Thursday, July 9, 2009

No ticky, no laundry??

Should anyone who doesn't pay taxes VOTE?

Tell me how you come up with your answer.........



shoprat said...

I hate to say this but I'm beginning to see the wisdom of the book (not the movie) Starship Troopers where the future of the nation is placed entirely in the hands of those who are willing to sacrifice their lives for it. If they love it that much they will take better care of it. Those who are self-absorbed and self-important can go about their self-absorbed lives and be powerless over others because they cannot be trusted with power.

A citizen is one is willing to take responsibility for the body politic by defending it with their life. Robert A Heinlein Starship Troopers

However, allowing only taxpayers to vote would be far more fair than our current system where those who contribute nothing demand more and more. Sadly it require a constitutional amendment.

Deborah on the Bayside said...

Yes - but how to enforce? What I really want is voters with a committed interest and loyalty to the US, to start.

Yeah, I don't like people who don't pay income taxes voting on taking mine. Or who don't directly pay property taxes, voting on increasing mine. How do we even educate dummies and liars that tax freedom day does NOT fall in May, but about 2 months later? Gee -- that's a tad more taxes then they think.

Everyone pays taxes -- only some don't know it. When I was a young pup, living right at the official poverty line, I calculated that 55% of my income went to identifiable taxes. How many people do you think will do that? 5%? How many who do will think they are being taxed "fairly?" 0%!

A system that requires you to have "property" is a good start. Contrary to modern myth the old property rule could be a house or farm, but also the tools of your trade. So a young man starting out with his carpenter's toolbox would qualify. Or a new lawyer with his legal books. But the local indigent ne'er-do-well would not.

Just basic residency requirements and a legitimate, confirmed address are starters. And verification/confirmation of you as a legit citizen is a PRE-starter. Foreigners and transients -- un uh. If your home is a park bench -- forgetta about it!

beamish said...


I gotta beg to differ.

Heinlein's premise in Starship Troopers was a little deeper than that. The nations of the world were at war with each other, and the global economy was bankrupted to the point that they called the war off and abandoned their military forces deployed in the field. Following a "soldiers of the world, unite!" type movement, the armies of the nations banded together, went home, toppled their war weary civilian governments and established the Terran Federation. Peel away the thematic "honor of service" trappings and the non-human enemy from outer space to fight and you still have a left-wing fascist (forgive the redundancy) cadre of Robespierre wannabes aping Mao's "all power comes from the barrel of a gun" and ready to fire up the ovens for another round of progressive leftist social initiatives a la the labor activist Adolf Hitler.

Entertaining book, but not a government I'd want to live under.


As for deciding who can vote, as long as they're over 18, human, alive, and American, let 'em vote. Once.

beamish said...

And yes, I know that Heinlein was an anarcho-libertarian politically, and that the "bugs" in Starship Troopers were supposed to be a metaphor for Communism.

Everytime I read Starship Troopers (and Stranger In a Strange Land which he wrote at the same time!!) I get something new out of Heinlein.

I don't think Heinlein meant for ST to be taken as a blueprint for government, except perhaps in a dystopian look at where we're heading sense.

Pat Jenkins said...

one's means does not equal a "right" to vote, but it is too bad many will vote to "steal" other's means!!

Anonymous said...

I favor a weighted voting system based on how much tax you pay, It's obnoxious in the extreme that a welfare brood mare or one of their absentee "suiters" can cancel out my vested vote.

This is my idea. If you are a pathetic no count who lives off the system and always has, you get one vote.

If you are a net CONTRIBUTER to society based on your tax payments you get 2 votes.

If you pay taxes in the top 30% of taxpayers you get 3 votes.

If you're in the top 10% you get 4 votes.
That's a basic outline, but I firmly believe we need to go to something like that.
As it stands we have rampant injustice at the ballot box.

Anonymous said...

The Democratic Party was established with one and only one principle in mind, "one man, one vote." The entire history of the party was devoted to eliminating literacy and property tests for voting. Poor white males in the USA in many parts of the country didn't get the "Universal suffrage" until the mid eighteen hundreds.

