Does anyone think convicts and 16 year olds should vote? 🤔

[Adam Curran]

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Same issue exists with the minimum age of enlistment into the armed services. 17 is the minimum, but you can't vote, drink smoke, go to a strip club. Of course if the enlistment age went up, we would have to remove voluntary service and have compulsory service requirements.

Voting should be for those who are of mature age, as per insurance requirements of 25 years of age. At this age, the normal person understands the value of a dollar, typically, and has a well rounded view.

I will add, that our vote counts for nothing anyway.

 

[Rebarcock.]

View attachment 209366

I vote no. Should only be people with business or hold land ownership including mortgages. If you're not able to do that,tough shit. No vote for you ya bum

 

[LafesterMacintosh]

I vote no. Should only be people with business or hold land ownership including mortgages. If you're not able to do that,tough shit. No vote for you ya bum

What if I make 200,000 a year but want nothing to do with business or land ownership? No vote?

 

[Rebarcock.]

What if I make 200,000 a year but want nothing to do with business or land ownership? No vote?

No vote

 

[weaponoffreedom]

A "convict" should only be a "convict" until they are let out of prison. After that, I think their debt is paid to society, and should move on with life unmarked. This is one major flaw in our society, and in our justice system.

So yes, they should be able to do all things a normal citizen can do.

With exception to pedophiles, to whom should be killed on the spot=cheaper=faster=an example to others=all good in the hood. They should not breathe let alone vote.

They want LAQUISHA, CRYSTAL, AND YOLANDA with 9 kids each from 10 different guys (each?) to have 10 votes, for the one that is going to hook them up with the most "free shit up in this bish"

I call for everyone not to vote, and see what they do.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

What if I make 200,000 a year but want nothing to do with business or land ownership? No vote

what does how much you make matter?

Should only be people with business or hold land ownership including mortgages.

well really, even with a paid off mortgage, you dont really own anything, dont pay them property taxes and see how long you own your shit.




I do agree with both of you to a point, or at least to what your point implies.......Maturity, productive member, and so on.

 

[fschmidt]

View attachment 209366

Trump will soon be a convict. Should he be banned from voting?

The electorate should consists of male citizens who own their home and have no debt. The government shouldn't be able to exclude men through conviction.

 

[hmt5000]

Same issue exists with the minimum age of enlistment into the armed services. 17 is the minimum, but you can't vote, drink smoke, go to a strip club. Of course if the enlistment age went up, we would have to remove voluntary service and have compulsory service requirements.

Voting should be for those who are of mature age, as per insurance requirements of 25 years of age. At this age, the normal person understands the value of a dollar, typically, and has a well rounded view.

I will add, that our vote counts for nothing anyway.

One could say that fighting a war "should" be a last line of defense type of thing. Voting is an every 2 years thing. I don't see limiting voting to 20 and fighting to 17 as hypocrisy because if we were an honest country... those 17 yo's would rarely if ever actually have to go to war but they could fuck up our country for decades because a bunch of Swifties thought Trump was mean because Taylor said so.

 

[Joe King]

Yes 16yo's should vote, but only for prom queen.


As for only landowners being allowed to vote, that would be fine but should only apply to certain issues. For example, like property tax increases. Why should renters be able to vote to increase land owners taxes? They'll mostly vote for all of 'em, but when their rent increases because of it, they'll just move to a neighboring jurisdiction and leave the homeowners stuck with a higher tax bill. Fuck that.

 

[TheResister]

Voting is a privilege and originally was limited to land holders as they had something invested in their community and the state. Today they let anyone vote. Undocumented foreigners are barred from voting in federal elections; however, maybe only half a dozen or so states bar noncitizens from voting in state and local elections via state constitutions. So, if the state and locals give it an okay they can vote.

We let illiterate people vote along with those who live off the government. How would you like to have a vote on your job and force the employer to give you a raise just because the employees voted for it? The welfarite specializes in avoiding finding a job. That is their career and we pay for them not to work with them voting their own pay raises. If it helps to find a solution, they have reintroduced the Fair Tax.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

One could say that fighting a war "should" be a last line of defense type of thing. Voting is an every 2 years thing. I don't see limiting voting to 20 and fighting to 17 as hypocrisy because if we were an honest country... those 17 yo's would rarely if ever actually have to go to war but they could fuck up our country for decades because a bunch of Swifties thought Trump was mean because Taylor said so.

