Lowering Voting Age to 16

Argus · April 6, 2018

1 hour ago, TTM said:

The progressive tax code does not about "punishing the successful", it is about avoiding "punishing the unsucessful". As I've shown above, once you factor in the minimum cost of living, the so called "unfairness" disappears, and the high income earner still has proportionally higher disposable income.

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. Taxation should not be based upon how nicely one lives or what one can afford. Should stores charge you two or three times more for the same pair of pants based on how much you're able to afford? Should a cell phone be $10 a month for someone without a lot of money and $1000 a month to you because you can afford it better?

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.

Argus · April 6, 2018

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

People who bring home six-figure incomes, even after taxes, whining because people who bring home half or less than that before taxes don't pay enough, or that certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't make enough money. Can you spell entitlement? Me me me me! Give me more and take away from those people!

That's the Marxist sentiment of resentment towards those who have wealth, demanding it be taken from those who have it and distributed to those who do not. It inevitably leads to economic disaster and then a massive drop in living standards for all, usually followed by extreme violence. It's only propagated by ivory tower intellectuals who never tired of expounding on theories which bear little relationship to reality, and the herd of the ignorant unwashed.

A society in which those who contribute nothing get to dictate how much those who contribute must pay them is one doomed to inevitable failure.

Michael Hardner · April 6, 2018

45 minutes ago, 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.

Wealth isn't citizenship. If you grade democracy on a wealth scale, those who benefit from the system will change the rules to benefit even more.

eyeball · April 6, 2018

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Wealth isn't citizenship. If you grade democracy on a wealth scale, those who benefit from the system will change the rules to benefit even more.

If governments respond to influence on a wealth scale you end up with a society riven with economic injustice and resentment.

Fuck the rich, the powerful and the governments that cater to them. Then kill them.

Edited April 6, 2018 by eyeball

Queenmandy85 · April 6, 2018

Is it just me or has the question about lowering the voting age to 16 been answered?

Anthony · April 6, 2018

On 4/5/2018 at 5:29 AM, cannuck said:

Quote

"I have proposed give one vote to everyone at birth, and let their parents cast it until the child is no longer dependent. "

I agree this is probably a much better solution than allowing teens to vote.

Quote

"Now, THAT is where the tax system needs to step in. Flat tax is anything but unreasonable - it is the 100% fair way to tax income EARNED by productive endeavor (to note your point - many people move to small business to seek some tax fairness - and corporate tax is essentially flat tax)."

I would agree a flat tax for high income individuals might work, I do not think a flat tax rate for low income individuals is healthy, primarily because the cost of living is significantly higher for low income individuals.

Quote

"Basic annual income? You are going to think because my political beliefs are somewhere right of Genghis Khan I would be vehemently opposed - and you would be wrong (I am being presumptious here, so forgive me if that is not the case)."

I try not to be presumptuous in people's political beliefs, my intention is to discuss problems at hand globally and nationally, one of the main points of the forum is to learn from each other and find solutions as a collective.

Quote

"To summarize, give extra vote based on tax at some incremental levels of just off the cuff $30k tax (at each level, fed and prov) up to maybe 5x votes at $150k - of EARNED income (from creating wealth) or I suppose even to include post tax speculative income."

I understand it is logical that you may pay more into the system and as a result you are allotted more voting power. However, what happens when a multi-million dollar company hires people of certain ideologies, pays these individuals 150k specifically so that they are allotted 5X votes and as a result that specific ideology has 5X more power in the vote? Taking votes away from $0.00 income or low income individuals might be a problem in the future of automation. For example, the 150k individuals could vote against supporting the low income or $0.00 income individuals receiving help through the government. Because the low income individuals only have 1 vote, or in some cases no vote, it would be a landslide in favor of axing support for the low income individuals. The idea of giving more votes to people with more wealth and removing votes from people with little to no wealth is dangerous. A democratic system is not a business or company, the point of democracy is that it is fair to every citizen, 1 vote per citizen.

I agree with Micheal Hardner.

QuoteMichael Hardner said:

"Wealth isn't citizenship. If you grade democracy on a wealth scale, those who benefit from the system will change the rules to benefit even more."

Michael Hardner · April 6, 2018

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Fuck the rich, the powerful and the governments that cater to them. Then kill them.