The question shouldn't be whether or not every man deserves the right to vote, the right question is "does government have the right to tax/redistribute wealth." If every man has the right to vote, then the answer to THAT question is.... NO... because at that point government and politics becomes a zero sum game.

Ducky's here said...

Shoprat, did you vote when you were out on unemployment?

Always On Watch said...

Just because someone is unemployed doesn't mean that taxes aren't being paid. Case in point, real-estate taxes.

Always On Watch said...

BTW, unemployment monies are taxable.

HoosierArmyMom said...

In accordance with the Constitution, if you live here, are legally a citizen, and register you are a stakeholder, and entitled to vote.
I agree with that for good reason.
A woman who stays home to raise her children while her husband makes the income, is technically not "the taxpayer". Someone on disability who does not work due to their disability, is usually not a taxpayer if you look at income tax.
An 18-21 year old in college may or may not be a taxpayer.

As much as I believe that it is that age bracket that has been so brainwashed by government schools over the years, and have brought on Obama hell, being a Constitutionalist, part of being in a free country means all citizens, regardless of stake should be able to vote if they register to do so.

Always On Watch said...

Should anyone who doesn't pay taxes VOTE?

My first reaction is to say "Yes!"

But that will never fly in America.

Here's an idea....Federal-government workers shouldn't be allowed to vote. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, maybe nobody should be allowed to vote if he can't name all the candidates on the ballot -- without a cheat sheet.

Always On Watch said...

I go back to this idea....U.S. Senators should be appointed by the state legislatures.

Ducky's here said...

So what, AOW? All that does is effectively reduce the money Mr. Starship Trooper is taking from someone else.

Right wingers talk a good game and they like to feel that somehow they are meant to be a privileged class, like Mr. Starship Trooper but when push comes to shove they are just bozos on this bus like everyone else.

shoprat said...

A) There were no elections when I was on unemployment

B) I paid taxes from my unemployment Insurance.

Ducky's here said...

That's right shoprat, you right wingers talk a good game.

Now let's take you, AOW and her husband. Combine your incomes and I paid more than your combined incomes in TAXES.

Now do I get three+ votes?

I really get a kick out of you right wingers who see yourself as oppressed and think you are the rock solid foundation of the countries economics.
You aren't. You are in fact a bunch of whiners who are upset because you think someone is getting something you don't think they deserve. I have enough damn sense to realize that someone is getting nothing because I got double and I don't whine about it.
On the other hand your retort is to let benefits get you over the rough times and mumble some Robert Heinlein crap as if you are our economic savior because you paid some piddling taxes on your unemployment.

Anonymous said...

I’ve known a few wealthy people in my day, and none of them was less than kind, considerate, and enlightened. Only a weasel tosses out the “I pay more taxes than you earn” shoe. I have long held that Ducky is wrong-headed and stupid. I still believe this is true; but judging from his statement (above), he is also an elitist slob, no gentleman, and not a very good person. Although I suppose it is also possible that he’s a liar.

We enfranchise the American people through their right to vote. The right to vote comes to all Americans by virtue of citizenship, not tax bracket. It is hardly a 21st Century attitude, and not even politically correct, but Hamilton argued in favor of allowing only property owners to vote, because only propertied individuals have a stake in well-run government. Notwithstanding modern attitudes, it is difficult to find fault with his reasoning. The ACORN swindle would seem to make this case.

The excellent case in point is the pre-election YouTube video produced by Howard Stern, demonstrating that voters had no idea who the candidates were. This sort of thing doesn’t disturb leftists, of course: they gain under such appalling circumstances.

Ducky's here said...

Yeah that's right mustang. Someone throws it out on a thread with these self congratulating far right wingers deciding whether the poor should be allowed to vote.

Yeah, a bunch of sanctimonious folk deciding just who should vote just as they decide just who is an American or any number of Christian attitudes that try to build country and community.

