Federal Vote Reform? You vote according to taxes...

[August1991]

Deluded into thinking that money has intrinsic value. Money is an artificial creation - period.

You're wrong, Impact.

"Money" has an "intrinsic value". Like most commercial paper, money is a risky claim on something real.

[cybercoma]

Deluded into thinking that money has intrinsic value. Money is an artificial creation - period.

More like deluded into thinking that he'd be able to make any money whatsoever without the costly maintenance of a peaceful, orderly, healthy, educated, and just society. These nouveau libertarians are completely clueless about the value of society and all that goes into maintaining it for everyone's benefit. They're selfish and ignorant to the fact that their money is absolutely worthless in an orderless society.

[August1991]

But money doesnt disappear after its spent... it gets spend over and over again. Every penny in income assistance or social security winds up right back in the pockets of the middle and upper class, which is why its been so incredibly easy for them to grow their fortunes for the last 30 years and we have seen rapid concentration of wealth.

But money does disappear, when it returns to the Bank of Canada and the Bank burns it. (After all, the Bank can print as much as it wants... )

As to your idea of spending "over and over", [sarcasm]I've always wondered why governments don't send all the cheques to one address and then that guy could pass them to a neighbour. We could all be rich! (I was hoping that I'd be the first guy...)[/sarcasm]

====

dre, rather than Google "money". I suggest that you google "financial paper".

[Big Guy]

This whole thread is ridiculous.

The point of democracy is for the government to have consent of the governed. Just a tiny bit of reading on the history of political systems and how they emerged would save you all some time.

One Person = One Vote is essential to maintaining political stability.

And besides that, the current system gives the wealthy exactly what they want anyways. We have had a string of pro-business governments that have preserved private property rights, and created a system where its incredibly easy for someone with wealth to get more.

I agree. If we are prepared to step backwards on the evolution of society then we should be prepared for the consequences. If we have a minority with most of the money and the power (vote) then the majority will begin to take it away by force. A democracy keeps us from sliding back into the dark ages.

[SpankyMcFarland]

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”

― Winston S. Churchill

"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

• Often attributed to Winston Churchill ([11]). The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."
• Referenced in Swimming_with_Sharks (1994) as "if you're not a rebel by the age of 20, you got no heart, but if you haven't turned establishment by 30, you've got no brains."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations

Edited September 1, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[eyeball]

Show me an old lefty and I'll show you someone who's still trying to keep their principles where they belong; ahead of their heart, head, community, environment - even themselves.

Edited September 2, 2016 by eyeball

[August1991]

If we're posting inflammatory, asinine ideas, I'd rather go with vote power being determined by age.

18-24, little life experience and they're generally idiots - 1 vote

25-30, more educated, more experience, more responsiblity - 3 votes

31 - 45, prime years and still long life ahead - 5 votes

46 - 60, post prime and in decline but wise and still some life left - 3 votes

61 - 75, running out of time, typically selfish and cynical, won't experience the consequences of political actions - 2 votes

75+ - out of touch, hampering progress, will be long dead before the chickens come home to roost. - minus 1 vote to any candidate they choose.

What a thread!

====

Infammatory/asinine ideas? The most unsustainable system is "many" people (say, even, 30% of a population) giving/producing nothing yet deciding how to spend other people's money. No such system is going to work/exist for long. The other 70% will object or revolt.

Uh, maybe I'm wrong.

Edited September 2, 2016 by August1991

[Smoke]

Show me an old lefty and I'll show you someone who's still trying to keep their principles where they belong; ahead of their heart, head, community, environment - even themselves.

Show me an old lefty and I'll show you someone who has had a comfortable life living off someone else's money.

[dialamah]

No doubt. But there remains the issue of what happens as a growing percentage of the electorate can feel free to vote for any amount of government largess with the confidence that they will not be responsible for paying for it.

The Atlantic provinces are an excellent guide. You have four welfare provinces filled with people constantly looking for handouts, run by incompetent governments steering their provinces towards bankruptcy, going 100% for the politicians who promised them the most goodies. These people had zero interest in parties which promised to hold the line on taxes or balance the budget. Why would they care about such things? They wanted more spending on themselves, and that's why they voted Liberal.

I don't like governments who hold the line on taxes whilst the services I pay taxes for degrade. Taxes pay for a lot of things that I would like in my life - good roads, good elementary and high school education, good healthcare, good policing. In a world of always rising costs, you can't keep taxes low by degrading these kinds of services.