Of course, I would not say that if a 17yo can join the military, then they should be able to vote. They do not go hand in hand. It is not an honest world, and but would be more honest if voting age was 25, and military age was 25.

I agree it is not a hypocrisy, and that it needed, but dumbass 16yo should not vote.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

originally was limited to land holders as they had something invested in their community and the state

i would argue that we no longer "own" our real property. Originally we did not have an IRS either.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

What if I make 200,000 a year but want nothing to do with business or land ownership? No vote?

This was my thought. It was a retarded comment on his part.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Of course, I would not say that if a 17yo can join the military, then they should be able to vote. They do not go hand in hand. It is not an honest world, and but would be more honest if voting age was 25, and military age was 25.

I agree it is not a hypocrisy, and that it needed, but dumbass 16yo should not vote.

If someone can enlist than they should absolutely be able to vote.

Those who volunteer to put their life on the line for their country certainly have “skin in the game”.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Yes 16yo's should vote, but only for prom queen.


As for only landowners being allowed to vote, that would be fine but should only apply to certain issues. For example, like property tax increases. Why should renters be able to vote to increase land owners taxes? They'll mostly vote for all of 'em, but when their rent increases because of it, they'll just move to a neighboring jurisdiction and leave the homeowners stuck with a higher tax bill. Fuck that.

You say property tax increases as if that happens in a vacuum and for no reason.

If a school district puts a levy on the ballot then everyone, including renters, should be able to vote on a policy that affects their child’s education.

Police levies are another example of why your logic doesn’t work since everyone is policed regardless of whether they are renters or not.

If that apartment owner doesn’t want to pay the property taxes then they can sell. If they didn’t expect taxes to go up over time then they deserve to take a hit for being a dumb investor.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

what does how much you make matter?

well really, even with a paid off mortgage, you dont really own anything, dont pay them property taxes and see how long you own your shit.




I do agree with both of you to a point, or at least to what your point implies.......Maturity, productive member, and so on.

Who defines maturity @ “productive member”?

This sort of logic is such a slippery slope because blue states will say gun owners aren’t mature or responsible and should therefore have their voting rights taken away.

The right would do the same thing with abortion and gay marriage.

Thank goodness the 14th & 15th amendments protect us from smooth brain shit like you’re proposing.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Who defines maturity @ “productive member”?

This sort of logic is such a slippery slope because blue states will say gun owners aren’t mature or responsible and should therefore have their voting rights taken away.

The right would do the same thing with abortion and gay marriage.

Thank goodness the 14th & 15th amendments protect us from smooth brain shit like you’re proposing.

how would you define it?

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

how would you define it?

Define what?

 

[hmt5000]

Of course, I would not say that if a 17yo can join the military, then they should be able to vote. They do not go hand in hand. It is not an honest world, and but would be more honest if voting age was 25, and military age was 25.

I agree it is not a hypocrisy, and that it needed, but dumbass 16yo should not vote.

Should all 17yos be able to vote or just the ones that serve? Then go further and ask... should all 20 year olds be able to vote or just the ones that aren't complete drains on the country? LOL.

Vivek had a thing on voting age at 25 unless you serve in some way and I agreed with that.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Should all 17yos be able to vote or just the ones that serve? Then go further and ask... should all 20 year olds be able to vote or just the ones that aren't complete drains on the country? LOL.

Vivek had a thing on voting age at 25 unless you serve in some way and I agreed with that.

if you serve, then sure, you should be able to exercise the freedoms you help provide.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Define what?

Who defines maturity @ “productive member”?

keep up faggot

 

[TheResister]

i would argue that we no longer "own" our real property. Originally we did not have an IRS either.

I just had to do some legal research on a case. Know this: You don't have to argue about owning our own property. We don't own shit. We don't have any control over it and where I live the taxes are so high, you are just renting from the government.