Yes, pre-Revolutionary France gave all the democratic power to those who paid taxes and had the wealth. It didn't turn out wealth for them. As the ladies knitted by the guillotines, those lining up for their turn learned about 'social justice' the hard way.

PIK · April 6, 2018

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Is it just me or has the question about lowering the voting age to 16 been answered?

At the start. lol

dialamah · April 6, 2018

4 hours ago, Argus said:

That's the Marxist sentiment of resentment towards those who have wealth, demanding it be taken from those who have it and distributed to those who do not.

I don't resent the wealth other people have. I find reprehensible the entitled attitude some of those people exhibit, whining about how unfair it is that they pay more taxes because they make so much more money, and suggesting that those who have the lowest income and no wealth should have their right to vote taken away.

Bonam · April 6, 2018

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

As the ladies knitted by the guillotines, those lining up for their turn learned about 'social justice' the hard way.

And, like their French revolutionary predecessors, many of the modern people who harp on about "social justice" would be only too happy to fire up the guillotines again.

eyeball · April 6, 2018

11 minutes ago, Bonam said:

And, like their French revolutionary predecessors, many of the modern people who harp on about "social justice" would be only too happy to fire up the guillotines again.

What were you expecting they would do, happily bend over and take it like the toadies do? They should be lined up first.

-TSS- · April 6, 2018

I have reached a stage of cynicism whereby I regard voting as a total waste of time. Perhaps this is only temporary and I'll change my mind or perhaps this is permanent.

Depends of course where you live whether you appreciate your vote or not. Living in a province of Euro-Soviet voting makes sod all difference.

Bonam · April 7, 2018

42 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What were you expecting they would do, happily bend over and take it like the toadies do? They should be lined up first.

Most of the "social justice" people are affluent upper middle class liberals in rich urban areas.

eyeball · April 7, 2018

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Is it just me or has the question about lowering the voting age to 16 been answered?

It's pretty moot given how much the point a vote is still in question.

A number of adages come to mind...power corrupts the way rust never sleeps and government always gets in no matter what.

eyeball · April 7, 2018

16 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Most of the "social justice" people are affluent upper middle class liberals in rich urban areas.

No they're just a caricature intended to create the impression that economic injustice is the same thing as social injustice which is to say both are regarded as a joke.

What's really hilarious is how conservatives allow themselves to be used to create the impression the right-wing is on their side. No doubt their French Revolutionary predecessors would be laughing their asses off too.

Edited April 7, 2018 by eyeball

Argus · April 7, 2018

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Wealth isn't citizenship. If you grade democracy on a wealth scale, those who benefit from the system will change the rules to benefit even more.

But if you disregard contributions entirely those who make none will keep demanding more government services since they don't have to pay for anything.

Argus · April 7, 2018

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

I don't resent the wealth other people have. I find reprehensible the entitled attitude

Imagine the nerve of people feeling they have some entitlement to the money they earn! Damn them! Don't they know others have just as much right to their money!

Argus · April 7, 2018

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, pre-Revolutionary France gave all the democratic power to those who paid taxes and had the wealth. It didn't turn out wealth for them. As the ladies knitted by the guillotines, those lining up for their turn learned about 'social justice' the hard way.

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.

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.

cannuck · April 7, 2018

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

People who bring home six-figure incomes, even after taxes, whining because people who bring home half or less than that before taxes don't pay enough, or that certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't make enough money. Can you spell entitlement? Me me me me! Give me more and take away from those people!

Can you spell taking the effort and cost to get an appropriate education, making the sacrifice to work you ass off and doing things that others don't have the balls to do?

Three of my four millenials earn well into 6 figures but that means 4, 6 and 9 years at University and an average of over two jobs (4rth spent 12 years at U, but keeps only 3 part time jobs now as she wants to be home raising her kids). In that count are 5 jobs that would likely not want to and/or be able to do. The millenials I work with are all making that kind of money in their second year out of school, but will spend many, many days a long way from home working very long hours to earn it. You would simply dismiss them as ENTITLED!!...Well, I guess I have to agree with you. I feel they are very much entitled to both the money they earn and should be able to have the voting power to offset those who simply don't care to be bothered to earn the cash.

You see, ANYONE can earn a hundred grand a year. You just have to be prepared to work for it. If you are not, you should have no right to bitch about those who do and sure as hell you should not be entitled to penalize them for their hard work and success by charging them tax at a higher rate.

