Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

daVinciLite

Should a NON-taxpayer Be Allowed to Vote?

Recommended Posts

With no “skin” in the game, should someone who pays no federal income tax be allowed to vote? After all, if current trends persist, how many taxpayers will be left to pay down the record national debt?

 

A non-taxpayer can vote for redistribution with little perceived loss on their end (notice I say perceived).

 

What do you think?

 

dVL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
should someone who pays no federal income tax be allowed to vote?

 

All legal citizens must be allowed to vote. Ultimately all issues come down to the issue of good and evil. The problem is that most people have no idea what good is. Most peoples attitudes tend to gravitate towards their own self interests.

 

The vote is all about the balance of power. Some people will always try to gain more power for themselves. Without the vote, there is no way to balance power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With no “skin” in the game, should someone who pays no federal income tax be allowed to vote?

dVL

 

Interesting question. This is a public policy debate.

 

Same question, but from a personal ethics viewpoint could be:

 

"Should someone who pays no federal income tax vote?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then let's also say anyone without a college degree or perhaps blue eyes or perhaps living only in NYC. Yes, lets take away the vote from the stupid masses who happen not to agree with what we may think.

 

What does a collage degree, having blue eyes or living in NYC have to do with anything? There are plenty of people with those qualifications that pay NO federal income tax.

 

Amazing how people can bring race and education into every political idea.

People of a certain race are NOT smarter and people of a certain education are NOT the “smartest in the room.” In many cases educated people can be a lot dumber then usual.

 

If I hire someone for a job, don’t I get to tell them what to do? We hire politicians for a job. Maybe only the people who pay the bills should have to right to choose who gets elected.

 

At one time you had to own property to vote in the US. Of course this will never happen nor do I want it to, but it is still a curious question.

 

Another question: Can a socialist ever get elected if the people paying the bills were the ones making the voting decisions?

 

Another question: Why do so many US and English citizens get away with paying absolutely no federal income tax?

 

Regards,

dVL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does a collage degree, having blue eyes or living in NYC have to do with anything? There are plenty of people with those qualifications that pay NO federal income tax.

 

Amazing how people can bring race and education into every political idea.

People of a certain race are NOT smarter and people of a certain education are NOT the “smartest in the room.” In many cases educated people can be a lot dumber then usual.

 

If I hire someone for a job, don’t I get to tell them what to do? We hire politicians for a job. Maybe only the people who pay the bills should have to right to choose who gets elected.

 

At one time you had to own property to vote in the US. Of course this will never happen nor do I want it to, but it is still a curious question.

 

Another question: Can a socialist ever get elected if the people paying the bills were the ones making the voting decisions?

 

Another question: Why do so many US and English citizens get away with paying absolutely no federal income tax?

 

Regards,

dVL

 

Is social or economic class different than race or religion when it comes to voting rights?

Should wealthy individuals not be allowed to vote on issues that are only of interest to the non-wealthy?

 

If you need to scratch your head and wonder were the money goes, look up to the wealthier classes and not to the poor. More money is spent in this country that benefits the wealthy than money that is spent benefiting the poor. Sounds like you might have listened to a little too much conservative radio.

 

It's easy to be a fool if you live a relatively healthy and wealthy life and naive to assume that everyone who receives more than they pay is scamming the govt.

 

Personally, I am completely against paying federal taxes, but have no issue with helping a person in need of financial or medical assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does a collage degree, having blue eyes or living in NYC have to do with anything?

 

 

dVL

 

That's the whole point. What does having money have do do with human rights, human dignity and the ability to play your role in your community.

 

The fact that this "question" is even asked or considered as something that could be debated says a lot.

 

Having money is an attribute just like having blue eyes or a colledge degree. As human beings in a community, deenfranchising anyone, not because of him committing a crime against the community, but because he just happens not to contribute money, quite abhorent to me. Some people make their contributions in other ways: playing music, painting, social assistance and so on. Just because I have a talent for making money does not give me the right to tell everyone how things should be in a society. In a democracy, the majority rules. Any one who doesn't like it can vote with his feet. People seem to be quoting Winston Churchill a lot recently. He said: "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He said: "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

 

I understand your point and I agree in principle, but if there are more people taking from a society then giving, that democracy will cease to exist in the near future. It will turn into some sort of totalitarian state where others are forced to “give” what they have. Cuba has elections and they have a 99% turn out rate, but of course there is only one candidate.

