WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.If you don't pay Federal Income Taxes, you should not be able to vote in National elections.
If you don't pay Federal Income taxes, you should not be allowed to vote in National elections.
If you don't pay State Income Taxes, you should not be allowed to vote in State elections.
If your NET liability is ZERO....you can't VOTE!
This is not a difficult concept.
Indeed, it's the concept on which this country was established.
You don't get to decide who pays how much in taxes, what it goes for, and to whom... if it ain't your money.
I want to start a movement.
'Course, since almost 50% of "citizens" are getting a free ride...I guess the chances of it passing if put to a vote are pretty slim.
Maybe we need to create a new country on the original American principles...and keep the parasites, zombies and vampires out this time.
I'm working full time trying to "save the country", but sometimes I lose faith that it can be done. And statistics like these add to my pessimism.
"Voter" doesn't mean anything anymore. It certainly doesn't mean "Citizen". And now it doesn't even mean "Taxpayer".
The Gunslinger
Vampire/Zombie Hunter
Ooh... while I definitely understand the sentiment... no... the anger, because I feel it too... I'm not so sure making voting tied to paying taxes, is a good Idea. No, I'll take the mush out of that, tying voting to paying taxes would be a bad and dangerous thing to do.
ReplyDeleteRemove your Patriot hat for a moment, and don a proregressive thinking cap, and I'm sure you could think of zillions of ways with which to turn such a development, along with the ability to determine who would be 'allowed' to pay taxes, or who was loop-holed out of it, and which taxes would qualify... that would be a proregressive's wet dream.
What DID used to be the case, at the beginning, in each of the States, was a property qualification - you had to have attained a minimum threshold of property, indicating a sober amount of ties and responsibilities in the community and so a direct interest in seeing that government remained good government, government which was respective of, and diligent in respecting the property rights of its citizens.
Guess which measures were among the very, very first targets of early proregressives? Yep, striking all property qualifications for the constitutions of the States.
Now THAT would be a movement I'd be happy to get behind, if you have no material stake in the operations of government, no stake is seeing that the government respects the property rights of the people, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE!
PERIOD.
Eliminate the freeloaders from the roles of voters, and they would no longer be pandered to.
And no, to the cap'n obvious troll's lurking out there, I would not fear those with property manipulating those same qualifications, this time for property, rather than taxes, for voting... and even if it was used nefariously, I'd less fear that than when the indolent and unproductive think they can use their vote to pick the pockets of others - as we are beginning to experience now.
John Adams put it when considering what would happen to a society whose property laws were dropped,
""...Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."
"
Anyone getting any deja-vu over any part of that?
I'd considered that, actually. At the time, property owners paid the taxes. There was no income tax. But today you can be a responsible, contributing, taxpaying member of society without owning real estate.
ReplyDeleteNo. I don't think that'd work anymore.
Of course for my idea to work at the Federal level, you'd have to reform the tax code. By which I mean simplify it with a flat tax. Anyone who gets a paycheck pays. Anyone who gets welfare, or doesn't work, doesn't pay, and doesn't vote. Simple.
(Actually, I'd like to make it so that anyone who gets paid with taxpayer's money...like gummint workers, can't vote either - conflict of interest!)
"But today you can be a responsible, contributing, taxpaying member of society without owning real estate."
ReplyDeleteOh, I didn't mean to limit it to Real Estate, merely some significant amount of property (in it's general sense) which gave you a stake in the community, state, nation.
"(Actually, I'd like to make it so that anyone who gets paid with taxpayer's money...like gummint workers, can't vote either - conflict of interest!) "
Hmmm... that leans more into the doable realm I think... still... when you've got a Supreme Court which will consider a family raising their own corn to feed themselves as affecting having a significant affect on inter-state commerce... it's open to manipulation... but that's probably true of anything, no matter how clear and true, to a corrupt person/group.
G'night Gunny.
"But today you can be a responsible, contributing, taxpaying member of society without owning real estate."
ReplyDeleteOh, I didn't mean to limit it to Real Estate, merely some significant amount of property (in it's general sense) which gave you a stake in the community, state, nation.
"(Actually, I'd like to make it so that anyone who gets paid with taxpayer's money...like gummint workers, can't vote either - conflict of interest!) "
Hmmm... that leans more into the doable realm I think... still... when you've got a Supreme Court which will consider a family raising their own corn to feed themselves as affecting having a significant affect on inter-state commerce... it's open to manipulation... but that's probably true of anything, no matter how clear and true, to a corrupt person/group.
