[MightyMouse]

Originally Posted by tomgilb »

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.

If you were attempting to achieve objectivity, you missed the mark by posting conservative propaganda, Both liberals, conservatives, and, additionally, tea partiers, all want to spend money. The only difference is who they want as a main beneficiary of the spent funds.

If you examine the accumulation of debt under the various administrations you will note that both liberal and conservatives were responsible for overspending. Percentage increases in national debt is tipped more in favor of republicans. If the wealthy, on balance, support the republican party, then they have benefited more greatly from policy than the middle and low income population.

In addition, the effective tax rate of the super wealthy over the last 2 decades has decreased dramatically.

Effective Tax Rates for Taxpayers with the Top 400 Adjusted Gross Income, 1992-2007

[tomgilb]

Originally Posted by MightyMouse »

If you were attempting to achieve objectivity, you missed the mark by posting conservative propaganda, Both liberals, conservatives, and, additionally, tea partiers, all want to spend money. The only difference is who they want as a main beneficiary of the spent funds.

If you examine the accumulation of debt under the various administrations you will note that both liberal and conservatives were responsible for overspending. Percentage increases in national debt is tipped more in favor of republicans. If the wealthy, on balance, support the republican party, then they have benefited more greatly from policy than the middle and low income population.

In addition, the effective tax rate of the super wealthy over the last 2 decades has decreased dramatically.

Effective Tax Rates for Taxpayers with the Top 400 Adjusted Gross Income, 1992-2007

It's true that republicans are no better than democrats when it comes to gov spending, so don't confuse republican with conservative. My point is that a flat % tax is a conservative concept. Redistribution of wealth is a liberal concept, and a graduated tax table is one way to accomplish that.

Throw out the current tax code and replace it with a flat tax and then everyone pays their fair share.

[MightyMouse]

Originally Posted by tomgilb »

It's true that republicans are no better than democrats when it comes to gov spending, so don't confuse republican with conservative. My point is that a flat % tax is a conservative concept. Redistribution of wealth is a liberal concept, and a graduated tax table is one way to accomplish that.

Throw out the current tax code and replace it with a flat tax and then everyone pays their fair share.

A dramatic change like that would have many unintended consequences. It is also doubtful that we can encourage lawyers to create new laws that will have a negative impact on lawyers. I agree that conceptually it sounds good and I would certainly benefit, but I suspect that a flat tax will remain on the drawing board for a long time.

[SIUYA]

regards taking away the ability of a non tax paying voter....
IMHO - take such a suggestion to the extreme to see why if you wish to have a caring/fair/compasionate society, you really should never take away certain rights from anyone in that society. One of these rights in a democratic and free society is the right to vote.
Why not say to people, for every percentage of your income that is paid in tax you get a vote, that way a 50% tax payer gets 50 votes, and a 10% tax payer gets 10 votes.....you might find more secretaries having more votes than their hedge fund managers
What about companies - they (supposedly) pay taxes - do they get a vote too? and all their subsidiaries.
(arguably Corporations help set policies via lobbying anyway - better than a vote, just make sure that you can buy who ever gets voted in )

and given that voting in the US is not enforced, and the rates of voter turnouts at elections is pretty poor - who is it that chooses not to vote when they are given the chance - it probably is already they poor folk who pay no taxes anyway!
Ahhhh...the never ending quest for the perfect system.