CommieFornia BTFO.
Votes should be weighted by how much tax you pay
Other urls found in this thread:
imagine what 2016 would look like
Voting should be compulsory
But a commie should have less weight for his vote- or perhaps even a negative weighting.
There are only a handful of countries for Klanton IIRC- would be hilarious.
Why?
Tax-weighted voting.
The most fair voting, contributors decide on how their contributions are spent and by whom.
Commies are subhuman scum.
We want what commies don't want.
That would be the most based voting system.
Why should leeches be able to vote anyway?
THIS IS FAKE. taken from a buzzfeed article about suffrage. still, its probably true.
There's good intuition behind it, it makes sense in that you can see the connection between the two. In practice it would be a disaster because many young people, lower income people, seniors, disabled people and miscellaneous other welfare recipients would be voiceless and could be fucked by the government who don't need to worry about what way they vote.
I just don't see it.
Not an argument
>Why should leeches be able to vote anyway?
(((They))) made it happen when they gave voting ability to non landowners.
No one likes Ausfags. Fact.
>In practice it would be a disaster because many young people, lower income people, seniors, disabled people and miscellaneous other welfare recipients would be voiceless and could be fucked by the government who don't need to worry about what way they vot
Why should people who don't fund government be able to tell government what to do?...
This picture is bullshit, it's an edited version of pic related.
Am I wrong?
Because they're still subject to the laws of the country they reside in. If government spending neglects their interests to further the interests of the wealthy, large amounts of the population are disadvantaged. And that's bad because you should pursue policies that in the long run advantage everyone.
Still not an argument.
Nah, there should be only one fixed value tax on everyone. Votes should be weighed by property.
What does 'white' mean in the pic?
>you should pursue policies that in the long run advantage everyone.
That's exactly what you're doing by taking away the vote from people who have proven themselves incapable of long-term planning and deferral of gratification.
>If government spending neglects
...that is the point...if someone does not fund government...then what obligation does government have to them...I can't demand a bank to pay me when I have never given them money.
When everyone has an equal vote, then their is a conflict of interest where those who don't work can demand that workers are taxed more.
because they still live in that country and are ruled over by the government and they're still people with interests that need to be regarded.
If you get hit by a car and suffer from permenant physica and mental disability as a result, should that just be the end of your life? What if you lose your sight and sufer from ptsd as a result of military service?
Furthermore -- if we're weighting votes by tax paid rather than just enfranchising someone who pays the least bit tax, then you're handing the reigns of government over to the wealthiest portions of society. Without bequest, estate and wealth taxes, you have no guarantee that these are more productive members of society than the "lower tax paying" members.
Taking the vote away from retirees, veterans and people too young to be earning taxable income is not the same as taking the vote away from people who have proven themselves incapable of long-term planning and deferral of gratification.
Not that belonging to any of those categories proves anything about those personal characteristics. And not that having those personal characteristics means you should be disenfranchised.
Society is not a credit facility. It's a society. It's built on social values rather than a profit motive, like a bank or other creditor.
>implying those aren't synonyms.
> leaf
> post
Something doesn't add up
This would only be reasonable if there would be a cap on the influence after a certain amount of tax is paid. Otherwise the rich who pay their taxes would be able to influence policy much more directly than the current system of lobbying and donations.
Example:
100k in tax converts to 100 voting points.
10k in tax converts to 10 voting points. etc.
Everything above 100k in tax would still be capped at 100 voting points.
Wow, it's almost las though only whites pay taxes.
White people.
The map shows the result of the 2012 US election if only white people had been allowed to vote.
I agree with this sentiment...however, here you state that everyone has a vote...do you mean that all tax payers have equal vote?
>Taking the vote away from retirees, veterans and people too young to be earning taxable income is not the same as taking the vote away from people who have proven themselves incapable of long-term planning and deferral of gratification.
That's why I said votes shouldn't be weighed by tax (since everyone should pay the same amount in tax) but by property.
Prob the same but OR, IA, ME, and NH all go red as well.
>Nah, there should be only one fixed value tax on everyone
What should that tax be on? Income? Wealth? Consumption? Capital gain?
No, I'm arguing for a fixed value tax (for example 100 bucks a month - for everyone), and for the votes to be weighed by property - or at least the existance of a minimum of property you have to own in order to vote.
Fixed. Any adult pays the state $100 a month.
oh nvm i'm a retard
okay
>because they still live in that country and are ruled over by the government and they're still people with interests that need to be regarded.
>If you get hit by a car and suffer from permenant physica and mental disability as a result, should that just be the end of your life?
