Romney and representation without taxation

[nursebee]

My father mentioned something to me months ago that has been percolating in my noggin. I thought to do some research and write an article for publication but the inspiration and direction to head is not there. So I thought I would throw this out on the internets for the idiots and brains to help me flesh out. Please do add your thoughts or comments.

Our country was founded by those who were taxed without representation. They had no say in how the government ran. Easy enough to understand (and likely easy enough to research).

There could easily be debate as to the accuracy of the figures bantered around, but a portion of our US society have a say, ie they get to vote, when they pay no taxes. As an example, reference this speech by Romney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utsWJJJFLJE

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/utsWJJJFLJE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Some argue that 47% is the figure of single people that file who pay no taxes!

I'd like to examine, perhaps argue for the sake of discussion, that those that pay no taxes, that do not contribute to society, should not have a vote in how things are run. It is kind of like a family unit, in my house the kids did not have a say in decision making. Sure we could whine, fuss, and thereby influence things, but the end result was parents earned the money and made the decisions. We were still cared for, but until we got jobs we had no power, no vote.

How else could the arguement be made that representation without taxation is wrong or should not be done?

 

[achilles28]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

-Alexander Fraser Tytler

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from nursebee:
I'd like to examine, perhaps argue for the sake of discussion, that those that pay no taxes, that do not contribute to society, should not have a vote in how things are run. It is kind of like a family unit, in my house the kids did not have a say in decision making. Sure we could whine, fuss, and thereby influence things, but the end result was parents earned the money and made the decisions. We were still cared for, but until we got jobs we had no power, no vote.

How else could the arguement be made that representation without taxation is wrong or should not be done?

I think it's a very valid question, but applying this principle consistently is going to lead to some very complicated questions of "fairness" and "justice"...

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from achilles28:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

-Alexander Fraser Tytler

For the record, there's no record of Alexander Tytler ever making this statement, so this is most likely a mis-quotation. He did have a very cynical view of democracy, to be fair, but it was a very nuanced view. For example, he also said that democracy "... is the best adapted to produce, though not the most frequent, yet the most striking, examples of virtue in individuals".

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Martinghoul:

I think it's a very valid question, but applying this principle consistently is going to lead to some very complicated questions of "fairness" and "justice"...

It already has led to the question. It's simply not fare or just that non income tax payers get to vote themselves entitlements and handouts paid for by those that do pay.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Lucrum:
It already has led to the question. It's simply not fare or just that non income tax payers get to vote themselves entitlements and handouts paid for by those that do pay.

Sure... I think we have discussed this and I wholeheartedly agree with the principle. The question for me, as I said, is how to apply the principle in a consistent way that makes sense. For example, what do you do about the elderly retirees? What do you do about the genuinely disabled (for example, soldiers who have been disabled in the line of duty)?

 

[nutmeg]

I suppose the income tax ain't what it used to be...But people are paying all sorts of use taxes or sales taxes, taxes on plenty of things and services that didn't carry a tax back in the day.

People, are paying plenty of taxes (maybe more) without working at a conventional job than collecting with a conventional income tax.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Lucrum:

It already has led to the question. It's simply not fare or just that non income tax payers get to vote themselves entitlements and handouts paid for by those that do pay.

Or we can just have congress steal less money. You see, there's plenty of money for these programs if congress is not stealing the money to fund wars we shouldn't be fighting, policing the world, financing tyrannical foreign governments, subsidizing industries that don't need subsidizing, bailing out corporate leaders that should be jailed for their crimes...just to name a few. Americans are a kind and generous people and most of us have no problem assisting other Americans who need it, with some oversight of course. What we don't want is to see our money squandered on all this other shit.

 

[wildchild]

The dems have employed a strategy to stay in power by manipulation the tax code to assure themselves power. It is a strategy they have employed since at least the 1930s. The only thing that somewhat neutralizes the strategy is the fact that these people who are not paying into the system tend to be indifferent to voting as they have no real skin in the game.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Martinghoul:

Sure... I think we have discussed this and I wholeheartedly agree with the principle. The question for me, as I said, is how to apply the principle in a consistent way that makes sense. For example, what do you do about the elderly retirees? What do you do about the genuinely disabled (for example, soldiers who have been disabled in the line of duty)?

Simply extend the tax paying requirement to include property tax as well. For those who pay no tax at all (income, property or whatever) they should have no vote as they have no skin in the game. Sales tax does not count.