Lowering Voting Age to 16

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

How often, in the last century or so, have you seen a revolution against even the most evil and brutal of governments that rose from the herd? They almost always come from much higher up or they rarely work.

It's a very complicated question.  I don't know what point you're trying to make, though.  Who the leaders of popular uprisings are is anybody's guess.  I certainly have no idea.   

 

2 hours ago, Argus said:

 

Do you think the government in North Korea gives a shit about its starving people? Do you think the herd is going to overthrow the Chinese president for life, or the new Turkish Sultan in his ten thousand room palace or Vlad, the Impaler in Moscow? Those days are passed. The herd is very easily controlled through police tactics, surveillance and control of media sources. The only exception is when the herd is driven, at least in part, by religion.

This is very difficult to prove either way, I suspect.  And a topic for another thread.  Certainly there have been popular uprisings in Iran, the middle East, Soviet Republics in recent memory.  If you are trying to say that the middle class, or upper middle class is solely responsible for such uprisings, or that popular uprisings are a thing of the past then I disagree.

[Argus]

21 hours ago, dialamah said:

Sure they have entitlement to the money they earn, minus that which is due to the country through income tax.

And the amount that is taken off will be decided by people who pay no taxes, and that's fair. I disagree.

Quote

 What they are not entitled to is to biatch because they make so much money than anyone else and its so "unfair", poor little rich snowflakes.  Nor are they entitled to think that their luck in making lots of money entitles them to more political power than those who have not been as lucky.  

So if you work hard and put in a lot of effort to put yourself ahead so you can buy nicer things then those who never bothered are entitled to your money and if you complain about it you're a snowflake. You know, it's odd, but the people I often hear using that term these days are - snowflakes. You know, desperately intolerant far left types boiling with hate and rage for anyone more successful than them (which is just about everyone)

Quote

Anyway, there are plenty of nice countries with no income tax.  Move there is this country is not to your liking.

People like you want to invite in millions of the unwashed who have no ability to pay taxes nor ever will, and sneer at those who carry the country on our backs and invite us to leave. I'd love to see us all do just that and then see you trying to feed, house and clothe all those migrants and refugees yourself in what would very quickly become a shithole country.

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed.  The argument that was being framed was weighting voting towards those who pay more taxes, though.

As part of some means of balancing out the natural tendency of people who don't have to pay to want more free stuff. There are other options, like making even poorer earners pay at least something into the kitty, enough they notice it. A society can afford a certain number of free riders, but as that number grows the society weakens. This is one of my problems with immigration, as well, esp with regard to family class and refugees (and yes, I know refugees aren't immigrants except they BECOME immigrants). When you bring in tens of thousands of people each year who have virtually no chance of ever contributing to the kitty, and who will forever be takers, you make the rest of us poorer. 

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

IThis is very difficult to prove either way, I suspect.  And a topic for another thread.  Certainly there have been popular uprisings in Iran, the middle East, Soviet Republics in recent memory.  If you are trying to say that the middle class, or upper middle class is solely responsible for such uprisings, or that popular uprisings are a thing of the past then I disagree.

Popular uprisings are largely a thing of the past. Virtually every revolution is some member of the government or military taking over from the boss. If Putin is overthrown it will be by another of his oligarchs. If Mr. President for life dies it will be at the hand of another high up party member. If the fat little guy in North Korea is overthrown it will be by his generals, not the starving masses. 

 

[TTM]

On 2018-04-06 at 9:49 AM, Argus said:

Your sentiment makes no sense except in the realm of some kind of socialist/marxist belief that all should have the same relative economic success.

You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my point.  I have not argued for and have no belief in everyone having the same economic success

On 2018-04-06 at 9:49 AM, Argus said:

Taxation should not be based upon how nicely one lives or what one can afford.

If you truly believed this you would be proposing that the government budget simply be divided equally by the number of citizens, and bills sent out.

On 2018-04-06 at 9:49 AM, Argus said:

If you contribute $100k a year towards funding the government then you ought to have more say in how that money is spent than someone who contributes nothing, never has, and never will.

If you are proposing vote in proportion to taxes, you are essentially assuming that your value to society is based only on how much you earn.  Is a police officer less valuable then a lawyer? A truck driver less then a day trader? A stay at home parent less then a Kardashian?

If you are proposing only to cut off the vote from those who pay no taxes, well everyone pays sales taxes.  In addition there are gas taxes, sin taxes, property taxes, and any number of other fees and taxes that may be paid, either directly or indirectly.  Sure the poor may get some or all of it returned, but that goes to my question of why you would want to charge x dollars in taxes just to have to provide x dollars in services.  Easier to just return the money or not collect it in the first place. 

[Argus]

20 minutes ago, TTM said:

If you are proposing only to cut off the vote from those who pay no taxes, well everyone pays sales taxes. 

And gets it refunded if they're poor.

