Question

BMT (RIP) · 02-16-2010, 07:23

Stirring the pot with a big stick!!

Should landowner's and the military be the only one allowed to vote.

BMT

Dozer523 · 02-16-2010, 07:31

Nope, just Starship Troopers.

**Pete** · 02-16-2010, 07:32

I don't think so.

I think it should be restricted to people who "paid" into the federal tax system during any given year.

Excluded would be anybody who recieved money from the government in the form of earned income tax credits or similar government vote buying efforts.

"Paid" folks, "Paid" not as in you got a refund check. If you "donated" $1,000 in federal taxes over the year and recieved a refund check for $400 that means you "Paid" $600 in taxes.

kgoerz · 02-16-2010, 07:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMT

Stirring the pot with a big stick!!

Should landowner's and the military be the only one allowed to vote.

BMT

I wish. IMO, If a person is not a contributing member of Society they should not be given a vote. Problem is............the Democrats would become extinct in politics

Paslode · 02-16-2010, 08:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

I don't think so.

I think it should be restricted to people who "paid" into the federal tax system during any given year.

Excluded would be anybody who recieved money from the government in the form of earned income tax credits or similar government vote buying efforts.

"Paid" folks, "Paid" not as in you got a refund check. If you "donated" $1,000 in federal taxes over the year and recieved a refund check for $400 that means you "Paid" $600 in taxes.

x2

**Team Sergeant** · 02-16-2010, 08:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

I don't think so.

I think it should be restricted to people who "paid" into the federal tax system during any given year.

Excluded would be anybody who recieved money from the government in the form of earned income tax credits or similar government vote buying efforts.

"Paid" folks, "Paid" not as in you got a refund check. If you "donated" $1,000 in federal taxes over the year and recieved a refund check for $400 that means you "Paid" $600 in taxes.

I like the way you think.

JJ_BPK · 02-16-2010, 09:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMT

Stirring the pot with a big stick!!
Should landowner's and the military be the only one allowed to vote. BMT

This has come up several time with the inlaws.

Most have homes and vacation condos/homes and want to be able to vote in any election where they own property.

Case in point: My wife's cuz owns a home in Sag Harbor, Long Island, NY. The family lived out there over several generations as farmers. Needless to say it is worth a bunch. Charley pays almost as much a yr in taxes,, as I pay mortgage.. He is pissed that every year his taxes go up and he can't do a dam thing about it. The local Democrats spend & spend, being elected by a small blue collar bunch of farmers. Yes there are farmers on Long Island,, lots of potatoes..

I concur,, if you pay taxes, you can vote...

Bordercop · 02-16-2010, 09:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

I don't think so.

I think it should be restricted to people who "paid" into the federal tax system during any given year.

Excluded would be anybody who recieved money from the government in the form of earned income tax credits or similar government vote buying efforts.

"Paid" folks, "Paid" not as in you got a refund check. If you "donated" $1,000 in federal taxes over the year and recieved a refund check for $400 that means you "Paid" $600 in taxes.

X3 and then some. If you don't pay taxes then you shouldn't have a say in what the government says or does!!!

craigepo · 02-16-2010, 09:16

The effect of allowing only landowners to vote, when this county began, was to give political power only to those who had a vested interest in the betterment of the country. These folks would vote, it was hoped, with the best interests of the country(and not only for themselves) in mind.

Today, just about everybody gets to vote. Studying the nation's politics from beginning to now evidences that the effect has been to drag the country to the left. Some of this dragging was necessary; much was not. But it is understandable, as much of our voting populace votes with their own betterment, and not the country's, as their goal.

I do not think the "landowner" distinction would be feasible today. However, I think that general idea is germane and necessary.

I would think that, for the betterment of the country, for a person to have the right to vote, he/she should "have some skin in the game", i.e. should have something to lose. Folks who do not work, and subsist only by draining tax money away from others, have no skin in the game.

Pete's idea is not bad. However, this would prevent retirees from voting(many of whom should vote). Possibly a rule that, to vote, the person either: (a) was gainfully employed or, (b) has paid in a minimum lifetime amount to Social Security.

I'm sure ACORN is now calling in a fire mission on my position.

Dozer: I liked the Starship trooper statement. Most won't get it, they've only seen the movie.

ETA: Necessarily, with rights and privileges come duties and responsibilities.

afchic · 02-16-2010, 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

I don't think so.

I think it should be restricted to people who "paid" into the federal tax system during any given year.

Excluded would be anybody who recieved money from the government in the form of earned income tax credits or similar government vote buying efforts.

"Paid" folks, "Paid" not as in you got a refund check. If you "donated" $1,000 in federal taxes over the year and recieved a refund check for $400 that means you "Paid" $600 in taxes.

I agree in concept, but not in execution. There are plenty of young enlisted troops that fall into this category.

Utah Bob · 02-16-2010, 10:16

Lemme think.

No.

lksteve · 02-16-2010, 11:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by afchic

I agree in concept, but not in execution. There are plenty of young enlisted troops that fall into this category.

Young enlisted troops are in the military, are they not?

afchic · 02-16-2010, 11:31

Yep, but some of them are also on food stamps and EIC.

lksteve · 02-16-2010, 11:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by afchic

Yep, but some of them are also on food stamps and EIC.

True...but it was that way 20+ years ago when I was commanding a company...I think the point of the question is that troops, regardless of land ownership or tax paying status, make a contribution to the nation, whereas a career welfare recipient does not...

**Pete** · 02-16-2010, 11:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by afchic

Yep, but some of them are also on food stamps and EIC.

The 2010 cut off for the EITC is $43,279 for a married couple filing jointly with three children.

So yes, there are some lower enlisted who would qualify.

A married E-2 with less than 2 years TIS would be getting $1,568.70 base pay per month, $323.87 for rations and $1,065 for quarters (Ft Bragg) for a yearly total of $35,490.84 - not counting flight, jump or other incentive pay. Throw in a few kids and yes some would qualify.

In my view the EITC is a crock of steaming crap.

Edited to add the 1 Oct 1974 rates for the same E-2 under 2 yrs TIS. $383.40 base pay, $110.70 QTS w/Dep and I didn't find the rations but think it was around $129ish(?). Jump pay at $55 was a big deal.