As I have clearly stated many times: I do NOT extend such support to money not earned, but merely re-distributed from speculative gains.

Edited April 7, 2018 by cannuck

dialamah · April 7, 2018

39 minutes ago, Argus said:

Imagine the nerve of people feeling they have some entitlement to the money they earn! Damn them! Don't they know others have just as much right to their money!

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

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

cannuck · April 7, 2018

7 hours ago, Anthony said:

For example, the 150k individuals could vote against supporting the low income or $0.00 income individuals receiving help through the government. Because the low income individuals only have 1 vote, or in some cases no vote, it would be a landslide in favor of axing support for the low income individuals. The idea of giving more votes to people with more wealth and removing votes from people with little to no wealth is dangerous. A democratic system is not a business or company, the point of democracy is that it is fair to every citizen, 1 vote per citizen.

As you can see, I do not agree that this is fair for every citizen. I did not mean one vote for every 30k of INCOME, I meant 30k of income TAX. That means fed proportion for fed election and provinicial for provincial. Even at 5x votes, there would not be enough people earning enough to sway a vote unless it was right on the line. Another point: it is not more WEALTH, but more tax payment from earnings. Big difference. Of course, capital gains tax payment would not count.

dialamah · April 7, 2018

11 minutes ago, cannuck said:

You see, ANYONE can earn a hundred grand a year. You just have to be prepared to work for it.

Sure, anyone can. Well, except for those who are born with certain disadvantages - autism, Down's Syndrome, FAS, any number of other genetic diseases. Then there are people who are born fine, but through accident or disease lose congnitive or physical function. But hey "everyone" can make 6 figures, right?

And as much as you like to think you did it all on your own, you had plenty of help from people all your life, from your grade school teachers who never made even close to $100,000 to administrative support staff in every company in which you've held a job. The grocery store clerks, retail clerks, barbers, hairstylists, dry cleaners, bank tellers: everyone you pay or rely on to provide a service helped you succeed. Lucky you that not everybody wants your material success because if they did, just imagine the result.

You should be grateful for your success and the success of your kids, not whining about how unfair it is.

cannuck · April 7, 2018

29 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Sure, anyone can. Well, except for those who are born with certain disadvantages - autism, Down's Syndrome, FAS, any number of other genetic diseases. Then there are people who are born fine, but through accident or disease lose congnitive or physical function. But hey "everyone" can make 6 figures, right?

And as much as you like to think you did it all on your own, you had plenty of help from people all your life, from your grade school teachers who never made even close to $100,000 to administrative support staff in every company in which you've held a job. The grocery store clerks, retail clerks, barbers, hairstylists, dry cleaners, bank tellers: everyone you pay or rely on to provide a service helped you succeed. Lucky you that not everybody wants your material success because if they did, just imagine the result.

You should be grateful for your success and the success of your kids, not whining about how unfair it is.

You are referring to a very small percentage of the population, who are of course supported by our taxes. It is the perfectly able bodied and minded who have no ambition other than to work at menial jobs and bitch about how those they envy are so "fortunate".

Fortunate my ass! EVERYONE was able to benefit by the "help" of the clerks, barbers, teachers, etc. - it is just a matter of what you DID with what you learned or the services you received from them. AND, those weren't gifts, they were paid. I can guarantee you no school teach from pre-school to grad school puts in anywhere near the hours and efforts that any of the millenials I menition above do every day. Also worth noting that a teaching in ON schools can earn just shy of a hundred Gs.

I am not grateful for their success. Nobody other than my wife gave it to them. They worked and continue to work extremely hard for it.

Oh, and for the record: I have only had a "job" for two years since my teens, and in those two years I also opened two businesses. I left that job when I was not successful at getting the administrative staff in jail for skimming from our employer.

Edited April 7, 2018 by cannuck

bush_cheney2004 · April 7, 2018

36 minutes ago, dialamah said:

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

Now where have I read this before...hmmmm:

Yes, the progressive way -- reminding the rich they are privileged citizens and should exhibit unending gratitude for being permitted in the country and shouldn't be permitted an opinion with which a progressive would disagree.

Michael Hardner · April 7, 2018

2 hours ago, Argus said:

But if you disregard contributions entirely those who make none will keep demanding more government services since they don't have to pay for anything.

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