Why is it the end of one's life if one cannot vote...children are not at the end of their life- they can't vote.
> What if you lose your sight and sufer from ptsd as a result of military service?
Insurance.
>Furthermore -- if we're weighting votes by tax paid rather than just enfranchising someone who pays the least bit tax, then you're handing the reigns of government over to the wealthiest portions of society.
aka those who are society's best creators of value.
> Without bequest, estate and wealth taxes, you have no guarantee that these are more productive members of society than the "lower tax paying" members.
But you know that business success runs in their family. Success breeds success more often than failure.
>
>Taking the vote away from retirees, veterans and people too young to be earning taxable income is not the same as taking the vote away from people who have proven themselves incapable of long-term planning and deferral of gratification.
>Not that belonging to any of those categories proves anything about those personal characteristics. And not that having those personal characteristics means you should be disenfranchised.
> (You)
>Society is not a credit facility. It's a society. It's built on social values rather than a profit motive, like a bank or other creditor.
>Society is not a credit facility. It's a society. It's built on social values rather than a profit motive
All human activity is done for profit- said profit has forms other than money.
I don't suspect that we would have a problem with rich people trying to pay taxes so that they could have a few more votes out of a million.
Most of the US's tax income comes from people making between 60k and 90k a year.
Such racist, assuming that only white people work- kinda true though.
Almost 60% of people pay less tax than the benefits they receive.
Which is dysgenic and needs to stop.
The wealthy wouldn't even notice the taxation and would proportionally make a contribution of fuck all to society after taking a shitload away from it towards their wealth growth.
The poor - the food stamp, bread line, holes in shoes poor - would be starving to death.
What a terrible, regressive and poorly thought out system.
Children's interests are, in principle at least, represented by their parents. I think children aged 13-18 should be means tested on a voluntary basis to determine their aptitude to participate in the franchise. If we let people with downs syndrome vote, why not let resourceful and intelligent 15 year olds vote?
>Insurance.
Insurance isn't taxable, that I know of. I'm not canadian though.
>aka those who are society's best creators of value.
Actually got a giggle out of me. How old are you?
>But you know that business success runs in their family. Success breeds success more often than failure.
The idle rich do exist you know. The rich dad, poor dad phenomenon is far from universal.
>All human activity is done for profit- said profit has forms other than money.
Well how capitalist of you. Many human activities are not done for profit. I'm not seeking to profit by having this discussion.
I'm not going to let you devolve this discussion into a semantic dispute over the meaning of profit. Profit is monetary. The profit motive in the sense I used it was a reference to capital accumulation. That should have been obvious given that I was replying to your unapt bank analogy.
>Many human activities are not done for profit.
False- it's just that currency is not money.
>The wealthy wouldn't even notice the taxation and would proportionally make a contribution of fuck all to society after taking a shitload away from it towards their wealth growth.
What shitload is there for them to take away if everyone only pays $100 in taxes and this makes up the entire budget of the state? In the case of the US that's only about 30 billion dollars - not a sum the wealthiest of people would allow shit to be started over.
>The poor - the food stamp, bread line, holes in shoes poor - would be starving to death.
A process coloquially known as natural selection.
>What a terrible, regressive and poorly thought out system.
What an argument!
>30 billion dollars - not a sum the wealthiest of people would allow shit to be started over.
Ausfag, at the same time, believes that rich would part with 30B AND that they would want to avoid taxes.
Get being down under makes arguments criss-cross,.
>A process coloquially known as natural selection.
It's taken literally 10s of thousands of years for humans to build the physical and social infrastructure to escape the state of nature. We're a society. We're an attempt to avoid every man for himself. Your society would be fractured beyond belief, it would be reviled, it would have crime rates through the roof and practically no funding for public services.
What makes you think that a strong society is one where you don't care about your neighbour?
Your argument is just a really weird and unhelpful distortion of the "humans aren't altruistic" line. Which is fine, that's a sensible thing to say, but why are you trying so hard to frame it in obviously pecuniary language? All human activity is selfish. You don't need to label it "profit" or "currency" because you said something silly a few posts ago.
>No source
Nice Fakenews
How to spot that:
California voted to 90% Democratic.
So to obtain a Red state it would mean that 100% of repblicans voting in california pay taxes but less than 55% of Democrats?
Thats just a big pile of shit here leaf
>German says 'nice fakenews'
>Meanwhile they no longer control parts of their country- yet leader says Germany is strong and prospering.
No one cares your pathetic opinion nazi scum.
