we got here...there is plenty of blame to go around.

Then address your snide comments to the Governor of Virginia..not Donna.

And why would anyone care about YOUR taxes ???

YOU just dont get it at all. What difference does Bush have to do with this....why is it all about PARTY with you....are you simply a blind party person.

Have you not read people critique the last adminstration for spending ? Why are you always posting simply on party lines.

This administration and congress are making ANY past administration of ANY party look like minor leaguers !

How did President Bush get into the mix? Does everything have to go straight to the party line with you?

Many true conservatives were not very happy with that bill your talking about. Many people in tea party did not like it either.

I think the tea party is an accumulation of many things that have been happening for many years. Obama was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.

Funny, the same baby boomers who are running and ruining our country were the protesters back in the 60's. Now the protesters are protesting them, and they are trying to demonize them.

If you can't follow the law, you don't have a right to make my laws
 

If I'm not mistaken, voters in Maine and Vermont allow inmates in Maine and Vermont prisons to vote from prison.

Virginia voters have a long standing law that prohibits convicted felons of voting (or owning firearms, holding public office, to serve on juries and to serve as a Notary Public) unless they apply for and receive gubernatorial restoration of voting rights. They never gain their rights to own firearms. Some felons must wait three years before applying after completion of their sentence. People convicted of violent felonies, drug sales, and electoral offenses must wait five years. Governor McDonnell wants a letter from the inmate

According to the Richmond Times Dispatch : "Secretary of the Commonwealth Janet Polarek has said her office has begun to notify non violent voting rights restoration applicants in the pipeline to submit a letter. She said the letter will help her office understand circumstances of the case and more about the person’s story. It could actually streamline the process, Polarek contends, because the office will have details of the applicants at-the-ready.

"If the applicant can’t write the letter or would prefer not to, their attorney can write it for them, or the applicant can call her office directly and tell their story, she said."

Roger Clegg, JD, President and General Counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity, stated the following in his Oct. 18, 2004 article "Perps and Politics, Why Felons Can't Vote," published in National Review:
"Individuals who have shown they are unwilling to follow the law cannot claim the right to make laws for the rest of us. We don't let everyone vote, not children, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. We have certain minimum standards of trustworthiness before we let people participate in the serious business of self-government, and people who commit serious crimes don't meet those standards."

B.K. born in the great Commonwealth of Virginia (the birthplace of Presidents)

What do you mean? Are you for or against a Value Added Tax?

re-tire, there is already a federal tax on tobacco products and beer.

This is in addition to the state and local taxes imposed by localities for these items. This is also in addition federal income taxes, federal taxes on firearms and ammunition, air travel, communications like telephones, life insurance policies provided by employers, lottery winnings, import duties, gasoline (18.4 cents per gallon)....

The federal tax on cigerattes is already $1.01 per pack. Obama raised the tax by .62 cents (nearly 156 percent increase) in April 2009 to fund the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), which was a failing government program in many states.

In addition to the state and local taxes, the federal government imposes volume taxes on distilled spirits, wine, and beer that are in addition to state alcohol taxes. This tax is based on the percentage of alcohol in the product which is an average of .05 cents per can of beer, $2.14 (at 80 proof) per bottle of alcohol and wine is about .31 cents per bottle.

Also, the Value Added Tax, if imposed like the European Union's VAT, will affect every product we purchase with some exemptions or preferential rates on basic needs such as food, medicine, and clothing.

The Value Added Tax will increase the prices and won't replace the taxes already in place. If we don't believe the producers will pass it on to consumers, we're smoking something besides tobacco.

No. You have not been 'paying into it'. You've been paying the people who were retired while you were paying FICA taxes. Now you're expecting, right or wrong, for the next generation to pay for you.

Executives of private companies go to jail for this sort of thing.

Until the mid 1980s, it was still a popular myth that Social Security was a fund where they kept an account of all the money you paid in. Took a long time for the word to get out on that one.

You can twist it, turn it, shake it or plain old lie about it, but the fact is that I paid into it for 47 years. Why should I have to suffer because LBJ decided to tap into it and squander billions (trillions?) for his Vietnam War and his so-called War on Poverty.
How about this? How about all that money that went to the poverty people start paying us back now that their on their feet? They are on their feet now, right? Did we lose that war, too?

April 15, sadly, is payday for many Americans
 

Donna, back to the original point and the article you included. I enjoyed the article. It shows the point that too much government control and involvement in our lives has made moochers of Americans. Once self-reliant, a growing number of working Americans are contributing little and taking alot. All offered by the government.

New tax credits like the child tax credit, Making Work Pay credit, and the First Time Homebuyer Credit allow middle-class families from paying any income tax. Obama's policies including health care and taxes are increasing the number of moochers and reducing the number of givers.

According to information from your linked story: "How much of that 47% who don’t pay income taxes are living in desperate poverty? The truth is that middle-class entitlements are the unsustainable tumor which fills the beds of Hospice America."

Also, "Both liberals and conservatives have always understood that massive entitlements for the middle class, such as the left-wing Holy Grail of socialized medicine, were the endgame. They only disagree in their perception of which game would be ending.

"Representation without taxation is not our fatal problem. People from every income group should accept the responsibility to vote wisely, and insist on absolute fidelity to the Constitution – that mighty covenant between free men and the lawful republic they defied the guns of empire to raise. Our legislators and President are meant to be the guardians of our freedom, not the engineers of our lives… or merchants who trade entitlements for power. The thick web of puppet strings which spread from our titanic State reach deep into the 53% who still pay taxes. Ignorance and ideology led us to this moment, not just the selfish votes of our permanent dependency class. The government needs to shrink, not the electorate."

And you NEVER post along party lines do you.

The actions of the previous administration have contributed to the budget problems now. When the Republicans were in power they spent like drunken sailors but where was the outrage about spending then. The Tea Party people were slient. It is fair to compare and contrast except in this forum. I clearly said there is enough blame to go around. But you won't accept any blame for what the party you support has done.

As for my taxes....I pay them and I pay quite alot and I don't complain about it.

Thanks for the reminder
 

BK. I just re-read it. It was written by Dr. Zero. I just posted another thread featuring his essay on Capitalism. The man is brilliant.

1. I do not post along party lines. I am conservative for sure and since this board has only been in existence since the primary season in 2008 and I absolutely opposed the current President, you are simply jumping to conclusions.

2. There is no doubt in anyones mind that the previous administration spent too much..NONE and we all thank you for consistently reminding us of that. The Tea party, you are correct, never said a word. To my knowledge it did not exist until recently and that may be the reason. I might add that this administration has with great purpose put everyone else to shame when it comes to spending. Please justify the so called "stimulus" bill...not TARP...the Stimulus !

3. You have brought up your taxes twice in this particular thread. Not sure if you want congratulations or what..but congratulations !~

You justify TARP and then I will justify the Stimulus.

The stimulus bill (aka the Porkulus Bill) was passed with the Obama promise of unemployment would not go over 8% and millions of jobs would be created. Under Obama's Porkulus bill the unemployment rate is over 13% in some states and it has not created ONE private sector job.






“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; it’s inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill

taxes
 

45% of self-identified tea partiers make less than $50,000 per year according to a USA/Gallup poll. Similarly 50% of the entire populationmakes less than $50,000 a year. It seems safe to assume that if about half the country avoids income taxes a similar percentage of the tea party people get away with the same even as they march and scream about their tax burden. Tea partiers want lower income taxes but many of them pay none now.So I guess according to the original thread by Donna many tea partiers should not vote unless of course they are all honorable and there are no slackers among them.

It best never to say NOT ONE job.