[Tams]

Originally Posted by daVinciLite »

I understand your point and I agree in principle, but if there are more people taking from a society then giving,...

Regards,
dVL

can anyone say that he is giving more than he takes?

can anyone even say, he is giving as much as he takes?

from the first day he was born....?

[daVinciLite]

Originally Posted by Tams »

can anyone say that he is giving more than he takes?

can anyone even say, he is giving as much as he takes?

from the first day he was born....?

Very interesting question Tams. I am looking forward to reading someone’s answer. I have some ideas but I'll keep my mouth closed for now.

Regards,
dVL

[Tradewinds]

Originally Posted by Tams »

can anyone say that he is giving more than he takes?

can anyone even say, he is giving as much as he takes?

from the first day he was born....?

A slave might be able to say that and have it be true. Are their "economic slaves" who are not "legal" slaves? Are there people who get 99% of the pie when they didn't make or bake the pie? Are there people who get 1% of the pie who made and baked the pie?

[daVinciLite]

Another hypocrite ... Warren Buffet. He may owe as much as one billion in back taxes:

Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes - HUMAN EVENTS

dVL

[MightyMouse]

Originally Posted by daVinciLite »

Another hypocrite ... Warren Buffet. He may owe as much as one billion in back taxes:

Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes - HUMAN EVENTS

dVL

He would be a hypocrite if he were being investigated for tax evasion and at the same time saying that the rich should pay their fair share. On the other hand, he is disputing the amount he owes based on his interpretation of the tax code. That is something that everyone can do and has the right to do. It is your obligation to yourself to make sure that you pay as little as possible.

You are implying that he is a hypocrite because he is saying that the rich should pay their fair share and he is trying to pay as little as possible. Do you expect him to be willing to pay more than he should because of his statements? He wants the tax codes to change so that the wealthy pay more. He is not suggesting that the the wealthy should pay more than they have to.

[daVinciLite]

Originally Posted by MightyMouse »

Do you expect him to be willing to pay more than he should because of his statements?

You bet I do. He can take all his income as salary and pay the higher rate but he doesn't because he is a hypocrite. Anything can be rationalized (rational lies) but he is still a hypocrite.

Regards,
dVL

[MightyMouse]

Originally Posted by daVinciLite »

You bet I do. He can take all his income as salary and pay the higher rate but he doesn't because he is a hypocrite. Anything can be rationalized (rational lies) but he is still a hypocrite.

Regards,
dVL

He is paying his fair share. You are paying your fair share. His fair share is a smaller percentage of income than your fair share. No one is going to pay more than what the law makes them pay. The law has been on the side of the wealthy. That is sort of his point.

[tomgilb]

Originally Posted by MightyMouse »

He is paying his fair share. You are paying your fair share. His fair share is a smaller percentage of income than your fair share. No one is going to pay more than what the law makes them pay. The law has been on the side of the wealthy. That is sort of his point.

Because of the graduated tax tables, the rich pay more than their fair share. A fair share is a flat percentage. And the fairest way to collect taxes it a flat consumption tax. A tax on income also gives the gov the intrusive ability to modify behavior through tax credits and deductions.
Distribution of Major Federal Taxes 2000
51% of Americans Pay No Federal Income Taxes - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

But to respond to the original question, "Should a NON-taxpayer Be Allowed to Vote?", if we had a federal consumption tax instead of a federal income tax, the question would be moot; everyone would be a tax payer. However, if we don't repeal the 16th Amendment, and more than half of the population pays no income tax and can still vote, the balance of voters has tipped to those who would redistribute the wealth of others. A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

Disallowing the right to vote to those who pay no taxes might stem the tide toward socialism, something we must do because, as Margaret Thatcher once said, you eventually run out of other people's money.