What if only taxpayers could vote?

What if only taxpayers could vote?

REALLY MAKES YOU THINK

Other urls found in this thread:

davidmcelroy.org/?p=17337
dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/11-things-you-didnt-know-you-could-buy-with-food-stamps/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

why in the fuck are non-taxpayers allowed to vote? thats so fucking dumb.

source on this, seems fake
also unless your state has no sales tax, everyone pays taxes

Actually, I do not see how a country can allow those that have no stake in said country the right to vote.

pros: it makes the country wealthier and policies more informed.

cons: it's offensive and hurts people's feelings

There are people who pay no income tax bcuz they have no income.

A beautiful example is your country and half of its citizens :^)

Thought provoking

Blame women getting the vote.

Pretty sure before that happened it was mostly only taxpayers voting by default anyway.

Source on this...

CNN 2012

Yes. Lefty friend. IS MOTHERFUCKING CNN.

> subtracting voters who pay no income taxes, Barack Obama would have won only 11 states. Instead of 332 electoral votes, he would have had only 97 electoral votes. (Click the map for a bigger copy.) Mitt Romney would have beaten him by a margin of 4.5 to 1 in electoral votes. It would have been a blowout win for the Republicans.

davidmcelroy.org/?p=17337

Federal taxes, you mong. Here's your (You).

...

Suddenly, taxes don't seem so bad..

Oh, forgot to say. I found this pic for the first time this morning.

Black Pigeon Speaks tweeted it this morning.

Isn't that julio Iglesias m8

and el cordobés

Absolutely this.
In my belief it would be by far the fairest system for deciding who governs the country. it is clear from the growing size of the welfare state within the last 50 years that the scroungers will only vote for their own interests. The problem with this being that any party, that wants to win power will have to appeal directly to the least productive members of society to stand a chance at gaining office. Everything wrong with western countries can be traced back to the creation of the welfare state and the governments attempts at keeping up with more and more flamboyant promises in exchange for votes.

There's more taxes then just income

What if Spain had an elected government. Really makes you think

The person who sells you stuff is the one paying the tax (you don't fill a tax report and fill in a bracket of VAT, he does -> you do not pay the tax).

Taxes on KFC and malt liquor don't count when the funds buying them are paid for entirely by other taxpayers.

They charge the actual money on the sales who does the paperwork is irrelevant.

Yeah you can totally buy prepared food and alcohol with ebt... Oh wait.

Pure coincidence.

You do realize all those States are the ones that actually pay taxes v. the brokeass south and mountain states, right?

dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/11-things-you-didnt-know-you-could-buy-with-food-stamps/
Really makes you think.

Blaming female voters for the choices will not help you lose your virginity, OP.

...

fuck that map dude, in connecticut we pay some of the highest taxes by far

Is it the same in other countries? how is nobody talking about it?

State taxes arent the same as federal

I

>Lazy people vote for more gibs
>Actual productive people vote for less gibs

jeez who'd have thought

Thanks for correcting the record

Good, that way old people don't get to vote either.

>vote to give nigs in the south mo food stamps
>call Southerners racists for not wanting it
>pretend it's white Southerners as opposed to the niggers taking it
Stop voting for higher taxes if you don't like them.
Is it really that surprising that the people that live on welfare are more likely to vote for it than those that don't?
This is shit that everyone should have already known just put in map form to piss off leftycucks.

Get your shitty ad shill site outta here gonna give me a virus.

It's not but how are non-tax payers allowed to vote? why?

Does a democracy ever work in the long-term?

It's Rome all over again

This combination proves that there are very few 100% cucked states. Unfortunately I live in one of them.

Eat my ass!

What's the point in paying taxes if the roads have pot holes?

>not understanding food stamps
>not having adblock and noscript
Lefties truly are not very bright.

Here in the usa, everyone over the age of 18 has the right to vote. There is also that whole citizens only vote, but states like mine(California) do not require state ID in order to vote. So illegals and criminals vote too.

Because thats racist

In a vacuum a state will evolve from anarchy to democracy to despotism cyclically until the end of time

BECAUSE EVERY RETARD THAT PASSES OVER 18 SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE, until we decrease the age some more.
ARE YOU SOME KIND OF RACIST NAZI BIGOT?

kek cue the excuses. I can't wait to taste your faggot tears in november trumpshill.