G'night Gunny.
I'm not sure I agree entirely. I certainly support the principle behind the issue but case in point:
ReplyDeleteDec 2008 I lost my job. Applied for unemployment (single income, stay at home wife with 1 child and a second on the way) before my unemployment was approved I found work. Albeit sub-contract work at a pay rate that was below what we needed to pay all our bills without dipping into savings. None the less I took the work and did not pursue the unemployment any further. Finally found work in April of 2009 and proceeded to put in 55+ hours a week from then on. When we filed our taxes this year we got a net return of $5K (counting state and federal) due to my subcontract work driving my income low and being able to claim my mileage for that time as well as having 2 kids.
Now, I paid all my taxes throughout the year so it's not like I'm not paying taxes at all, I got a return because that's the way that the system is set up. Should there be some form of tax reform? Absolutely. Should freeloaders and bums be allowed to vote? I don't think so but that would technically cover my wife then since she doesn't work outside the home and has no taxable income.
Gunslinger, Glenn Reynolds recently posted a comment on this subject stating,
ReplyDelete"I think that everyone who votes should pay income tax. And the amount should go up and down with federal spending."
To which I responded, in this post,
"I do not vote. Does that mean I do not have to pay income tax, Glenn?"
Voting, I think, is what has gotten America into the current predicament, politically and economically, it suffers under.
No matter an individual's political persuasion, when they mark that ballot, they are implicitly acquiescing to the use of the government's monopoly on force to further their own personal particular political dogma. The State has become their own personal agent.
If I do not vote, should I have to pay taxes?
Well now, that depends...
ReplyDelete...Do you use paved roads? Street lights? Do you get mail? Does the Military defend you or just taxpayers? Can you call a cop? Do your children go to public school? Does your County have a Sheriff, a jail, a courthouse, signal lights, stop signs, cross walks...?
Do you eat food (FDA)? Do you listen to the radio or watch TV (FCC)? Do you fly (FAA)? Do you drive (DMV)?
etc. etc. etc.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with all these gummint agencies and their level of control, but as it stands right now if you're not paying taxes...dude, you're freeloading.
I would agree with your comment on voting. I don't think a competency test or poll tax is a bad thing. But like Van might say..."in a perfect world". Think how that could be manipulated by malefactors.
But our nation wasn't set up for the rabble to vote...by rabble I mean the stupid, the ignorant, those who are easily led by demagogues because they don't pay attention or care, or who have no stake in the consequences.
I'd like to see some sort of limitation on who can vote. I just don't know how to do it. Basing it on tax paying seemed like the most straightforward and fair. That way, even the "poor" will think twice about voting for tax increases "for the rich"...because with a flat tax...their taxes will go up the same percentage.
They might go ahead and do it believing that the benefits outweigh the costs, but that's what all taxpayers do - make choices.
Otherwise, it's just theft.
Anonymous, I get your point. And I haven't, like, written the bill and covered all contingencies.
ReplyDeleteFirst: I think married couples' (MARRIED COUPLES!) income belong to them both. Therefore they both pay the taxes, therefore they can both vote. That was easy.
My system is contingent on a flat tax. Which you would have paid even though your income went down. I would have been a smaller amount...but it would have been SOMETHING...which makes you eligible to vote.
Call it: "The Widow's Mite Tax Plan".
Make that "It" would have been a smaller amount.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem is that the actual rich... 100's of millions of dollars... usually don't earn income, they don't work. They have investments, manage properties, etc, but don't earn an income.
ReplyDeleteWhich is one of the biggest jokes about 'soaking the rich' through income tax... they aren't getting at the real rich, only those still ramping up, still building businesses, etc.
And I certainly don't begrudge the super rich for escaping the Income Tax, good for them - but basing any form of citizenship on taxes, would be, I think, a very bad thing indeed.
Not to mention the fact that an Income Tax is merely slavery decked out in legislative finery - you can't base Rights or the participation in exercising your Rights, on something that at root negates the Rights of everyone.
But that's another storm of words all it's own.
@gunslinger, well said. I couldn't agree more. Sorry I didn't realize I wasn't logged in when I posted my earlier comment hence the anonymous posting above.
ReplyDelete...if you're not paying taxes...dude, you're freeloading.
ReplyDeleteI definitely am not a freeloader, forking over the demanded portion of my earnings while looking straight down the barrel of the IRS's guns.
