Lowering Voting Age to 16

[Argus]

43 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Even if they get refunded, they are being taxed.

If it is being refunded they are paying nothing into the system.

[GostHacked]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

If it is being refunded they are paying nothing into the system.

Incorrect,  you pay tax, then you get it refunded. Then the tax should not be collected in the first place.  The notion was if you pay tax you should get a vote. The notion of a refund is irrelevant.

But then I ask again, what tax are we talking about ? Everyone pays taxes for something.

[herples]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

If it is being refunded they are paying nothing into the system.

And? Citizens should get a say in their country. Everything the government does affects them. 

[TTM]

13 hours ago, Argus said:

You fail to differentiate between 'the rich' and 'the rich'. They are two different groups. The first 'the rich' are made up of multi-millionaires like Trudeau, Morneau, the Bronfmans, the McCains and Desmarais. These are people with servants who have rarely ever ridden in a car that wasn't driven by a chauffeur. They enjoy great influence but not due to wealth. Their influence depends on family connections. They pay taxes, but a smaller proportion of their income than others. Still, it does amount to a lot of money because they have so much.

Then there's 'the rich'. This is the target group of most liberal politicians who want to show their creds as progressives. This group consists of doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, software designers, entrepreneurs and small businessmen. Most likely they've never even ridden in a limousine except at funerals or weddings, and have no servants. They are doing reasonably well, but aren't what a normal person would think of as wealthy. But they are visible. So they have become the targets of every increased 'tax the rich' plan people like Trudeau and Wynne come up with.

By rich I mean the top 10%, give or take.  I myself am a member of your second category.  I'm also a progressive.  I've managed to avoid targeting myself so far.

13 hours ago, Argus said:

As I've already pointed out, someone with $300k income makes 7.5 X more than someone with a $40k income, but pays FIFTY times more in tax. And their tax load is much higher, proportionately, than the first group of 'rich' people, the ones with tens of millions in income.

I don't think your numbers are right ... assuming the 40k person paid 6k in taxes, that would mean your 300k person paid 300k in taxes (6k x 50).  Using my link, the actual number is a little less then 20x, which seems fair to me. But I'm not against shifting the tax burden even further up the income ladder. 

Edited March 30, 2018 by TTM

[Argus]

17 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Incorrect,  you pay tax, then you get it refunded. Then the tax should not be collected in the first place.  The notion was if you pay tax you should get a vote. The notion of a refund is irrelevant

That may well be the dumbest thing anyone has ever written on this site since it first came on-line. Congratulations.

[Argus]

9 hours ago, herples said:

And? Citizens should get a say in their country. Everything the government does affects them. 

Why should you get a say in how other people's money is spent? If you contribute nothing you deserve nothing in the way of voting rights.

[Argus]

9 hours ago, TTM said:

I don't think your numbers are right ... assuming the 40k person paid 6k in taxes, that would mean your 300k person paid 300k in taxes (6k x 50).  Using my link, the actual number is a little less then 20x, which seems fair to me. But I'm not against shifting the tax burden even further up the income ladder. 

He isn't going to pay $6k. Given the basic personal amount excludes the first $22k of income he will only be taxed on $18k. He will then be able to claim housing, transport and other tax credits to further reduce his or her income. If he has a non-working spouse, or one that only works part time, he can claim another $11k, for example. In all likelyhood the individual isn't going to be paying more than $2k in taxes and may well be paying nothing. The $300k person will be paying over $100k in taxes.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Why should you get a say in how other people's money is spent? If you contribute nothing you deserve nothing in the way of voting rights.

How would such a system protect the people that don't pay taxes and have no say in how the country was run?

[Argus]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

How would such a system protect the people that don't pay taxes and have no say in how the country was run?

It wouldn't. I guess that would provide them with plenty of incentive to do something to improve their life and maybe start doing something to benefit the country, huh? 

[herples]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

Why should you get a say in how other people's money is spent? If you contribute nothing you deserve nothing in the way of voting rights.

That position makes no sense since anytime the buy goods and services it gets taxed they are already contributing. The choices that governments make affect them as much as the next person. 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

It wouldn't. I guess that would provide them with plenty of incentive to do something to improve their life and maybe start doing something to benefit the country, huh? 

Orphans, the infirm, seniors?  "Get a job".

If I were a too poor to vote working folk, serving you your burgers, cleaning your home and office, selling you your clothing, selling you your gas, watching your kids while you make your "enough to vote" wage, let me spit in your food when I serve it,  and destroy your property when I'm not working my shit job that you don't want and don't want to pay a decent wage for someone else to do.  You don't give a fuck about me, why should I give a fuck about you?   

Poor little rich man, taking home 3 or 4 times what the average working person does, crying the blues.  Do you have any idea how greedy and callous you sound?

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Orphans, the infirm, seniors?  "Get a job".

If I were a too poor to vote working folk, serving you your burgers, cleaning your home and office, selling you your clothing, selling you your gas, watching your kids while you make your "enough to vote" wage, let me spit in your food when I serve it,  and destroy your property when I'm not working my shit job that you don't want and don't want to pay a decent wage for someone else to do.  You don't give a fuck about me, why should I give a fuck about you?   

