Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: No tax without representation

Posted 1 year ago on March 17, 2013, 7:08 p.m. EST by highlander4 (-84)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

So lets reserve the right to vote only for those who pay taxes.

58 Comments

58 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

really? Why should freedom be based on how much material wealth you possess?

First of all, everyone pays somekind of taxes, whether it be sales taxes, property taxes, ect. Just because someone has not amassed enough 'stuff' to be required to pay federal income tax, doesnt mean they should be stripped of thier freedom.

If your standard is that, then the people who 'dont pay taxes' should be exempt from a potential draft/selective service, following traffic laws, and should be banned from using the public library.

Im gonna vote for Pope Francis. He cares.

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

Part of a broader plan. Everyone who collects social security, income, anyone who makes any money at all should pay some tax; even if it is only 10%. Everyone pays taxes, everyone has a stake in government. I do not believe those who pay nothing into the government by income tax should have a say in how the government is run. That's it.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

And I believe that taxes should be voluntary and individuals should get to decide how their money gets spent if they choose to pay any taxes in the first place.

No taxes are better than low taxes.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28241) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Wealthy corpoRATions that don't pay taxes?

YEP - Support Move To Amend.

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

Oh, and a 1 page tax code. In all honesty, all deductions should be removed, all of them.

[-] -2 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

Would that apply to people that receive welfare?

[-] 0 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

Yes, in my opinion. The template that I imagine has to be extremely simple. Everyone pays taxes. Welfare was never intended as a way of life, unless there are legit reasons why an individual is incompacitated.

[-] 0 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

If you incapacitated you get disability.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Absolutely! Everyone should get one vote for every tax dollar that they pay.
Except corporations -
they should get one vote for every dollar that they dont pay

[-] 0 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

corporations do not vote. Sorry. they do not vote.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

OH! I did not know that

my friend, willard told me that "corporations are people"

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I agree.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The wealthy man, if he contributes large sums of money to causes and candidates, in essence purchases many votes. Shouldn't we also give the poor voter as many extra votes as the rich man buys?

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

He or she purchases not one vote. there was never a constutional mandate to validate the facts or truth behind a candidate; they can spew as much crap as they please. Irregardless, any candidate needs to spread, and spread repeatedly, their message to nation of 180 million or 200 million voters. And that costs money. They can say what they want. But the voter that walks into the booth has the responsibility to learn the issues and become educated before they cast the vote.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

So you believe money doesn't buy votes?

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

If money could buy votes, I would buy a few dozen out here. It is very, very simple. The money out there is to disseminate the word, whatever that word is, not to buy votes. It is the individual voter's prerogative whether to listen to the messages from the PACs or not.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

If the voters can't hear viewpoints disseminated by other candidates, they can't make an informed decision.

When one person buys a megaphone and drowns out the voice of his opposition, democracy ceases to exist.

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

If voters are so stupid that they don't know where and how to find out what each candidate's platform is, they shouldn't be voting at ALL. Hell, half of the people in this country who SHOULD be voting, don't. Are you going to blame that on "megaphones" and "money" too?

A public so gullible that it votes based on who produces the slickest ads, or the most ads, or whoever makes the most noise DESERVES WHAT IT GETS.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

There's a cold, short sighted part of me that completely agrees with your point. But further thought from the warmer and wiser, far sighted part comes to a different conclusion.

We are all part of a community, a state, and a nation. The actions of the majority effect all. If the people do make a poor choice in representation, everyone pays the price. Their children do, you and your children do as well. And it seems that the results of past choices are what we're living with now.

Wouldn't the better choice to make be for the population to have a clear and balanced understanding of the issues and candidates instead of the current two sided media blast?

Human gullibility will always be with us. Belief in false promises will never disappear. Even intelligent people can be fooled. The political system needs to be constructed to deliver a reasonably fair outcome, regardless of our natural human weakness.

