I'm a dittohead to what Humdeedeed said 3 comments below. I'd be for it so long as they could no longer vote. The corollary to the proto-communists like John Adams' and George Washington's mantra ("No taxation without representation") is "No representation without taxation."
When I was a kid, my father bought me a little red wagon for my birthday. I was thrilled.
Father told me to watch how many of my friends wanted to PULL the wagon as opposed to how many of them wanted to RIDE in the wagon and that this would help teach me what is wrong with democracy.
I 100% agree with, "No representation without taxation." I've written articles saying that if you don't pay income taxes or capital gains taxes (with a few exceptions,) you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Only People That Pay Income Tax or the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Able to Vote
Mr. Hawkins: I have other prerequisites to the right to vote, some of which would be offensive to many people even here so I will not divulge them.
But there is one idea on restriction of the franchise that I have publicly advocated. Vice President J. D. Vance has also publicly mentioned it and I flatter myself that there is a slender chance that he somehow saw some talk of mine online and I planted a seed in his mind. Probably not.
Whatever the facts of the matter on that, here is my idea:
I do not think that people should vote who do not have a stake in public matters. If you have no skin in the game, you shouldn't be allowed to play.
I have already stated my position that if there is to be an exemption on 50% of the people from the income tax, they should not vote because they are not paying into the system.
I also believe that only people who have a genetic investment in the future should vote.
A study awhile back revealed that only ONE head of State in the European members of NATO had a child. The vast majority were CHILDLESS.
My thought is that only married men who have never been divorced and who are the fathers of legitimate children should vote.
Childless people - and I am childless myself - should not have a say in government policies that will shape the future.
Sometimes people have expressed astonishment that on this issue (and on others) I would propose qualifications for voters that would mean I could not vote.
I am surprised at the way such people think.
I tell them what seems to me to be a very reasonable idea:
That I would not mind at all not being able to vote if it meant that I was going to be governed by my superiors.
Equally, I do not want to be ruled either by people inferior to me or my equals.
I’m all for it IF the bottom half don’t get to vote. As you said, that will never happen, which is really just too bad. There are a huge number of people in this country who should NOT have the privilege of voting.
Phew! The entire time I was reading the article I kept thinking that “this is a terrible idea” because the people who don’t pay taxes can vote to increase spending on w whine else. Glad we ended up in agreement!
It seems like this is one of those "looks really good on paper" ideas that resurface every decade or so. Indeed IIRC this was the reasoning behind the so-called "zero bracket" which was in the tax schedule during a good chunk of the Reagan administration and beyond (dunno if it's still around but without indexing it becomes less useful).
Also--even if this was a great idea--shouldn't we then revisit the EITC? That's a so-called "reimbursable tax credit," meaning you get it whether or not you paid sufficient taxes to offset it--or indeed any tax at all.
Of course, the EITC was a "back-door" way of bringing in what was called in the 1960s and 1970s a "negative income tax," intended--as the EITC does--to provide a modest sum of money to the poorest in society. Or, as we'd call it nowadays, a "Universal Basic Income."
So even if we thought this wouldn't create perverse incentives--it would certainly exacerbate the "tax cliff" problem--it would have to be considered in a larger context.
Me-if we're going to fiddle with the income tax at all--I think we should have a flat tax with a large carve-out: I haven't run the numbers, but something like a flat rate of 30 percent on all income above $30k/yr.
I'm a dittohead to what Humdeedeed said 3 comments below. I'd be for it so long as they could no longer vote. The corollary to the proto-communists like John Adams' and George Washington's mantra ("No taxation without representation") is "No representation without taxation."
When I was a kid, my father bought me a little red wagon for my birthday. I was thrilled.
Father told me to watch how many of my friends wanted to PULL the wagon as opposed to how many of them wanted to RIDE in the wagon and that this would help teach me what is wrong with democracy.
I 100% agree with, "No representation without taxation." I've written articles saying that if you don't pay income taxes or capital gains taxes (with a few exceptions,) you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Only People That Pay Income Tax or the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Able to Vote
https://www.culturcidal.com/p/only-people-that-pay-income-tax-or?utm_source=publication-search
Mr. Hawkins: I have other prerequisites to the right to vote, some of which would be offensive to many people even here so I will not divulge them.
But there is one idea on restriction of the franchise that I have publicly advocated. Vice President J. D. Vance has also publicly mentioned it and I flatter myself that there is a slender chance that he somehow saw some talk of mine online and I planted a seed in his mind. Probably not.
Whatever the facts of the matter on that, here is my idea:
I do not think that people should vote who do not have a stake in public matters. If you have no skin in the game, you shouldn't be allowed to play.
I have already stated my position that if there is to be an exemption on 50% of the people from the income tax, they should not vote because they are not paying into the system.
I also believe that only people who have a genetic investment in the future should vote.
A study awhile back revealed that only ONE head of State in the European members of NATO had a child. The vast majority were CHILDLESS.
My thought is that only married men who have never been divorced and who are the fathers of legitimate children should vote.
Childless people - and I am childless myself - should not have a say in government policies that will shape the future.
Sometimes people have expressed astonishment that on this issue (and on others) I would propose qualifications for voters that would mean I could not vote.
I am surprised at the way such people think.
I tell them what seems to me to be a very reasonable idea:
That I would not mind at all not being able to vote if it meant that I was going to be governed by my superiors.
Equally, I do not want to be ruled either by people inferior to me or my equals.
I want a society run by my betters.
I’m all for it IF the bottom half don’t get to vote. As you said, that will never happen, which is really just too bad. There are a huge number of people in this country who should NOT have the privilege of voting.
Phew! The entire time I was reading the article I kept thinking that “this is a terrible idea” because the people who don’t pay taxes can vote to increase spending on w whine else. Glad we ended up in agreement!
It seems like this is one of those "looks really good on paper" ideas that resurface every decade or so. Indeed IIRC this was the reasoning behind the so-called "zero bracket" which was in the tax schedule during a good chunk of the Reagan administration and beyond (dunno if it's still around but without indexing it becomes less useful).
Also--even if this was a great idea--shouldn't we then revisit the EITC? That's a so-called "reimbursable tax credit," meaning you get it whether or not you paid sufficient taxes to offset it--or indeed any tax at all.
Of course, the EITC was a "back-door" way of bringing in what was called in the 1960s and 1970s a "negative income tax," intended--as the EITC does--to provide a modest sum of money to the poorest in society. Or, as we'd call it nowadays, a "Universal Basic Income."
So even if we thought this wouldn't create perverse incentives--it would certainly exacerbate the "tax cliff" problem--it would have to be considered in a larger context.
Me-if we're going to fiddle with the income tax at all--I think we should have a flat tax with a large carve-out: I haven't run the numbers, but something like a flat rate of 30 percent on all income above $30k/yr.