Turkroaches tend to be either very based or very unbased- why such a phenomena?
>because they still live in that country and are ruled over by the government and they're still people with interests that need to be regarded.
Why?
>If you get hit by a car and suffer from permenant physica and mental disability as a result, should that just be the end of your life?
Yes.
>What if you lose your sight and sufer from ptsd as a result of military service?
Military gives money for WIA, this is taxed.
>Furthermore -- if we're weighting votes by tax paid rather than just enfranchising someone who pays the least bit tax, then you're handing the reigns of government over to the wealthiest portions of society.
Yes.
>Without bequest, estate and wealth taxes, you have no guarantee that these are more productive members of society than the "lower tax paying" members.
Irrelevant. They pay for the gov't programmes.
>Taking the vote away from retirees
SS income is taxed, private savings are taxed (cap gains)
>veterans
Are they all unemployed?
>people too young to be earning taxable income
Minors can't vote anyway.
>is not the same as taking the vote away from people who have proven themselves incapable of long-term planning and deferral of gratification.
No, but you should have a say in how your money is spent.
>jewish man riding on white man handing out white man's money to negroes
>Society is not a credit facility. It's a society. It's built on social values rather than a profit motive, like a bank or other creditor.
Not an argument.
HOW the fuck do so MANY people not pay taxes ?
>Not an actual leaf
>jewish man riding on white man handing out white man's money to negroes
We need this in picture form!
I'm more leafy than you, friend.
Can Trump somehow change the voting system to taxpayer only? I can't imagine the outrage.
>Can Trump somehow change the voting system to taxpayer only?
Stop!, my dick can only get so hard!
>Why?
Well this is a values conflict. I value this and you don't and that's just that. If I was going to make the case for it, I'd point you towards Rawls's Theory of Justice, mostly just the famous veil of ignorance thought experiment.
>Yes.
I pine for the old days of the internet when I could just tell you to fuck off back to 1860 with your zero sum society thinking and fundamentally ableist and anti-human policies, and no one would bat an eyelid. These days I'll just get memed into oblivion by a band of pseudointellectuals who represent the best argument for the horseshoe theory I've ever seen. I don't even know why I'm straying further into this post past this point, I really don't, but let's keep going
>Yes. (re: letting the wealthy dictate how society should be run)
That one word does not an argument make. I made a statement, I didn't ask a question. Letting any one subset of society run the entirety of society is fundamentally flawed because it will always neglect, to a greater or lesser extent, the interests of the subsets it does not belong to. Address this flaw. Don't just tell me you disagree it's a flaw.
>Irrelevant. They pay for the gov't programmes.
Government - and this idea seems to escape you, OP, and the economically illiterate Croat elsewhere in this thread - is more than just getting mo money fo dem programs. Government writes laws and develops and enacts foreign policy, and these two things don't always involve public expenditure.
>Minors can't vote anyway.
Many 19, 20, 21, 22 year olds are below the tax free threshold for income tax. In Australia, the only tax they pay is GST.
>No, but you should have a say in how your money is spent.
I'm not wanting to take that away from anyone.
>Not an argument.
It's an aspirational statement about how society ought to be, in the absence of any contrary model of society being described in this thread. What is a society then, if not a mutually beneficial institituton to escape the state of nature?
if only taxpayers voted in ZA we would have a white president again
It exists, somewhere in my ~10000 Sup Forums image folder.
>What is a society then, if not a mutually beneficial institituton to escape the state of nature?
Mutual benefit would require non-taxpayers to give something- where is the mutual benefit from allowing such people to vote?...
There's lots of them and they'll kill you if you don't.
I hear that ZA is a great place to live, as a white man, if you can organize people into productive activity- I did not trust such information.
How safe is it for a white man who wants to employ blacks in ZA?
>to escape the state of nature
Then how does the second part of the statement fit: "to escape the state of nature"?
The mutual benefit is that by coming together under the rule of law you forfeit certain freedoms in exchange for protection from each other. That's the mutual benefit of society. Someone who's 6'5" can't take everything someone who's 4'11" owns.
> forfeit certain freedoms in exchange for protection
It's called "extortion."
It's called human nature. You even said that before, people are selfish. If you didn't have laws and police and taxes and a mutual agreement by all people to abide by these things, you wouldn't have very much at all.
You'd be cold and naked and hungry and in all likelihood, dead right now.