[dialamah]

Show me an old lefty and I'll show you someone who has had a comfortable life living off someone else's money.

Show me an old righty, and I'll show you someone who makes bullshit statements about people he knows nothing about.

I'm an old lefty and I'm scraping by - very few government 'handouts', liberal or conservative, have ever helped me - I'm in the unenviable position of not being poor enough to qualify, and not being rich enough to take advantage. Argus is an old rightie, and he's living off his gold-plated, federal public pension.

[Smoke]

So then you would like to see the provincial Liberals ousted as they have been de-listing healthcare services almost every year since McGuinty became premier.

[Guest]

Infammatory/asinine ideas? The most unsustainable system is "many" people (say, even, 30% of a population) giving/producing nothing yet deciding how to spend other people's money. No such system is going to work/exist for long. The other 70% will object or revolt.

Uh, maybe I'm wrong.

You are right that what we have is not sustainable, but backwards in your thinking. I'll reply to this the same way I did, last time you responded to the same comment:

The widening income gap due to our trade practices that have been responsible for reallocating middle class wealth, protections and benefits, to the upper class are not at all sustainable. Yet, you propose a voting system that would remove the little bit of political power the victims of our economic policies possess? I'd say your trickle down democracy idea is about as useful as the economic variety.

Local economies die when there is a lack of consumers; which, is what happens when we bleed the middle and lower classes dry. Higher compensations for the middle and lower classes feeds and grows the local economy giving the 1% a slightly narrower slice of a growing pie. Right now as we starve the majority the wealthy are grabbing a wider slice of a shrinking pie....which is not sustainable.

Your idea to deny the victims of bad economic policies a political voice will just seal the fate of the majority and the economy. The solution is economic policies which narrow the income gap, reducing the number of people who earn too little to pay taxes in the first place. Not only will they have "skin in the game" when they earn more, but everyone will benefit from the stronger economy. The wealthy benefit from more consumers, the majority benefit by meeting more of their needs, government benefits from increased tax dollars which in turn benefits the entire cycle through better investment in health, education, etc.

[dialamah]

So then you would like to see the provincial Liberals ousted as they have been de-listing healthcare services almost every year since McGuinty became premier.

I'm in BC, and I'd like to see the BC Liberals ousted.

[Argus]

So you want to steal food from children and limited income pensioners who built this country that you benefit from?

Where does the term 'steal' come from in this context?

[Argus]

I don't like governments who hold the line on taxes whilst the services I pay taxes for degrade. Taxes pay for a lot of things that I would like in my life - good roads, good elementary and high school education, good healthcare, good policing. In a world of always rising costs, you can't keep taxes low by degrading these kinds of services.

Most of the money governments spend are not on infrastructure. And even those that are are wasted. Education is good. Unfortunately, we don't have very good education. What we have instead are extremely well-paid teachers and administrators who have no incentive to improve things. Policing? Hundred thousand dollar a year cops. Healthcare? More overpriced employees and incompetent bureaucrats.

[Argus]

Your idea to deny the victims of bad economic policies a political voice will just seal the fate of the majority and the economy

But these are the people voting for those who implement bad economic policies.

[Machjo]

That's how my friend's condo association works. Indeed, her condo vote is based on how much she pays in condo fees.

If someone pays no taxes, why should that person have the right to vote? That's an invitation to use "other people's money".

From what I understand, about 30% of Canadians pay no tax at all (they're too poor). If the NDP/Trudeau Jnr Liberals want to spend more government money, these 30% of Canadians don't care.

IMHO, this system/State/Constitution/Supreme Court is not sustainable. Heck, even Canada is not sustainable.

It goes both says. Animols can't vote, but are also exempted from the law.

In other words, if the poor don't vote, they can freely crap in the park. After all, they didn't vote for the anti-crap laws, so why should they be subjected to them?

Now let's day a poor man decides to sell heroin out in the woods. Again, if he doesn't vite, then the law doesn't apply to him, right?

He'd be free to log on Crown land too since if the crown doesn't acknowledge his existence, same in reverse.

[Argus]

It goes both says. Animols can't vote, but are also exempted from the law.

In other words, if the poor don't vote, they can freely crap in the park. After all, they didn't vote for the anti-crap laws, so why should they be subjected to them?

If a dog bites me it gets put down. If it wanders where it's not wanted it gets arrested, and if nobody comes to get him it gets put down. If a bear wanders into human territory too much it gets put down.

Care to rethink this?