But our nation wasn't set up for the rabble to vote...by rabble I mean the stupid, the ignorant, those who are easily led by demagogues because they don't pay attention or care, or who have no stake in the consequences.
I'd like to see some sort of limitation on who can vote. I just don't know how to do it.
I understand, but that is how democracy is designed to work. As Alexander Tytler said,
“A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship”
Voting, I think, is going to fail America, and a more voluntary system of societal cooperation must be instituted. This needed change will be difficult, at times chaotic, but it can only occur if individuals voluntarily agree to the change needed.
I don't have all the answers as to how to make this happen, but I am doing all I can, voluntarily, to make it happen. I won't vote on it.
John Venlet said "I understand, but that is how democracy is designed to work. As Alexander Tytler said, “A democracy is always temporary in nature; "
ReplyDeleteI understand that, but we are NOT a democracy, we were not designed to be a democracy, we are, and were designed to be, a Constitutional Representative Republic, wherein some of those representatives, are democratically elected. As Madison said,
“…a pure Democracy, by which I mean, a Society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.”:
I do not agree that any rights whatsoever should be tied to taxation, with that in mind however, your comment,
"Voting, I think, is going to fail America, and a more voluntary system of societal cooperation must be instituted."
is even worse. If I'm correct in detecting the ring of some variety of anarcho-whatever-ism that you've got in mind, I can only say that it ends in a Hobbesian state of nature "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", and eventually, after untold bloodshed, a Hobbesian State, where the Sovereign is all powerful, and no Rights exist but what he divines to be useful.
There is no surer prescription for the complete loss of liberty, than a Rothbardian form of libertarianism.
And it isn't 'Voting' that has failed America, it is Americans that have. Americans who have allowed themselves to forget the meaning of their Constitution, and why it is the greatest political document ever written. I don't have all the answers either, but knowing the next guy, I'm pretty sure I'm closer to getting them than he is, and IMHO, I think the road goes through the repeal of the 17th amendment, and the 16th amendment, and then, bit by bit, nearly all of the legislative output of the 20th & 21st century.
But before that will ever have a shred of hope of coming to pass, the people will once again need to understand what Madison meant when he said the above comment, and why, without that - all actions will be defensive and will ultimately fail. It all begins with We The People.
All those people who aren't paying income tax ARE paying second hand.That rich guy's high income came from selling product or service.Tax the grocer raises the price of groceries.Tax the grocer, his customers can afford it;tax the landlord, his tenants can afford it.Tax Walmart $100,000 and 100,000 people pay a dollar more to shop.
ReplyDeletekermitt
I understand that, but we are NOT a democracy, we were not designed to be a democracy, we are, and were designed to be, a Constitutional Representative Republic...
ReplyDeleteVan,
America was designed to be a Constitutional Representative Republic, but today America is far from that. I don't think America can be voted back to that state of being, as is evidenced by the results of the voting over the past 5, 6, or 8 decades. I still think voting has abjectly failed America.
If I'm correct in detecting the ring of some variety of anarcho-whatever-ism that you've got in mind, I can only say that it ends in a Hobbesian state of nature "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", and eventually, after untold bloodshed, a Hobbesian State, where the Sovereign is all powerful, and no Rights exist but what he divines to be useful.
While I appreciate your stated concerns regarding a more voluntary, "anarcho," system of societal cooperation, I think, but have no empirical evidence to support my thought, that a more voluntary system of societal cooperation can be instituted without your stated concern becoming fact.
I think the percentage of individuals who actually would be, or are, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish," is rather low, just as the percentage of individuals who are actually criminal is rather low.
Voluntary cooperation between individuals must start somewhere, no matter how small.
I think you, I, Gunslinger, and other individuals are standing at the same barricade attempting to restore liberty and freedom in America, even though our weapons of choice may differ.
This problem is like trying to unravel the Gordian Knot. Some say Alexander the Great cheated, but he did fulfil the prophecy.
ReplyDeleteThe thin veneer we call our republic is now a crepe paper disguise for a democracy. Our politicians don't care about the Constitution. Joe Wilson, who famously identified 0bama for what he is, was asked if Congress should be concerned about the Constitutionality of the laws it passes. His answer was that was the courts job. I'll bet his answer would reverberate with every Democrat and too many Republicans. If you want to stay in office, practice democracy, Constitution be damned; that's what Congress is saying.
I know I'm not directly addressing the points made by GS's and others in this post, but it's all part of that Gordian Knot. Most of the issue of who should vote, who should pay taxes, how much and how we should pay them would be much less significant if the government only spent what it is Constitutionally permitted to spend.