Things should be called by their name, period and that includes today's far right. A bunch of damn whiners.

Ducky's here said...

Also, this fascination you have with A.C.O.R.N. indicates that you have an agenda yourself.

The right certainly has blown up a minor incident into a blatant display of their fear of the (non-evangelical) poor and their xenophobia.

Yeah, Howard Stern had some cute little segment, that proves exactly what in a nation that saw Sarah Palin nominated?

No ticky, no laundry, yeah, that's my "Christian" brethren demonstrating their grasp of Christ's message. Such blatant hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Ducky, if you ever find that you are in serious legal trouble, do yourself and your attorney a big favor: don't testify. You have the unique gift of self-conviction everytime you open your mouth. And of course, there is no greater example of hypocrisy than your very last statement.

HoosierArmyMom said...

Yeah that's right mustang. Someone throws it out on a thread with these self congratulating far right wingers deciding whether the poor should be allowed to vote.

The question was… should one be required to be a taxpayer in order to vote? Not “should poor people not be allowed to vote”. Have you hit the bong so much that you do not comprehend what the question is. Z was asking for people’s thoughts on that and no one implied that the right to vote should be denied to the poor. What is wrong with you??? Are you a total moron???

Yeah, a bunch of sanctimonious folk deciding just who should vote just as they decide just who is an American or any number of Christian attitudes that try to build country and community.

First of all, expecting the Constitution to be followed is not “a Christian Attitude”. It is the attitude of people who like the freedoms given by the Constitution. Jesus was not a politician. And since when does “posing a question to get a feel for what other people think on the subject, the key being “people who actually think”, merit being called “sanctimonious folk ‘deciding’ anything”???? We are having a discussion based on people’s thoughts on the topic. We express differing opinions… and her comes the Liberal Quack dishing up insults without an understanding of the question and with no supporting evidence for the wild statements he makes.

Things should be called by their name, period and that includes today's far right. A bunch of damn whiners.

From my perspective, the only one whining here is YOU. If you ever stating anything factual and with respect shown for the opinions of others, I may well have a heart attack. So keep up the bong hits and stupid talk Ducky, my life probably depends on it.

Z said...

Ducky...'no ticky no laundry?' has a question mark after it...sorry, you can't pull your stuff on that one! I love it when you glom onto the slightest thing and mis-run with it...

As for shoprat, he's one of THE finest people I have ever met...leave it to you to rub a patch of bad luck in his face so nastily. Leftist with a BIG HEART they like to tout and... so very nasty, so LOW. He's a mature man who can and does fight his own battles, but I couldn't not mention that. I almost deleted you for that but you whine and complain at other blogs how Z DELETES ME and that makes you look so little that even I hate to see that.

OF COURSE THE LEFT WANTS ACORN TO GET THEIR MILLIONS! ODD, isn't it, that they've existed for a while but it's JUST NOW that BIG GOVERNMENT WANTS TO GIVE THEM BIG MONEY!?!? Ducky, wake up and be honest for a

I honestly don't know how I stand on this subject....and I enjoyed reading all the comments..they're ALL persuasive.

I will say that the Left HAS TO LOVE letting people vote who lend nothing to American society but a hand to be filled.......
THEY LOVE THE DEMOCRATS! They don't WANT to work hard, they LOVE the unions, they aren't self reliant, they're the swelling of liberals about to take this country to a place its founding fathers and proud American Conservatives have seen be a DISASTER in Europe (Even Europe's waking up, but NOT US!)...

I'd be happiest if we could actually get back to ONE MAN ONE VOTE...I'm fearing that the 2010 election will be stolen this last election probably was by Coleman lost when Franken flew to DC, met with Reid, and though Coleman's numbers were UP at the time, when Franken returned, EVERY SINGLE FREAKING VOTE they found in CAR TRUNK BALLOT BOXES later was...FOR FRANKEN~!! Praise the LORD, it's a MIRACLE!! (ya, right)


HoosierArmyMom said...