>muh cyclical history
No other civilization in history had all the things we do and behaved the way we're doing.
History repeats itself, but the world changes and moves forward, don't think you can just apply what happened 1,000 years ago to what happened now because "human's don't change".
The world has changed too much for that nonsense.

>excuses
That's for a bad thing, losing a popularity contest because parasites won't vote for you isn't bad.
It's just a fact that your sides garbage might outnumber the side with less garbage.
But congratulations the world might get worse I guess.

I understand food stamps. I'm on my phone so no pop up blocker but beyond that you don't understand foodstamps and believe any nonsense you read on nonsense website which is quite sad

>if I don't like the facts they're not real
Okay dude.
>I understand food stamps
Please, talk about your extensive experience.

It's a theory I was first made aware of through Machiavelli. It has the "in a vacuum" caveat but if you look historically this still holds fairly true with variables like strength of constitutions and moral fortitude of a society deciding how quickly the evolutions happen. What happens is that initially the democracy is good and strong but that over time moral decay, greed and a general slowing of class mobility lead the masses to elect a strong leader who promises to put the wealthy in their place in exchange for the low low price of undying fealty to paid out over all generations of your family. But that despotic arrangement only lasts as long as the despot can steal from the wealthy and give to the poor. Now the new rich are his friends and the new poor are his enemies and the only way to sustain this is via brutality which can be pretty effective until the lower classes go into all out revolt. This essentially happened to Rome and almost all other states at sometime or another.

Lol facts you call it a fact therefore it is? Why can't we have a discussion about the veracity of the daily caller? Typical drumpf logic.

>why the fuck can women vote
>why can 18 year old idiotic children vote

The only people who Should be able to vote are property owners, I'll settle for taxpayers

And lastly I'll settle for men only

As the commies told us, socialism is the first step to communism

This was their fucking plan the Soviets laughed at us because we were already poisoned by their ideology and it would only be a matter of time before we fell

And history will prove you wrong

The means change, the tech changes, the possible specific events and outcomes may change but the basic pattern of civilization has always been the same across cultures, races, geography and technological power

No matter what kind of tech you have here are some things that won't change because we are human in the end

Do you believe that class mobility is important for a healthy democracy?

>wow, an actual good thread on 4/pol/

I believe the ancient greeks used to do this, but idk: only land-owning adults/men were allowed to vote and to participate in politics. Something similar should be applied today.

What does that have to do with voting?

You start as a poor tenant, cannot vote, become successful have property

Hey look now you can vote !

What's the problem, what does that have to do with social mobility

That's how it was in the us until 1920

Technology changes us, you idiot.

The very fact that feudalism died and was replaced by capitalism is proof that history is not cyclical. Do you even understand dialectics?

Okay, feudalism, palace econemy, empire, nation state

These are all social systems that have all come and will all go, you aren't proven your point at all.

The people didn't change, the means changes and thus the society changed

Yeah not believing this pic at all since the "source" is pretty shit, doesn't factor in housewives at home with kids, high schoolers that may mow lawns for pay under the table, etc.

My main problem with it is how Illinois magically becomes red. We'll elect a repub governor occasionally when we forget they're worse than the democrats, but otherwise no.

The OP's map is about people who pay federal income tax, not gender. Nor did he mention anything at all about sex.

Nice try faggot.

No it wasn't you retard unlanded white men had suffrage well before the civil war
Because it is difficult to get and electorate to vote for programs and people that will allow those from a lower class to compete for prosperity and this will greatly reduce said mobility

The problem is those fucking socialist programs you disgusting leech

KILL YOURSELF

"...I don’t edit old articles such as this one, because they were what I believed to be accurate when I wrote them, but I have finally discovered almost four years later that the source of this graphic was actually a Buzzfeed article about what the results would have been if only white people had voted..."

Oh, Sup Forums....

bump

We're talking about government not society. Democracy is not a society and true a society will inform a government but it only adds a unique flavor to the three archetypes we are talking about. They are not in and of themselves different governments. For example feudalism depending on the specific country you lived implemented varying degrees of democracy, autocracy, oligarchy, and theocracy.

Have you ever seen the electoral map of Illinois? The entire state is red except for Cook County and the boarder districts with Du Page. Then there is a tiny blue dot where St Louis is...

