Tea Party Nation Founder: 'A Wise Idea' To Only Let Property Owners Vote

[Sgt. McGee 27]

Why not cut to the chase? Since obviously the intent here is to only allow those who support Tea Party proposals the right to vote, why pussyfoot about Property Ownership or district gerrymandering or other voting restrictions?

Just come right out there and say what you mean: the vote should be given only to registered GOP voters, take it away from Democrats or Independents. Better yet - give it only to voters who agree to vote strictly for Tea Party candidates.

Heck, we can save even more time and money by abolishing any competitive parties or ideologies and having only Tea Party candidates on the ballot. It works in totalitarian governments so why not here?

Democracy? Choice? Who needs all that. The Tea Party already has all the answers, elections are just a periodic formality to reaffirm this obvious fact. Hear hear. Motion seconded, motion passed.

Please reference the posts that make the case that you've outlined above. I must have missed those.

I seem to remember stating that "only those people that pay federal income tax should be allowed to vote" (paraphrasing myself, but pretty darn close). And, no, Cleo, that doesn't mean to keep poor people from voting. It means "if they don't have any income tax liability, they don't vote". So, if they want to vote, make sure the tax code isn't a means of wealth distribution, giving them more money than they put in.

Those people who pay taxes, and therefore should legitimately be entitled to vote under my scheme, can vote for whomever/whatever they want. But I've had enough of people being able to elect people who promise to force "others" to pay more taxes to let them avoid the pesky nuisance of being self-sufficient.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a ###### idea. Unless you like feudalism

[^_^ 5,021]

Sgt. McGee is right about one thing. Nobody should have negative federal tax liability. I'd go a step further and say nobody should have zero tax liability either. If you're poor, a token payment of $1 will suffice. But everyone should have skin in the game. Everyone.

As for the franchise being limited to property owners, Steven is right. This class of people is actually quite small. Mortgage-free property is concentrated in the mega-wealthy and seniors who have spent decades paying off their notes. This would disenfranchise huge sections of the middle class.

IMO - if the intent is to ensure 'skin in the game', ensuring everyone pays federal income taxes is sufficient.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sgt. McGee is right about one thing. Nobody should have negative federal tax liability. I'd go a step further and say nobody should have zero tax liability either. If you're poor, a token payment of $1 will suffice. But everyone should have skin in the game. Everyone.

As for the franchise being limited to property owners, Steven is right. This class of people is actually quite small. Mortgage-free property is concentrated in the mega-wealthy and seniors who have spent decades paying off their notes. This would disenfranchise huge sections of the middle class.

IMO - if the intent is to ensure 'skin in the game', ensuring everyone pays federal income taxes is sufficient.

I wasn't aware that zero tax liability was possible. Whether or not one owes any tax or not is a different question, every legal resident and citizen is liable for tax and that's good enough.

The notion that people should be able to get away with tax dodging is another question entirely - and not one that should be tied to voting rights, in my opinion.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I would prefer that only people who federal income tax liability be able to vote in general elections. If you pay no tax (or, more accurately, if you have zero or negative liability, meaning that you get your entire withheld amount (or more) back every year), you shouldn't have ANY say in how the government's setting things up.

Of course, that doesn't mean that I want people to be disenfranchised, but maybe we should make sure everyone pays federal income tax...

Yes.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sgt. McGee is right about one thing. Nobody should have negative federal tax liability. I'd go a step further and say nobody should have zero tax liability either. If you're poor, a token payment of $1 will suffice. But everyone should have skin in the game. Everyone.

Then you'd have people complaining that some are getting more in Federal money than they are paying into it, and that's not exclusive to the welfare recipients. That includes a lot of businesses that benefit from tax subsidies. Take for example, the number of states that get more Federal money than they pay in taxes.

Edited December 5, 2010 by 8TBVBN

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

I wasn't aware that zero tax liability was possible. Whether or not one owes any tax or not is a different question, every legal resident and citizen is liable for tax and that's good enough.

The notion that people should be able to get away with tax dodging is another question entirely - and not one that should be tied to voting rights, in my opinion.

one gal i was seeing in 2002, by the time she was finished with earned income credit and all that, she got a check for about 7k. she made about 10k a year, and any money paid in was returned as part of that 7k.

her only expenses were utilities and some food - she lived on some land of her mom's, in a house of her mom's. and yes, she got food stamps and all those other benefits that go along with having low income (i'm not real sure she didn't fudge rent payments in that, as there was no rent payment).