Oh, and the more you try to turn this into a "religious" argument, the more I know you have nothing intelligent to say on the topic.

There is plenty of evidence to support ACORN's corruption, including inside whistle blowers, but of course our corrupt leader and his cadre in Congress won't investigate it. They helped Teh One get in office by voting dead people and underage children. Out and out voter fraud on any side and to any degree is NOT a "minor incident", it is a federal crime.

Bryan said...


That's a nut, right? :0)

Z said...

BRYAN! Splendid! Just SPLENDID.
I'll be smiling all day...!

it is definitely A NUT.

Joe said...

The question was (Ducky's inability to rightly read anything at all...ever notwithstanding): "Should anyone who doesn't pay taxes VOTE?"

Maybe the question should have been: "Should anyone who has not a shred of intelligence VOTE?"

Anonymous said...

Good point, Joe, but wouldn't that disenfranchise leftists?


beamish said...

Another nitpick with the Starship Troopers world government - people who didn't volunteer for "federal service" and serve 2 years did not have the right to vote, but also had no right to redress grievances in a court of law, and no check against tyranny other than to take up arms against the global military / government - that was always training for war against either "non-citizens" on Earth or aliens out in space.

What little exposure we get in Starship Troopers to the civilian point of view is one of contempt for government service / military (from Juan Rico's father, who wanted him to go to Harvard instead of joining the Mobile Infantry) turns out to be a missing element in the novel (and Rico's father ends up joining the military after the Bug attack on Buenos Aires killed his wife / Rico's mother)... we're never really shown what it is Rico could do as a civilian in Terran Federation society with a degree from Harvard and no right to vote or work in any government function (including I assume, public schools).

A some point you just gotta throw up your hands and say "it's a sci-fi novel!" and stop trying to analyze it.

I haven't reached that point yet... love the book :)

Anonymous said...

We understand, Beamish ... but we hope you reach that point real soon.

Semper Fi

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...


If I had nothing to over-analyze, I'd over-analyze why.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the Constitution garauntees anyone the right to vote. Ammendments 15 and 19 forbid discriminating based on race or sex, but discriminating based on other factors is Constitutional. Fellons can't vote.

Leave it to a Boiler to start something with a Hoosier.

Re direct election of Senators...I think the point of having state governments assign Senators was to have a representative of the states' governments in the national legislature. As representatives of the state governments, they would object to the national government usurping powers from the state. It's part of the checks and balances system. AOW, I'm on board if you're looking to repeal 17th Ammendment.

tio b

Law and Order Teacher said...

As usual your grasp of government material is superior. The constitution doesn't speak to who votes. It talks, as you said to reasons that can't be used to deny voting.

As for the 17th Amendment, with the evolution of the waste of congress I have developed an animosity for direct elections. Senators don't have any allegiance to their constituents and they seem to see themselves as national officeholders rather than state. That contributes to the mess in congress.

Well stated, Tio.

Z said...

L&0...Tio went to our church while he was in town and I'll vouch for him...ONE REALLY SMART GUY! (and as nice as they get)

FASCINATING about the constitution and the RIGHT for voting.

I swear, I'm beginning to think we oughtn't vote if we're paying no taxes; we should have a constructive stake in the economy and our country to merit a thoughtful, beneficial vote.

If anybody here thinks illegal aliens didn't vote for Obama, you are ABSOLUTELY OUT OF YOUR MIND.

beamish said...

I'd definitely repeal the 17th Amendment to return representation of state governments to the Senate's intended function, and also because I really don't see how a national political party could function in such an environment. The Senate would be full of 50 delegations seeking the interests of their own state's government.

I'd also repeal the 12th Amendment and let the person who came in 2nd place in the election be Vice-President.

HoosierArmyMom said...

Thanks tio b, I stand corrected on the Constitutional voting issue.

I guess if it can disallow felons from the process, it could disallow "illegals"??? Of course Chairman O won't allow that.