Illinois would be as reliably red as Texas if it werent for Cook County and specifically, Chicago. Pic related, it is Illinois in 2012

>high schoolers that may mow lawns for pay under the table, etc.

You would never earn enough money mowing lawns to pay federal income tax. People will full time jobs in some cases dont even pay taxes. In fact, nearly half of the country pays no federal income tax

Are you implying there are only three types of civilizations or societies?

Reality isn't a civ 4 game

Except the current programs weren't built to help the poor they were built to subsidize blind consumerism. I don't think our current programs are good but I don't think that a landed electorate will replace them with good ones or be a trustworthy electorate at all

You come off like a Marxist idiot

>also unless your state has no sales tax, everyone pays taxes

>Live entirely off welfare checks and food stamps
>Use that taxpayer money to pay the sales tax when buying something
>Look mom, I'm a taxpayer!

Did you even read my post?! Why are you trolling this poorly?

I'm not a Marxist. I'm a progressive Republican in the mold of teddy Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhower. My politics are very gray area and tend to lean towards pragmatism over any single ideology

>we are talking about government not society

1. Is there a difference really?

We are talking about technology changing society. An earlier user is claiming that the historical pattern of civilizations rising and falling cannot be applied to modern society because of "muh technology"

I disagree with that. I honestly am not sure what you are arguing other than you support he welfare state and universal suffrage, I disagree.

People that have no stake in the nation/society are more likely to vote on immediate benefit immediate personal gain vs the long term success of said society

It's a moral hazard

They are different. English society still exists even though it is now a parliamentary democracy where before it wasn't. Rome as a government fell but as a society it existed long after under various flags. Tbqh I don't think America is even a true democracy anymore at least on a macro level were pretty much a plutocracy which is pretty close to despotism. And the idea that there should be no social programs is just wrong. Doesn't mean I think ours are good but every successful government has had social programs of some kind since the founding of civilization. It's literally the reason why government exists in the first place.

This is a blatant lie. This is the electoral map if only White people could vote.

Sup Forumstards are so naive

Sup Forumstards are too stupid to question anything that confirms their own bias. It takes a 5 min google to find out it's fake.

Well, at least Sup Forumstaards are not as bad as /r9k/. It's something.

You are talking to Sup Forumstards. They only understand ideology

>trees and mountains should vote

What is your point? A countrymen from a city shouldn't be able to express his opinion on ballots?

No there are clear beginnings and ends to societies

If you want to get down to it no, there isn't a civilization follows by a gap and then some new isolated group pops up out of nowhere

If you start in Sumeria and follow it transitions from one to the next to the next

That doesn't change the fact that if you look at it at a macro level you can denote changes in civilization

There is a reason "Rome" and Byzantium are denoted secretly in history

There is a reason why British civilization (of which I consider America part of). Is not the same as the vying kingdoms of the dark ages

>Society
You keep using word but I do not think it means what you think it does. America is not a part of British society. Were not even their culture anymore just closely related.

>And the idea that there should be no social programs is just wrong. Doesn't mean I think ours are good but every successful government has had social programs of some kind since the founding of civilization. It's literally the reason why government exists in the first place.


The government exists to protect the nation against foreign powers and to enforce the law, protecting normal citizens from criminals and so on.

It can also manage critical infrastructure funded via taxes (water, roads, etc).

Having welfare programs is really quite low on the list of priorities as far as I'm concerned.

I.e. You used the equivocation fallacy because society and civilization are not synonyms in the English language and therefore shouldn't be used interchangeably as you did

>muh websters dictionary

Okay if your going to be petty and argue semantics I dot really feel like debating with you

I personally consider the modern western world to be a single civilization society out of Brittan solidifying in the 1500's and fairly consistent history and culture and social change from the late 1500's to today

Who said welfare? If you think the only way to lift people from poverty is throwing our spare change at them then you are wrong. I believe all education should be free, that our college system needs to be drastically streamlined so that trade schools take on the bulk of post prep students. Just an example.

>you consider
Who the fuck cares what you consider. Western Civilization and Anglo society and culture are not the same post 1500. Western civilization is a loose affiliation cultures that sprung forth from the ruins of the western roman empire. How dumb are you?