Every suggestion I have read here, save a flat tax, would require some form of Constitutional amendment, and that ain't gonna happen. Can we save our republic? You can't save what you no longer have.
Am I a doom-and-gloomer? On the life cycle of a democracy, I'm a historian. When Joe Wilson and Barney Frank share identical views on the responsibility of Congress to the Constitution, it's over folks. What to do? Where did Alexander leave his sword?
Actually, I think the whole problem is the monstrous government we've allowed to grow.
ReplyDeleteIf we had a Republic that ran according to, I don't know, the Constitution of the United States, for example, the government would be too small and powerless to bother bribing and trying to influence.
Criminals would stop running for office.
Lobbyists would stop paying for "influence".
Parasites couldn't make slaves of tax-payers.
And taxes would be a LOT lower.
Campaigns would be cheap.
Concerned citizens would run.
And then go home.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is what the Federal Government is allowed to do. Now, compare that to what it's actually doing.
You cut their power and influence to Constitutional limits, and you've got Freedom, and almost every problem we've got evaporates immediately.
How we do it is another question of course. But if we don't, it will only get worse.
We are already unrecognizable Constitutionally. We have allowed the government of both parties to trample, ignore and violate the Constitution for decades.
And the current montrosity is what we get for our lack of vigilance.
No one to blame but ourselves...and the inattentive idiots who came before us.
trubolotta...Well, when I started my comment, I hadn't seen yours yet...I needn't have bothered. I see we pretty much have the same take on things.
ReplyDeleteOnly..I prefer to believe it's salvageable...(even if it means secession by Constitutional loyalists. Which I consider the very last, dire, extreme resort.)
To Gunslinger, John and Trubolotta, it is a massive mess... which means of course that I can't squeeze a reply into even two or three comments, it's grown into a post (yet to be posted), but the title I think could have been a rare brief comment from me all it's own.
ReplyDelete"No Representation Without Taxation!... Ye...(blink)... WTF?!"
Coming to a post near me, probably tomorrow.
That's a pretty good summation! Because really that and its inverse original are the same thing...
ReplyDelete...because as soon as the non-taxpaying voters outnumber the taxpaying ones...we will, in fact, be back to "Taxation without Representation".
On the one hand, yeah, we've got congresscritters who think like this genius from across the river, Rep. Hare (D), who wouldn't care for or know the constitution from an intuition, but on the other hand, and why I don't see the inevitability of a historical repeat, is that we've got people, very many people, more each day, who are like this guy who embarrassed the hell out of Rep. LoBiondo (r) at his townhall. They don't give a rats ass whether you've got an 'r' or a 'D' or an 'I' after your name (or their own), if you don't care about the constitution, they're coming for you.
ReplyDeleteWe're teaching classes weekly on what the constitution is and means, and people are showing up for them, young and old, and talking afterwards with their friends, etc.
Are the odds against us? Sure they are. Are they as stacked against us as the were for us in 1776? If you think so, then you're a girly man! We've already got the constitution we want in place, we've already got the right to peacably assemble and demonstrate and challenge our elected officials. We've got easy, easy access to every bit of wisdom and argument to refute our enemies as we could ever hope to have.
And just what do you think is the big deal about constitutional amendments? Do realize how many were passed in just the last 100 years? Gimme a break.
All we have to do, at the risk of getting all Nike on you, is to just do it!
Gunslinger said "Because really that and its inverse original are the same thing...
...because as soon as the non-taxpaying voters outnumber the taxpaying ones...we will, in fact, be back to "Taxation without Representation"."
(Ok... stop reading over my shoulder)
"No Representation Without Taxation!... Ye...(blink)... WTF?!"
ReplyDeleteVan, will that post be posted here, or somewhere else? I'd like to read it.
Thanks, John.
I'm guessing that Van's post was directed at me. I'll have to respond in two parts due to time constraints.
ReplyDeletePrior to 1776, the American colonists fought a war of words against the greatest empire on earth. King George and the British Parliament, seeing the wisdom of those words, gave the colonies representation to participate in the process of formulating the laws under which they would live. Of course it never happened and someone had to fire that first shot heard around the world.
India's quest for independence from Britain began with a war of words and again the British Parliament granted them representation. But that never happened. Britain responded to civil disobedience with violence and Indian patriots were killed, maimed or jailed. That brought the British people and Parliament to their senses in granting India independence.