[dialamah]

So, if someone disagrees with you, you should take their voice away?

[The_Squid]

So, if someone disagrees with you, you should take their voice away?

That's what this amounts to.... as if the poorest of society hold all the political power! Yeah right.... to even think that shows a complete disconnect with the way things actually are in reality.

The right wingers can talk about these asinine ideas how one should only vote if they pay tax, blah, blah, blah.... When they know this would never fly in reality. Taking away voting rights because of a lack of money will obviously never happen. It's pure right-wing fantasy.

What right-wing fantasy topics allow these people to do is to bash the poor, but to do so in a more backhanded way... As if they have all done something wrong to be where they are in life. It allows a type of right wing fantasy circle jerk where they get to speculate on who should get what rights (in their ideal Canada) based on the amount of taxes they contribute... because, clearly, those other people are useless government teat-suckers.

[dialamah]

That's what this amounts to.... as if the poorest of society hold all the political power! Yeah right.... to even think that shows a complete disconnect with the way things actually are in reality.

The right wingers can talk about these asinine ideas how one should only vote if they pay tax, blah, blah, blah.... When they know this would never fly in reality. Taking away voting rights because of a lack of money will obviously never happen. It's pure right-wing fantasy.

On the documentary "Requiem for the American Dream" I watched over the weekend, Noam Chomsky made the claim that moving the society more toward "All for me, nothing for you" is exactly where those with money and power want to go. Taking away people's right to vote because they don't pay taxes fits right into that. Ultimately, he says this will destroy society, but in the meantime a few people get richer and more powerful. Not saying if he's right or wrong, because I don't know, but it's an interesting way of looking at what's happening with the alt-right.

[Argus]

On the documentary "Requiem for the American Dream" I watched over the weekend, Noam Chomsky made the claim that moving the society more toward "All for me, nothing for you" is exactly where those with money and power want to go. Taking away people's right to vote because they don't pay taxes fits right into that.

His complaint is backwards in this case. After all, aren't we complaining that the current system encourages that sort of voting on behalf of the poorer? The poorer elements of society have no incentive to vote what is best for the country as a whole. Their primary incentive is simply to vote for whomever promises them the most loot. When 50% of the population is responsible for only 4% of income taxes while the other 50% pays 96% that's produces a horribly lopsided electorate as far as what they're looking for in a government.

Democracy needs to provide good government. When it stops doing that because the electorate are stupid and lazy, or because the system has been designed to make selfishness pay off, then democracy fails and society fails.

And the fact is much of the electorate IS stupid and lazy. If you required anyone voting to take a half hour quiz - on the other side of the city - before being registered to vote more than half the eligible voters wouldn't bother. That's how important voting is to them. That's how much thought and effort they put into politics and keeping up with events so they actually have some idea what they're voting for.

Remember that Putin was voted in, originally, as was Erdogan in Turkey, as was that wack job in the Philippines, Duterte. Half the population in the US told a poll they think Trump is honest. How can that be!? Because they're not bothering to pay any attention to what's going on, don't read the news, don't watch the news, and just catch the occasional sound byte. They're too lazy to care. It's not much different in Canada.

[Bonam]

Remember that Putin was voted in, originally, as was Erdogan in Turkey, as was that wack job in the Philippines, Duterte. Half the population in the US told a poll they think Trump is honest. How can that be!? Because they're not bothering to pay any attention to what's going on, don't read the news, don't watch the news, and just catch the occasional sound byte. They're too lazy to care. It's not much different in Canada.

Right, but the people who DO care often make just as bad of political decisions, if not worse. Just look at all the social justice folks who clearly spend a lot of time thinking about society and politics and yet come up with a perverted destructive ideology.

[Bonam]

His complaint is backwards in this case. After all, aren't we complaining that the current system encourages that sort of voting on behalf of the poorer? The poorer elements of society have no incentive to vote what is best for the country as a whole. Their primary incentive is simply to vote for whomever promises them the most loot. When 50% of the population is responsible for only 4% of income taxes while the other 50% pays 96% that's produces a horribly lopsided electorate as far as what they're looking for in a government

Presumably the solution would be to promote an economy that allows everyone to earn more and make a greater contribution, rather than diminishing the political impact of those who earn less. Of course, the solutions typically proposed towards that end or all stupid and backwards, but still.

[bush_cheney2004]

I love it...seeking guidance and wisdom for voter reform from American Noam Chomsky and "Requiem for the American Dream". Canada already strips expat citizens of their voting rights after five years.