 

Why are you so sure all wealthy people pay taxes? Do the wealthy in Greece pay their share? I am not an expert, but from what I hear the answer is NO. The multinational GE paid very little US income tax last year.

 

You are missing the whole point of the question. It is not about the wealthy or poor telling anyone how to live. It is about fairness and the right for the “rich,” not so rich and even the poor to earn a living in freedom. Again, not all taxes are paid by the wealthy.

 

From what I see people who live on social assistance for a substantial length of time loose their dignity. With there dignity gone, they have a hard time contributing anything.

 

Regards,

dVL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Date: 11th July 2025.   Demand For Gold Rises As Trump Announces Tariffs!   Gold prices rose significantly throughout the week as investors took advantage of the 2.50% lower entry level. Investors also return to the safe-haven asset as the US trade policy continues to escalate. As a result, investors are taking a more dovish tone. The ‘risk-off’ appetite is also something which can be seen within the stock market. The NASDAQ on Thursday took a 0.90% dive within only 30 minutes.   Trade Tensions Escalate President Trump has been teasing with new tariffs throughout the week. However, the tariffs were confirmed on Thursday. A 35% tariff on Canadian imports starting August 1st, along with 50% tariffs on copper and goods from Brazil. Some experts are advising that Brazil has been specifically targeted due to its association with the BRICS.   However, the President has not directly associated the tariffs with BRICS yet. According to President Trump, Brazil is targeting US technology companies and carrying out a ‘witch hunt’against former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a close ally who is currently facing prosecution for allegedly attempting to overturn the 2022 Brazilian election.   Although Brazil is one of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the Americas, it is not the main concern for investors. Investors are more concerned about Tariffs on Canada. The White House said it will impose a 35% tariff on Canadian imports, effective August 1st, raised from the earlier 25% rate. This covers most goods, with exceptions under USMCA and exemptions for Canadian companies producing within the US.   It is also vital for investors to note that Canada is among the US;’s top 3 trading partners. The increase was justified by Trump citing issues like the trade deficit, Canada’s handling of fentanyl trafficking, and perceived unfair trade practices.   The President is also threatening new measures against the EU. These moves caused US and European stock futures to fall nearly 1%, while the Dollar rose and commodity prices saw small gains. However, the main benefactor was Silver and Gold, which are the two best-performing metals of the day.   How Will The Fed Impact Gold? The FOMC indicated that the number of members warming up to the idea of interest rate cuts is increasing. If the Fed takes a dovish tone, the price of Gold may further rise. In the meantime, the President pushing for a 3% rate cut sparked talk of a more dovish Fed nominee next year and raised worries about future inflation.   Meanwhile, jobless claims dropped for the fourth straight week, coming in better than expected and supporting the view that the labour market remains strong after last week’s solid payroll report. Markets still expect two rate cuts this year, but rate futures show most investors see no change at the next Fed meeting. Gold is expected to finish the week mostly flat.       Gold 15-Minute Chart     If the price of Gold increases above $3,337.50, buy signals are likely to materialise again. However, the price is currently retracing, meaning traders are likely to wait for regained momentum before entering further buy trades. According to HSBC, they expect an average price of $3,215 in 2025 (up from $3,015) and $3,125 in 2026, with projections showing a volatile range between $3,100 and $3,600   Key Takeaway Points: Gold Rises on Safe-Haven Demand. Gold gained as investors reacted to rising trade tensions and market volatility. Canada Tariffs Spark Concern. A 35% tariff on Canadian imports drew attention due to Canada’s key trade role. Fed Dovish Shift Supports Gold. Growing expectations of rate cuts and Trump’s push for a 3% cut boosted the gold outlook. Gold Eyes Breakout Above $3,337.5. Price is consolidating; a move above $3,337.50 could trigger new buy signals. Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business.   Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report.   Click HERE to access the full HFM Economic calendar.   Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding of how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!   Click HERE to READ more Market news.   Michalis Efthymiou HFMarkets   Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in Leveraged Products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