The Father of quality control, W. Edwards Deming, said that if a group of assemblers consistently made errors in manufacturing, the assemblers were not to blame, but the system that allowed the errors to occur was. Human beings are imperfect. Design the system to work despite the imperfection of it's members.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

If you can design a system that works fairly despite humanity, then I'm interested. But I haven't seen one yet.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I'm not sure if any design can cope with the apathy that we currently have in this country. But I would at least attempt to separate corporation and state by a constitutional amendment.

Limiting political contributions to 1% of the median U.S. income ($270 currently) per person or entity, per election year, and limited to their respective locality.

Do you see you any flaws in this proposal, and do you have any ideas that might also work?

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

First, it would depend on how much it costs to provide and disperse accurate information across the country so that everyone HAD a fair chance to review it. Would $270 per person actually result in that amount? What if one side has more people that contribute to support their candidate? How do you make it "fair"? Would the candidate who could help the "poor" the most lose because his target group couldn't afford to support him? In Presidential elections, the whole country is the "respective" locality.

Second, I believe people should be able to donate their money to whomever, and whatever cause they want to. If I have a huge amount of money that I want to donate to a candidate that I strongly approve of and support, who should have the right to tell me I can't give it to them? I believe that WAYYYYYYY too much money is spent on campaigning. It's obscene. But I don't want to impose limits in one area that might result in limiting other areas (charities, other civil issues). Allowing laws on one thing, most often leads to laws in similar areas, and that ends up hurting far more people.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

150 million voters @ $270 is $40 billion dollars. $2 billion was spent in the last presidential election for Obama and Romney.

If one candidate has more contributors than another, I don't know of a way to correct that unless we used a public funded system. But either one of these systems would be better than the present one.

The main problem with donating any amount you see fit is that it gives the wealthy an unfair advantage over those who don't have much money. Surely you can see the result of that kind of thinking in the current system.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

No matter what the "wealthy" are paying for, the people of this country each get ONE VOTE. Period. Unless they are lying, manipulating, and defrauding the system.

150 million people? Half of them didn't even vote. And of the ones who did, how many of "the poor" can afford $270 bucks?

Obama is supposedly the candidate "for the poor and disenfranchised" and his campaign OUTSPENT Romney almost 2-1. According to your theory, then the wealthy gave Obama an unfair advantage and BOUGHT him the office of President.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

One vote per person? Sheldon Adelson got more than one. He didn't spend tens of millions because he likes to play fair.

Close to 130 million votes cast. Even the poor can afford $10-$20 a month.

According to these figures Romney outspent Obama by 10%.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Obama raised more money. Obama spent more money. Romney had less debt and ended up with more cash on hand.

And if it's 10% then they were awfully close to being "equal" weren't they?

How many times did Sheldon Adelson vote? Why isn't he in jail if he committed voter fraud?

The poor can afford $10-20 a month? When they are relying on government subsidies to survive, what on earth makes you think they have "spare" money?

Approx 94 million Americans didn't vote last year. That's MORE than either candidate earned by a long shot.

http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/political/an-estimated-94-million-americans-didnt-vote-in-the-2012-presidential-election

$2 billion was spent and you're suggesting spending $38 billion MORE than that?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

"First, it would depend on how much it costs to provide and disperse accurate information across the country so that everyone HAD a fair chance to review it. Would $270 per person actually result in that amount?"

Yes, the $40 billion figure is greater than the $2 billion spent. Don't forget local, state, and other federal elections.

"Obama raised more money. Obama spent more money. Romney had less debt and ended up with more cash on hand. And if it's 10% then they were awfully close to being "equal" weren't they?"

Why argue with yourself?

"The poor can afford $10-20 a month? When they are relying on government subsidies to survive, what on earth makes you think they have "spare" money?"

Obama received 33% of his money from small contributions of $200 or less. $233 million worth.

"Approx 94 million Americans didn't vote last year. That's MORE than either candidate earned by a long shot."

How many of the people who didn't vote were actually casting their vote for none of the above?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Really? That's a sketchy area. Do tell.