I find the idea of property owners no so good. What about those who choose to rent? The founding fathers who lost everything they had during the revolution would have lost their right to vote as well... not a very good thought, eh?

Always On Watch said...

All that does is effectively reduce the money Mr. Starship Trooper is taking from someone else.

Mr. Starship Trooper? What the hell are you quacking about?

Right wingers talk a good game and they like to feel that somehow they are meant to be a privileged class...

Again, what the hell are you quacking about?

Alexander Hamilton had a valid point about property owners.

Maybe what rankles you is the fact that property owners were the force behind the American Revolution: "the right to life, liberty, and property."

dmarks said...

ducky said: "Things should be called by their name, period and that includes today's far right. A bunch of damn whiners."

Who was discussing the far-right? There is no one far-right participating in this discussion.

Z said...

thanks, dMarks, you're right.

HAM...I'm with you. Renters should vote, absolutely. People who pay no taxes? Not so much....

though I see WHY they once thought only property owners should vote, Always.

Always On Watch said...

Speaking of taxes, note these recent words from BHO:

"No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top..."That is not democracy, that is tyranny..."

Warning: strong language in the post I linked to. But strong language is warranted, IMO.

I'm headed out for the day. Run with the idea for a post, Z? You have my permission. **wink**

Z said...

No, post, Always, but I LINKED IT and it is WELL WORTH LINKING!!

And so's Carol's....

Thanks, ALways xxx

Anonymous said...

I think, while it's an interesting question, it's not going to happen in any case.

I do think everyone who works should have a stake in their government, and therefore should pay income tax no matter how small the amount.

No one who doesn't feel the burden of paying for government, is qualified to vote for the cost of government, in my opinion. If they were they'd think twice about what they're paying for.

There is no free lunch, and if you want to eat, you should contribute to the cost.


Z said...

Yes, Pris....but what of those who DON'T pay? Even those who work but don't pay seem questionable to me as far as voting......they have no stake if their stake is simply to work for a pittance that won't be taxed..
I have to think about that, i know it sounds harsh, but, well.........?

Anonymous said...

Well Z, my dad worked and earned enough just to get by. From week to week. Yet, he paid taxes. Everyone who worked paid taxes, and complained plenty.

Dad also knew what was going on with the government, and kept up with current events, and had strong opinions. From what I remember everyone we knew had strong opinions.

They could also have answered Jay Leno's "man in the street" questions.

The point is, they were engaged, and cared about the country and what the politicians were doing.

Somewhere along the way, politicians figured out if they created a victim mentality, a permanent underclass, they'd appeal to their needs and get their votes.

It never worked on my father, but there are many for whom it sounded like a free lunch. When we stopped demanding income taxes from those making less than the middle class, was when the promise of food stamps sounded good. They weren't going to be paying for them.

So, they voted for those who promised them that, and more.
The sad thing is, they didn't promise too much because they needed to keep these folks right where they were to get their votes.

They have no incentive to better themselves if they have to begin paying taxes above the required income to do so.

Now they're given a stipend to boot, and led around by the nose to fall for every gimmick the government comes up with and will vote accordingly.

I do agree that in order to vote, you should have to pay income taxes until age 65 or retirement when social security kicks in. Of course now we're taxed on that over a certain income.

However, I don't believe that could happen now. Too many at the government trough, and they don't see that they are essentially slaves of the government.

They expect whatever they get, and remain like children counting on the nanny government to provide.

It's not harsh Z, it's tough love. We want everyone to be the best they can be.


Z said...

Pris, terrific comment, thanks so much (just finished working here..thank goodness)

I am beginning to feel sure in my opinion that we absolutely should NOT be able to vote if we pay no taxes..PERIOD.

If you have no stake in the country (except to have your hand out for welfare) HOW can you be honored with voting? How can someone who doesn't pay taxes tell ME where MY money must go?

We've let's get to work implementing that!!

I'm going to have another question I think is a really good one early next week...I'm eager to see what people think about that, too!