Voting should be restricted to citizens who pay income tax. If you don't contribute to the government's budget, you shouldn't get a say in what gets done with it.
Can you even think of a better system? Not only would it discredit welfare leeches but it would encourage them to get jobs. No leftist party would ever win another election.
>inb4 get rid of democracy
Other urls found in this thread:
It used to be like that.
It's not anymore.
Democracies degenerate into communism.
There's no way back, something new will come afer the unevitable collapse.
Just hope for something hitleresque.
>implying government does what the public voted them in for
They do what jews, banks, and the most powerful businesses order them to do
>It used to be like that.
When/where? Maybe I'm just a dumbass but I'm drawing a blank here.
>Not only would it discredit welfare leeches but it would encourage them to get jobs.
I disagree, the middle class and rich would vote for more welfare so they could consolidate power.
Everywhere.
It used to be for large landowners, they kept lowering the bar and in the end even niggers could vote. At some point inbetween the electorate was formed mostly by net taxpayers.
It's so hard to figure out?
>The people statistically most likely to vote against more welfare will vote for more welfare
Wut?
>Everywhere.
More specific por favor.
USA, Canada, Spain, Portugal, France, UK, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland etc
Don't know about the others but that was never the case in the USA. Some former slave states imposed poll taxes after the civil war, but they were separate from income tax, so theoretically any nog could steal a dollar and register to vote. They were banned under the 24th Amendment in 1964.
I partly agree but think the Americans had it right in the beginning. I believe you should have to own land to vote. You have to own part of it to have a say in what happens. Otherwise you are just hanging out trying to get free stuff.
No, should be restricted to White male property owners.
Property meaning antique farm equipment.
government employees should also be excluded, and probably anyone else with lips on the state nipple
I can't think of that specific example but it used to be white land owners could only vote in USA, colonial era I believe.
I've always said there should be a basic "test" just basics of country and gov. - don't know shit about how shit works= no vote
That was never a federal law but some states had laws about property ownership. The last one to repeal it was North Carolina in 1856.
This is straining my memory, but I'm pretty sure I read that in America, early on, only white landowning men could vote.
it's stupid, that'd mean that the part of the population that has the bigger need for change would be denied to right to claim that change.
this, in addition to fulfilling military service.
Because if you vote for something, you have to be ready to fight for it.
>Wut?
If paying taxes is a requisite for voting then those who want to control the government will want to make sure the plebeian masses arn't able to vote. With that in mind they will create a welfare state in which economic mobility is very hard. You are drastically changing the system, yet think the behaviors will remain the same as they are now?
bad idea. you'd essentially be dooming the country to total corporate rule. Eventually they'd buy up all the land.
only letting people who pay taxes vote is probably good enough.
my dad told me about an idea he heard a while ago as an alternative. i thought it was pretty neat. each election season, the government would send out a check for 100 dollars to every eligible voter in america. then, on election day, you would need to forfeit the check in order to vote. would keep away niggers and people who can't plan ahead
So no one over 65 could vote since they are retired? Awsome!! No more rightwing oldfags voting republican!!!
Are you always this retarded?
You're saying the gubmint would try to keep everyone on welfare, paying literally 0 taxes, to suppress the voter population.
Where do I even start? It's not an issue of 'economic mobility', it boils down to "Hey, you paid us $821 in taxes because you work 8 hours a week at Taco Bell, here's your voter ID"
Youre correct
but its not like voting matters anyways
since the game is rigged from the start
It used to be only male property owners then it got all fucked up then women came along and fucked it up even more.
"egalitarianism" dictates that we are all the same and equal so everyone should have a say.
The problem with that is politicians can play on certain groups and pitch them against each other.
>tl;dr pure democracy doesn't work and it will destroy a nation.
>If paying taxes is a requisite for voting then those who want to control the government will want to make sure the plebeian masses arn't able to vote.
If they have to pay taxes to vote then the plebeian masses already can't. What part don't you get?
depending on what payed into the system is i would be for it
i would be fore just taking voting rights away from anyone not holding a job this would make it much easier to sort out as most people have crap jobs that get all they pay back giving you a net 0 payed in taxes
Just kick out the fucking kikes and non whites and ill take whatever kind of system you give me.
>pic related for actual answer
Just look at the stats. If only taxpayers could vote there wouldn't have been a democrat president since LBJ.
This doesn't seem like a bad idea at all, anyone collecting gibs is basically a second rank citizen whom should shut the fuck up; it would also massively decimate any migrant vote with all their under the table deals and whatnot.
What would be the argument, outside of "muh equality", that we shouldn't move to such a system?
Sometimes, the government proposed by Sup Forums is like the inverse of leftism - full of cuckoldry
>voting
>income tax
>hoping government will spend money on what they promise they will spend money on
Landowners having to play a role in the government is not the same thing as voting based on an income tax. I can't think of a place that does this - mostly because only cuck countries have income taxes, and those already extend voting rights to women and minorities.
If we're gonna have a democracy it should be restricted although I would prefer a monarchy.
>What would be the argument, outside of "muh equality", that we shouldn't move to such a system?
If you peruse this thread you'll see plenty of "muh whites". That's about it.
Voting should be restricted to married men with at least on child.
My liberal 'all white men are evil' government professor had us take a basic government quiz to see if we were smart enough to vote. The 3 guys in my class passed and every girl failed.
Kek
I'd sure like to see that test.
>Have to pay income tax to vote
Sorry but that can't happen in the U.S because it would be a poll tax.
Try again or get a new amendment.
Can you actually post a picture of an attractive woman next time and not some pre op fuck boi? In as open minded as the next guy but I've reached my quota of cocks for today.
If you control the government, you can control the military, the regulations, you can control everything.
>If they have to pay taxes to vote then the plebeian masses already can't. What part don't you get?
If they implement a system in which economic mobility upwards is easy, then more and more people would start earning enough to be able to vote. In that sense, the rich would prefer to have a welfare state that discourages the poor from working and earning enough to pay taxes and being able to vote.
Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.
Thomas Jefferson
this stresses the need for educashion not indoctronation in school not that we need a dictator like little kim or Nicolás Maduro
It's a start, but you're missing the more important restrictions
>No shitskins
>No women
If the work for their money then people are more likely to sympathize with the elite's values, and thus vote like them. Besides, do you think they'd rather have the poor people working in their shops and factories generating revenue, or literally eating their income on welfare?