[+] -4 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

It is very simple; not original. Only those with skin in the game should have a say.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

and fat people with more skin should have more game

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

A flatter tax rate of 10 to 20 percent across all income brackets would naturally entail richer individuals paying more taxes.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I like the tax rates & prosperity we had with our last Republican president - Ike

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

I am reading "The Best and the Brightest." I would like to read some other historical works from those times. Because I was born under the guiding hand of Nixon (1970) and am not familiar personally with those times.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Ike's top marginal rate was 91%

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Guiding hand???

You consider multiple counts of treason by Nixon, as a guiding hand?

OMG, I don't even want to how big a hero you think Reagan was. He's another treasonous bastard.

[-] 0 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

this is what I call sarcasm.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I've never known you to show the slightest sense of humor.

Is this something new. A change of heart perhaps?

A sign of compassion?

Do you know what the two main acts of treason were?

One has just come to light recently

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

What were they, shooz?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

4 really,

B&E, plus larceny and wiretapping, and scuttling the Paris Peace Accords, prolonging the Viet Nam war.

[-] 0 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

thank you.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Nice guy, huh?

It was a mistake not to try him in the first place.

A BIG mistake.

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

He was impeached. And I do not believe a politician could away with that degree of tomfoolery with this degree of 24/7 info availability

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Nixon resigned, he wasn't impeached.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

No he wasn't.

He was not impeached, nor was he tried.

I'm not sure where you are getting this false information.

Texas school books?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

But, it works so much better when you explain yourself.

[+] -5 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

OK. If I were on government assistance, then of course I would vote for politicians that would tax the rich for the sake of social programs. It is like having kids voting for more ice cream from their parents. They don't have to pay for it. It is no skin off their ass. The entitled will always vote for Santa Clause. (yes I am a Rush Limbaugh 24/7 subscriber. And I have listened to Tomm Hartmann)

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

You do realize that without a high increase in the minimum wage you will never see those so called entitlements removed from federal law.

I believe the Republicans would have a winning strategy if they would fight to see the minimum wage increased in proportion to the welfare that they cut. The fact that they don't address both ends of the imbalance shows that they don't care what is best for America but only fight for what their donors demand.

Besides, if you don't address the wage imbalance when you cut the social safety net, all of the money you save will have to be diverted to law enforcement. And that my friend is some real speak.

I like your idea about everyone paying taxes but, again, if you don't address the wage imbalance, you will never see it come to fruition. How are people who work forty hours a week, probably on HUD, and collect food-stamps supposed to part with ten percent of their wages?

[-] -2 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

what I am envisioning will probably take years, if not decades. I would like to see children taught the wisdom of paying their own way, preparing themselves to their utmost to have as much of a head start as possible when they enter the world, in my workplace, I deal with up to 3 generations on government support. Education, and the knowledge that everyone has the power to move as far as they wish needs to rule the day. Minimum wage jobs need to be ultimately reserved for those in school or as a temporary means to earn money over the summer.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

That is one lofty dream.

Have you taken a class on or are you familiar with human nature?. You would be surprised to learn how many American jobs pay minimum wage. Human nature dictates that when men are left to their own devices they will endure the least amount of pain. And paying someone the least amount that they can get away with for the longest period possible is not that uncommon. It would be nice to pay for ones own way. But one needs to be reimbursed fairly for ones labor.

[-] 0 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

It is lofty, isn't it? This is one of the multiple problems that will need to be addressed.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

What social programs are we referring to?

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

Medicare, Medicaid

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Really? Peter Peterson fan, are you?

[-] -2 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

Again, I am showing my ignorance. I do not know Peter Peterson. I do know that health care costs need to be controlled and I do know that Medicare and Medicaid budgets need to be reigned in; and on the recipient side for a change.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

why should an American pay $10 for an American pill in America if a Canadian can buy the same American pill for $1
Our medical care costs too much

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Peterson

After that, you can explain to me how we are all on the same side.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Rush?

Its typical MSM nonsense- inflate the other sides views, and ignore the reality that your own is.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Game???

What game is that?

Why would I need to bet skin?

Some craps game in Vegas?

This isn't simple at all, except in thought process.

[Removed]