Poor little rich man, taking home 3 or 4 times what the average working person does, crying the blues.  Do you have any idea how greedy and callous you sound?

I think the solution isn't to spit insults at each other but to re-organize the tax code so that everyone has a bit of "skin in the game". Anyone that makes a wage should be paying at least like 2% income tax (after any refunds/adjustments). That eliminates the idea that some people "don't pay in" to government services without really having a huge material impact on people. The tax code should be simplified all around, get rid of all the credits and deductions and just make a simple progressive tax structure. Something like:

$0-15k: 2%

$15k-$50k: 15% on the amount above $15k

$50k-$100k: 20% on the amount above $50k

$100k-$200k: 25% on the amount above $100k

$200k-$500k: 30% on the amount above $200k

$500k+: 35% on the amount above $500k

Done. No adjustments or exemptions, just that table. Dividends and capital gains (the way the very rich actually make their money) should be taxed at the same rates depending on your income, while the corporate tax should be eliminated (this eliminates issue of double taxation since eventually all money has to end up in the hands of individuals either as a dividend or capital gain). 

[dialamah]

20 minutes ago, Bonam said:

I think the solution isn't to spit insults at each other but to re-organize the tax code so that everyone has a bit of "skin in the game". Anyone that makes a wage should be paying at least like 2% income tax (after any refunds/adjustments). That eliminates the idea that some people "don't pay in" to government services without really having a huge material impact on people. The tax code should be simplified all around, get rid of all the credits and deductions and just make a simple progressive tax structure. Something like:

$0-15k: 2%

$15k-$50k: 15% on the amount above $15k

$50k-$100k: 20% on the amount above $50k

$100k-$200k: 25% on the amount above $100k

$200k-$500k: 30% on the amount above $200k

$500k+: 35% on the amount above $500k

Done. No adjustments or exemptions, just that table. Dividends and capital gains (the way the very rich actually make their money) should be taxed at the same rates depending on your income, while the corporate tax should be eliminated (this eliminates issue of double taxation since eventually all money has to end up in the hands of individuals either as a dividend or capital gain). 

I like the idea of eliminating special tax credits and the simplicity of your suggested tax structure. 

I have no issue with everyone paying taxes; what I have issue with is the notion that paying more taxes entitles someone to more "power".  Our current system already rewards people who have more money with more power and I see no reason that they should have even more power.  It's already not really working out well for those on the bottom of the economic ladder and we need burger flippers, retail sales clerks and janitors just as much as we need accountants, stock brokers or politicians, so why should one group be entitled to more votes than the other?

"Spitting insults" made me laugh. 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, herples said:

That position makes no sense since anytime the buy goods and services it gets taxed they are already contributing. The choices that governments make affect them as much as the next person. 

The poorer get GST refunds.

I'm reminded of an earlier posting I made with a cite to the effect that taxation works best when it is light but spread out. The problem is governments have been narrowing it to the point half the population is largely exempt from taxes and taxes lay increasingly heavily on the shoulders of a smaller group. Those who pay few or no taxes are going to make political choices  based on how much they are given by government, because the money is coming from other people anyway. That's particularly so when you have political parties like the Liberals which assure them they deserve it, and that those 'rich people' are cheating somehow anyway and need to pay more.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, dialamah said:

Orphans, the infirm, seniors?  "Get a job".

If I were a too poor to vote working folk, serving you your burgers, cleaning your home and office, selling you your clothing, selling you your gas, watching your kids while you make your "enough to vote" wage, let me spit in your food when I serve it,  and destroy your property when I'm not working my shit job that you don't want and don't want to pay a decent wage for someone else to do.  You don't give a fuck about me, why should I give a fuck about you?   

Poor little rich man, taking home 3 or 4 times what the average working person does, crying the blues.  Do you have any idea how greedy and callous you sound?

You're profoundly ignorant and uneducated and don't know me or anything else. I pay fifty or sixty times more in taxes than you do - assuming you pay anything -  so why shouldn't I have more of a say in how that money is spent than you do? Why should some crack whore on welfare have the same vote as I do when the ultimate decision is how to spend my money? It seems ridiculously unjust when people decide to vote for a corrupt, incompetent party simply because they'll be given more stuff for free - at other people's expense. And for people who care about justice - and yes, I acknowledge that completely excludes you - that matters.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Argus

[Bonam]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

II have no issue with everyone paying taxes; what I have issue with is the notion that paying more taxes entitles someone to more "power".  Our current system already rewards people who have more money with more power and I see no reason that they should have even more power.  

I agree. One person, one vote. That's why I prefer to attack the issue Argus raises from the other end... it's not about disenfrachising "poor" people, but rather about making sure everyone feels like they are making a contribution to the system and has some stake in how government money is spent. 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

...so why shouldn't I have more of a say in how that money is spent than you do? 

Your worthless shitty attitude is enough for me.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Bonam said:

I agree. One person, one vote.