> I pine for the old days of the internet when I could just tell you to fuck off back to 1860 with your zero sum society thinking and fundamentally ableist and anti-human policies, and no one would bat an eyelid. These days I'll just get memed into oblivion by a band of pseudointellectuals who represent the best argument for the horseshoe theory I've ever seen. I don't even know why I'm straying further into this post past this point, I really don't, but let's keep going
That's.. not an argument. But I don't see how it's ableist. Ableism would imply it disenfranchised the disabled. It doesn't, they get Social Security. Anti-human is too vague for me to respond to.
>Letting any one subset of society run the entirety of society is fundamentally flawed because it will always neglect, to a greater or lesser extent, the interests of the subsets it does not belong to. Address this flaw. Don't just tell me you disagree it's a flaw.
But I do. I've already explained why it isn't one. People on gibs SHOULD be neglected.
>Government - and this idea seems to escape you, OP, and the economically illiterate Croat elsewhere in this thread - is more than just getting mo money fo dem programs. Government writes laws and develops and enacts foreign policy, and these two things don't always involve public expenditure.
No, but the people still pay tax to the state, and they should have a say in how the state is run.
>Many
Proofs?
>19, 20, 21, 22 year olds are below the tax free threshold for income tax. In Australia, the only tax they pay is GST.
Then they shouldn't get to vote. Some of them have income, the rest probably go to state-funded college.
>I'm not wanting to take that away from anyone.
Yes, you do. You don't want people to have a say about gov't spending proportional to tax paid.
Extortion is not mutually beneficial, by definition- me not killing someone is not benefiting them.
Pick up a dictionary my friend.
>Yes, you do. You don't want people to have a say about gov't spending proportional to tax paid.
Not proportionally, no. But I still want them to have a say, I just don't think it should be any greater than anyone else's voice, because at the end of the day, they're still one person.
>me not killing someone is not benefiting them.
It benefits them by you not killing them. It benefits you because under this system, they won't kill you either.
Both of you don't die, but you would have if the system didn't exist. Your not dying is the benefit.
I call this system "society".
That's not how democracy works you stupid cunt.
>
Aussie is conflating "human rights" with "earned human rights." Giving more power to tax payers only affects the latter, not the former.
>earned human rights
You have human rights because you're human, not because you're human and you've also satisfied a number of auxiliary criteria.
Anyway, I'm going to sleep because I've been up since 5:30am working and actually contributing to society, therefore my opinion is more important than yours and you all lost the argument before you even started (proportionally speaking, of course).
Bye
>It benefits them by you not killing them. It benefits you because under this system, they won't kill you either.
benefit: profit gained from something
An extorted person can not benefit unless they are first accosted- not sure how you say that such behaviour "respects human rights" while disallowing non-taxpayers to boss taxpayers is "ableist and anti-human." The hypocrisy is astounding.
Democracy is (((their))) plan to have retards vote on how to spend other people's money.
Ausfag conceding to real men (Westerners)
>thinks democracy is inherently good
>calls others stupid
the ironing
...he contradicts himself within an 8 word sentence- guess we always knew that Ausfags were partly retarded.
>What makes you think that a strong society is one where you don't care about your neighbour?
Certainly stronger than one where the incompetent get to breed the competent out of existence while living off money stolen from them.
And who says my neighbor is a parasite?
>incompetent get to breed the competent out of existence while living off money stolen from them
That Ausfag termed this "mutually beneficial-" that it's mutually benefitial in that the poor get money from the rich, and the rich don't get attacked by the poor!
That's actually really reasonable. I don't get why a leecher that votes for anyone who gives more gibsmedat should be equal in terms of voting as a taxpaying upstanding citizen
The non tax payers have power in their ability to destroy that which workers create- the poor have much less to lose- and are thus dangerous.
It's extortion, plain and simple.
No.
>paying for your vote
yeah have fun handing over your freedom to the Rothschilds
That's gross.
Look what happened to your country when voting is mandatory.
Meh. Not that simple. Some people who don't pay taxes aren't mooches. Retired people, disabled people, etc. MOST are mooches. But how are we going to track down and give a voice to everyone that is disabled for life, or worked 15 years then lost a leg in a factory accident, or lost their mind going to war, etc.
It would take an enormous amount of logistics to make a system like that work. But at the end of the day, the most effective way to ensure only people that have the good of the country in mind are allowed to vote, is to repeal women's suffrage and thus block all this stupid vote-whoring shit that politicians do to kiss women's asses that hurts the country in the long run.
Because you shouldn't be judge and jury. You shouldn't decide how gibs are gibbed all the while benefiting from those.
Is why suffrage by census is the least shitty kind of democracy.