If you are proposing vote in proportion to taxes, you are essentially assuming that your value to society is based only on how much you earn.  Is a police officer less valuable then a lawyer? A truck driver less then a day trader? A stay at home parent less then a Kardashian?

We're talking about economic contributions. People often share apartments to save on rent. Apartments rarely have the same size bedrooms. Who gets the big bedroom? The one willing to pay more towards the rent. 

20 minutes ago, TTM said:

In addition there are gas taxes, sin taxes, property taxes, and any number of other fees and taxes that may be paid, either directly or indirectly. 

And much of that gets refunded at tax time too if you're low income.

 

[TTM]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

There are other options, like making even poorer earners pay at least something into the kitty, enough they notice it.

 

42 minutes ago, Argus said:

And much of that gets refunded at tax time too if you're low income.

^ My point in a nutshell.  When you are poor enough, "noticing it" means requiring more government services.  And so some portion is returned in lieu of providing services.  The system you desire is already in place.

42 minutes ago, Argus said:

We're talking about economic contributions.

So was I.  In each example it can be argued the lower paid worker makes the larger economic contribution to society.

Edited April 8, 2018 by TTM

[TTM]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

A society can afford a certain number of free riders, but as that number grows the society weakens. This is one of my problems with immigration, as well, esp with regard to family class and refugees

Are you sure?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, TTM said:

So was I.  In each example it can be argued the lower paid worker makes the larger economic contribution to society.

Then argue that. Explain how a lower paid worker who pays $2k taxes per year contributes more than a higher paid worker who pays $100k in taxes per year.

[Argus]

 

2 hours ago, TTM said:

Are you sure?

Quite sure.

[Argus]

More evidence how the few are carrying the many in Western countries. Does anyone think Canada's taxes are LESS progressive than the Americans?

For 2018, households in the top 20% will have income of about $150,000 or more and 52% of total income, about the same as in 2017. But they will pay about 87% of income taxes, up from about 84% last year.

By contrast, the lower 60% of households, who have income up to about $86,000, receive about 27% of income. As a group, this tier will pay no net federal income tax in 2018 vs. 2% of it last year.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/2388918-Top-20-of-Americans-Will-Pay-87-of-Income-Tax

Edited April 8, 2018 by Argus

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

And gets it refunded if they're poor.

After the fact - after they file their tax return.

Does Argus plan on taking back a poor persons vote once its been established they're worthless ne'er-do-wells or just suspend their right until such time as they prove their ability to lug as much weight around as their betters?

[TTM]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Then argue that. Explain how a lower paid worker who pays $2k taxes per year contributes more than a higher paid worker who pays $100k in taxes per year.

Which hypothetical Canada is richer, one without day traders, or one without truck drivers? Income is a measure of where wealth is collected, not necessarily where it is generated.  It can be a misleading measure for determining economic value. Slaves had zero income, did that mean they had no economic value?

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Quite sure.

Lol.  That got religious in a hurry.

5 hours ago, Argus said:

More evidence how the few are carrying the many in Western countries.

But quite in proportion to wealth.  The US has ridiculous levels of inequity for a developed nation.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, TTM said:

Which hypothetical Canada is richer, one without day traders, or one without truck drivers? Income is a measure of where wealth is collected, not necessarily where it is generated.  It can be a misleading measure for determining economic value. Slaves had zero income, did that mean they had no economic value?

Very little, generally. Our society rewards scarcity. If you have a rarer skill set, be it day trader or doctor or computer engineer, you get rewarded more than if you have no skill set beyond 'general labour'.  And the reason is that the people with the rarer skill-sets contribute more economically to their employer or to society at large and are consequently rewarded with higher remuneration. General labourers are a dime and dozen. I might pay one minimum wage to cut the grass, but I'll have to pay more for an electricity to put in a new light.

Quote

Lol.  That got religious in a hurry.

Your cite didn't have any information of note. Lots of organizations, esp the government, are out there saying "Oh, immigrants and refugees are great for the economy!" but none have any legitimate studies to back that up. I don't want to go off on a wild tangent regarding immigrants and refugees in this topic, but no one has yet demonstrated they help the economy. When Mulroney wanted to triple immigration in the 80s he asked the Economic Council of Canada if that would help the economy. They said it might help a little or hurt a little depending on the mix, but that such a decision would have to be made on non-economic grounds. The decision was thus made on the basis of the PC party's belief that if they let in lots more immigrants they would vote for the PCs. 

Quote

But quite in proportion to wealth.  The US has ridiculous levels of inequity for a developed nation.

Proportion of wealth is not what we're talking about.  We're talking about paying for government services, contributing to our health care, education and common welfare, paying for the police, firefighters, garbage collectors, sewers and bridges and highways. Not to mention all the income supporting schemes for lower and middle income people. Most of that is being paid for, most of the government and all it does is being paid for by the top 20%. 

Edited April 9, 2018 by Argus