But you're voting for what the government will do with the money other people have taken from them. You talk about disenfranchising poor people, but they stopped paying taxes long ago so why should they have a franchise?  The only real purpose democracy serves is in booting out one corrupt group of incompetents after a while and replacing them with another until they get too corrupt and incompetent too. If we're unable to even do that because of the low knowledge environment we're now living in and because the herd only votes for whoever offers to dump more slops into their trough then what use is democracy?

 

 

[Bonam]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

But you're voting for what the government will do with the money other people have taken from them. You talk about disenfranchising poor people, but they stopped paying taxes long ago so why should they have a franchise?  The only real purpose democracy serves is in booting out one corrupt group of incompetents after a while and replacing them with another until they get too corrupt and incompetent too. If we're unable to even do that because of the low knowledge environment we're now living in and because the herd only votes for whoever offers to dump more slops into their trough then what use is democracy?

I think democracy is a fundamentally unsuitable form of government in the era of social media psy ops. But as for your concerns regarding people not contributing taxes and still voting, I already mentioned my proposed solution. 

[Argus]

Just now, Bonam said:

I think democracy is a fundamentally unsuitable form of government in the era of social media psy ops. But as for your concerns regarding people not contributing taxes and still voting, I already mentioned my proposed solution. 

I agree with your proposed solution but I don't see anyone offering to implement it. As was pointed out in the cite I posted a couple of pages back, we and other western countries are moving in the opposite direction. Trudeau's last budget did more of the same, and so is Wynne's budget.  

. Income taxes—one of the main sources of tax revenue across the rich world—are increasingly paid by a small minority of the most affluent. In Britain, employment has risen by 1.3m in the past five years, but the number of taxpayers has fallen by 2.2m. 

[-TSS-]

Before the 1900's there were voting systems whereby people's wealth determined how much their vote counted. I don't think harping back to those days is exactly going to solve any modern day problems.

[cannuck]

On 3/30/2018 at 5:51 PM, Bonam said:

I think the solution isn't to spit insults at each other but to re-organize the tax code so that everyone has a bit of "skin in the game". Anyone that makes a wage should be paying at least like 2% income tax (after any refunds/adjustments). That eliminates the idea that some people "don't pay in" to government services without really having a huge material impact on people. The tax code should be simplified all around, get rid of all the credits and deductions and just make a simple progressive tax structure. Something like:

$0-15k: 2%

$15k-$50k: 15% on the amount above $15k

$50k-$100k: 20% on the amount above $50k

$100k-$200k: 25% on the amount above $100k

$200k-$500k: 30% on the amount above $200k

$500k+: 35% on the amount above $500k

Done. No adjustments or exemptions, just that table. Dividends and capital gains (the way the very rich actually make their money) should be taxed at the same rates depending on your income, while the corporate tax should be eliminated (this eliminates issue of double taxation since eventually all money has to end up in the hands of individuals either as a dividend or capital gain). 

Dividends and capital gains are the opposite of each other in so many ways.   A capital gain adds no value, creates no wealth.  All it does if to force an immediate or latent inflationary increase to the money supply.  Money taken through capital gains are no different from welfare - except one hell of a lot more damaging.  Since the money supply is a liability to EVERY citizen, the cost of a capital gain is thus passed directly back to every citizen.

A dividend should be distributed from the net after tax profits of any company without any further taxation.   That part many governments get right.  To stop those dividends from being paid on speculative gain, you just tax the shit out of capital gains.  Without the free ride of Wall Street/Bay Street on the taxpayers' backs, investment is then going to go to Main Street where it can be productive and add value.

"Progressive" taxation is a penalty on success.  IF you fix the capital gains BS, and the way to earn money is to add value, create wealth, not merely re-distribute it.  I believe that the bottom of the income spectrum should be tax free (and vote free) for something that represents "the poverty line" and then pay a flat tax for every penny thereafter, earn their right to vote.   Start earning and paying tax on a considerably larger income - (remember: no tax on dividends and very unlikely much intentional tax from speculative gains) and then you can earn a right to another vote for let's say every $50k in tax paid.

Now: add to that the end of deficit financing (flat tax rate determined by annual budget) and you could fix the problems of almost any economy overnight - and give "equitable democracy" to those carrying the load.

Edited April 1, 2018 by cannuck

[Argus]

17 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Before the 1900's there were voting systems whereby people's wealth determined how much their vote counted. I don't think harping back to those days is exactly going to solve any modern day problems.

I dunno. Did we have better government than we do now? It's hard to say it's gotten better.

[PIK]

On 3/26/2018 at 11:26 AM, -TSS- said:

If you are old enough to die for your country or you are old enough to pay taxes to your country then you are old enough to vote for the leaders of your country. However, I don't think any civilised country accepts 16-year old soldiers and I doubt any 16-year old has to pay tax on some pocket money-income they earn in some summer-jobs.

Take very little brain to die, voting is different. 

[GostHacked]

On 3/30/2018 at 11:05 AM, Argus said:

That may well be the dumbest thing anyone has ever written on this site since it first came on-line. Congratulations.

It may be dumb, but am I wrong?