Blacks in the south fought a war of words to gain the right to vote. Southern states dropped their dual standard literacy tests to give blacks a fair opportunity to qualify to vote. That didn't happen either but blacks did get to vote after the conscience of a nation was awakened by the brutal response to civil disobedience.
In each case, the girly men were still talking while real men (and women) put life, limb and property at risk.
Did words stop Congress from passing ObamaCare? Did words stop Obama from signing ObamaCare? Will words stop Obama from granting illegal aliens amnesty? Will words stop Congress from granting them citizenship? If I were Pollyana, I might answer yes, but Pollyana I am not.
Yes, fight the war of words but at some point those words must have more substance than that of wind passing over your vocal chords, ink stains on paper or bits mapped to a computer screen. Thomas Paine didn't write "wouldn't it be nice if ..."
Part 2 to follow.
Yep, pretty much what I anticipated Turbolotta - that's not a meant as a dismissal or that it isn't worthy of consideration - just that based on previous exchanges we've had... it follows, and am responding... perhaps as you'd anticipate... perhaps not... asap.
ReplyDelete"And just what do you think is the big deal about constitutional amendments? Do realize how many were passed in just the last 100 years? Gimme a break." - Van
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that was an issue I raised. I'm not vain, just attentive and will respond to your claim.
Trubolotta said "I'm not vain"
ReplyDeleteHonest, I really didn't mean that, just a goofy ADD moment quip that came to mind. We disagree on some fundamentals, but I do enjoy our exchanges and respect your positions - they always help me to sharpen mine, and that is something which I consider to be invaluable.
I just want to return to the main point of this thread very briefly. I don't think we will see voter reform but it is a topic worthy of discussion.
ReplyDeleteMost young soldiers neither pay taxes nor own property because we don't pay them enough. They can't vote? If you are unemployed and can't pay taxes, you can't vote? If you lost your property in a divorce, or a court judgment, or a foreclosure, no vote for you? Too many loopholes to close and loopholes simply make for mischief.
If the purpose of government is to secure the blessings of liberty, then everyone has a stake in the leadership of that government and should have a say. The fact our government is corrupt doesn't change that.
If you want to talk about qualifications (age, literacy, etc.), that's a different matter.
Here it is, sorry so late... new toy came two days early. Windows 7, dual monitor developer box... very sparkly... and filled with lots of new glitches and annoyances to enjoy disliking.
ReplyDeleteNo Representation Without Taxation!... Yea...(blink)... WTF?!
... should be enough to annoy everyone.
Well done Van. Naturally, I may have a few disagreements, but the limelight is yours.
ReplyDeleteJust one point. The original Boston Tea Party was not violent in the sense there was any fighting. It could be properly called a Tax Revolt and demonstrates that a revolution does not have to employ violence.
Trubolotta said "The original Boston Tea Party was not violent in the sense there was any fighting. It could be properly called a Tax Revolt and demonstrates that a revolution does not have to employ violence."
ReplyDeleteDefinitely. In fact what most differentiates the Tea Party protests, then and now, from the leftist protests, such as the typical WTO excuse for riots and car burnings, are shown by this snippet from Hewes account, that they were making a protest, and any who attempted to snatch any of the bay bound tea for their personal use, were set straight quickly,
"One Captain O'Connor, whom I well knew, came on board for that purpose, and when he supposed he was not noticed, filled his pockets, and also the lining of his coat. But I had detected him and gave information to the captain of what he was doing. We were ordered to take him into custody, and just as he was stepping from the vessel, I seized him by the skirt of his coat, and in attempting to pull him back, I tore it off; but, springing forward, by a rapid effort he made his escape. He had, however, to run a gauntlet through the crowd upon the wharf nine each one, as he passed, giving him a kick or a stroke. "
They weren't there to make a disturbance, they weren't there to cause any one or business any harm, as astounding a thought it might be to lefty protestors, Tea Party Patriots were (and still are) driven by principle and brook no hooliganism. I've yet to see the leftie protest that didn't at the very least leave behind heaps of trash, probably some graffiti and quite possibly extensive damage to the grounds and surrounding businesses. By contrast, at our last Tea Party in St. Louis (as well as with previous ones), the Parks Ranger told us "Please come back again, it's cleaner now than it was before ya'll came."
It is my fervent hope that things remain so, and that we will never see a historically updated Lexington. I know there are a bunch of lefties intent on blending in with us this Tax Day, to try and defame us and cause a disturbance... I suspect the bolts through their noses and lips will make them stand out somewhat so we can steer them clear of us... but wish us luck.