    • Back in the early 2000s, Netflix mailed DVDs to subscribers.   It wasn’t sexy—but it was smart. No late fees. No driving to Blockbuster.   People subscribed because they were lazy. Investors bought the stock because they realized everyone else is lazy too.   Those who saw the future in that red envelope? They could’ve caught a 10,000%+ move.   Another story…   Back in the mid-2000s, Amazon launched Prime.   It wasn’t flashy—but it was fast.   Free two-day shipping. No minimums. No hassle.   People subscribed because they were impatient. Investors bought the stock because they realized everyone hates waiting.   Those who saw the future in that speedy little yellow button? They could’ve caught another 10,000%+ move.   Finally…   Back in 2011, Bitcoin was trading under $10.   It wasn’t regulated—but it worked.   No bank. No middleman. Just wallet to wallet.   People used it to send money. Investors bought it because they saw the potential.   Those who saw something glimmering in that strange orange coin? They could’ve caught a 100,000%+ move.   The people who made those calls weren’t fortune tellers. They just noticed something simple before others did.   A better way. A quiet shift. A small edge. An asymmetric bet.   The red envelope fixed late fees. The yellow button fixed waiting. The orange coin gave billions a choice.   Of course, these types of gains are rare. And they happen only once in a blue moon. That’s exactly why it’s important to notice when the conditions start to look familiar.   Not after the move. Not once it's on CNBC. But in the quiet build-up— before the surface breaks.   Enter the Blue Button Please read more here: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/netflix-amazon-bitcoin-blue  Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • What These Attacks Look Like There are several ways you could get hacked. And the threats compound by the day.   Here’s a quick rundown:   Phishing: Fake emails from your “bank.” Click the link, give your password—game over.   Ransomware: Malware that locks your files and demands crypto. Pay up, or it’s gone.   DDoS: Overwhelm a website with traffic until it crashes. Like 10,000 bots blocking the door. Often used by nations.   Man-in-the-Middle: Hackers intercept your messages on public WiFi and read or change them.   Social Engineering: Hackers pose as IT or drop infected USB drives labeled “Payroll.”   You don’t need to be “important” to be a target.   You just need to be online.   What You Can Do (Without Buying a Bunker) You don’t have to be tech-savvy.   You just need to stop being low-hanging fruit.   Here’s how:   Use a YubiKey (physical passkey device) or Authenticator app – Ditch text message 2FA. SIM swaps are real. Hackers often have people on the inside at telecom companies.   Use a password manager (with Yubikey) – One unique password per account. Stop using your dog’s name.   Update your devices – Those annoying updates patch real security holes. Use them.   Back up your files – If ransomware hits, you don’t want your important documents held hostage.   Avoid public WiFi for sensitive stuff – Or use a VPN.   Think before you click – Emails that feel “urgent” are often fake. Go to the websites manually for confirmation.   Consider Starlink in case the internet goes down – I think it’s time for me to make the leap. Don’t Panic. Prepare. (Then Invest.)   I spent an hour in that basement bar reading about cyberattacks—and watching real-world systems fall apart like dominos.   The internet going down used to be an inconvenience. Now, it’s a warning.   Cyberwar isn’t coming. It’s here.   And the next time your internet goes out, it might not just be your router.   Don’t panic. Prepare.   And maybe keep a backup plan in your back pocket. Like a local basement bar with good bourbon—and working WiFi.   As usual, we’re on the lookout for more opportunities in cybersecurity. Stay tuned.   Author: Chris Campbell (AltucherConfidential) Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/   
    • DUMBSHELL:  re the automation of corruption ---  200,000 "Science Papers" in academic journal database PubMed may have been AI-generated with errors, hallucinations and false sourcing 
    • Does any crypto exchanges get banned in your country? How's about other as Bybit, Kraken, MEXC, OKX?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.