[lostinblue 1,989]

Then you'd have people complaining that some are getting more in Federal money than they are paying into it, and that's not exclusive to the welfare recipients. That includes a lot of businesses that benefit from tax subsidies. Take for example, the number of states that get more Federal money than they pay in taxes.

the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Homeland Security Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Act and the No Child Left Behind Act as federal laws that states, counties and cities have wound up paying for. No tax subsidies cover it all.

[scandal 951]

Please reference the posts that make the case that you've outlined above. I must have missed those.

I seem to remember stating that "only those people that pay federal income tax should be allowed to vote"

Touchy much?

Please reference where I said anything about you or your post. What makes you think it's all about you and your precious post?

I was addressing the OP. You know, the one referenced in the thread title: " Tea Party Nation Founder: 'A Wise Idea' To Only Let Property Owners Vote". If a Tea Party founder wants to restrict the vote to Property Owners the least he can do is come right out and say what he really means: that he only wants people aligned with his ideology to have the right to vote and take it away from anyone who dares disagree.

As to your idea of disenfranchising those who have no income tax payable, I think absolutely! That's a swell idea. I'm all for taking away the vote from Senior Citizens who worked their whole life, payed taxes their whole life, might even be retired military who served our nation in wartime, because today they're on a limited fixed income of Social Security and food stamps and thus have no income tax to pay. That's a brilliant idea.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

As to your idea of disenfranchising those who have no income tax payable, I think absolutely! That's a swell idea. I'm all for taking away the vote from Senior Citizens who worked their whole life, payed taxes their whole life, might even be retired military who served our nation in wartime, because today they're on a limited fixed income of Social Security and food stamps and thus have no income tax to pay. That's a brilliant idea.

retired military has retirement pay in addition to social security. and that retirement pay is taxed.

Edited December 5, 2010 by charles!

[scandal 951]

retired military has retirement pay in addition to social security. and that retirement pay is taxed.

a) I said "might even be retired military". My point remains even for Seniors who are not ex military - we should absolutely take away the vote from a 70 year old who worked 45 years, paid taxes all that way, and is now retired and living on limited means. I mean, absolutely.

b) I said "on a limited fixed income... and thus have no tax to pay". I didn't say they have no taxable income. One can have taxable income yet by the time you're done with exemptions, deductions and credits have no actual tax to pay. If a retired military declares his taxable military pension pay but after itemizing his medical expenses, charitable contributions and property taxes has zero federal income tax liability, then I agree with Sgt - let's take away his vote, the #######. In fact, come to think of it, he better have actual tax payable in each of the last 4 years of the Presidential election cycle or I say wipe him off the election rolls. If he paid tax in 3 of the last 4 years but this year his wife went into the hospital and he racked up huge medical bills that bankrupted him and took away his tax liability, then by all means let's not let him vote to get some decent health insurance in this country.

[Danno 1,228]

There are a lot of legal immigrants and people where on work visas who pays taxes but cannot vote.

Taxation would not guarantee the the right to vote in this hypothetical ... -what if- discussion, it would be one thresh hold.

Age, criminal history, citizen status and other things still weigh in.

I'm more inclined to favor a basic test and or a min. taxation / public service requirement.

One would wonder how many Vets returning from the middle east own property.... who would suggest they have no vote?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Texas would > the country lol.... As the overwhelming vast majority of our land is privately owned!

Other than that though, I honestly feel welfare recipients, people who don't work, nor have any income tax liability as stated before, should NOT be allowed to vote... No one should be able to decide that others should pay money to them when they don't contribute a dime...

[Danno 1,228]

........ we should absolutely take away the vote from a 70 year old who worked 45 years, paid taxes all that way, and is now retired and living on limited means. I mean, absolutely.

When one runs the numbers and realizes they are going to crash the system .. it might be those old geezers are the very crowd we need to bar from the voting booth.... no matter their income.

[^_^ 5,021]

I wasn't aware that zero tax liability was possible. Whether or not one owes any tax or not is a different question, every legal resident and citizen is liable for tax and that's good enough.

The notion that people should be able to get away with tax dodging is another question entirely - and not one that should be tied to voting rights, in my opinion.

Many have zero federal income tax liability. Many have negative federal income tax liability. This is not the result of tax avoidance, but the result of how the system is designed to exempt the poor from any federal income tax liability.

Then you'd have people complaining that some are getting more in Federal money than they are paying into it ...

Well, yes.You would.