What used to be is no more. Welcome to the United Socialist States of Amerika.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

keep up faggot

Those are two thing and others were referenced. Which woukd you like defined if I had a gun to my head?

 

[Joe King]

You say property tax increases as if that happens in a vacuum and for no reason.

If a school district puts a levy on the ballot then everyone, including renters, should be able to vote on a policy that affects their child’s education.

Police levies are another example of why your logic doesn’t work since everyone is policed regardless of whether they are renters or not.

If that apartment owner doesn’t want to pay the property taxes then they can sell. If they didn’t expect taxes to go up over time then they deserve to take a hit for being a dumb investor.

Only those who actually pay a tax, should be who votes whether or not those taxes are increased.

Why should transient people be permitted to vote to raise your taxes?
(and I am not saying they should not be permitted to vote at all, just not on issues that only affect other people.)


If we apportioned all direct taxes, as the Founders intended, it wouldn't be an issue as all people living in a given jurisdiction would pay the same dollar amount whether they owned or rented. Do that and then the renters get to vote whether or not to raise taxes on themselves.

We're all supposed to have equal Rights and be treated equally by the gov with respect to the laws. So why shouldn't we all pay an equal amount for our government services?

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Only those who actually pay a tax, should be who votes whether or not those taxes are increased.

Why should transient people be permitted to vote to raise your taxes?
(and I am not saying they should not be permitted to vote at all, just not on issues that only affect other people.)


If we apportioned all direct taxes, as the Founders intended, it wouldn't be an issue as all people living in a given jurisdiction would pay the same dollar amount whether they owned or rented. Do that and then the renters get to vote whether or not to raise taxes on themselves.

We're all supposed to have equal Rights and be treated equally by the gov with respect to the laws. So why shouldn't we all pay an equal amount for our government services?

The Founders didn’t believe in only direct taxes.

History of Property Taxes in the United States – EH.net

eh.net

How much you are taxed is up to you based on the choices you make. The government doesn’t treat anyone differently (everyone can choose for themselves). If you choose to earn more than you’ve chosen to pay more. The government doesn’t force you to work or have an income at all.

If you live in a district, village, municipality, ect. then you very likely pay a tax on your income specific to that location which justifies everyone in that area having a right to vote (in your proposed system). Hell, many people pay those taxes multiple times just for simply earning income in a local jurisdiction.

I’m one of those people as a matter of fact. Should I be able to vote in both jurisdictions local elections since I paid taxes in both or just the one I live in? This scenario lays out perfectly why voting rights can’t be based on paying taxes.

It seems the situation you are complaining about doesn’t actually exist very frequently. Maybe the homeless? Even then they could be a veteran. Are you really going to claim that a veteran shouldn’t have a right to vote just because they are homeless? Maybe they want to vote for more police so when they’re sleeping in their box it’s less likely they’ll get stabbed to death? It would raise taxes on other people but if a vet wants to sleep in a box (and some do prefer that to the rest of society) then who are we to tell him he can’t?

If you believe the question of why “transient people”should be allowed to vote to raise taxes on other people is worth asking then certainly the question of why shouldn’t transient people be able to vote to raise other people’s taxes is worth asking as well. My personal bias causes me to lean towards your opinion on the topic, if I’m being selfish, but certainly neither arguement has moral superiority over the other.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

I just had to do some legal research on a case. Know this: You don't have to argue about owning our own property. We don't own shit. We don't have any control over it and where I live the taxes are so high, you are just renting from the government.

What used to be is no more. Welcome to the United Socialist States of Amerika.

You’re pushing @MortgageHorn for dumbest poster on the forum.

 

[TheResister]

You’re pushing @MortgageHorn for dumbest poster on the forum.

You're full of shit. Nobody can take you seriously fed.

 

[CuriousFiend]

You're full of shit. Nobody can take you seriously fed.

Yeah nah I strongly disagree!

Obviously @Jake Broe Stan is infact entirely comprised of shit, for sure.
No argument there.


However I certainly do take fake Jake's fed boi fucklery quite seriously... because whereas if otherwise I did not, well then I'd be at greater risk of potentially mistaking his low grade disinfo meta-comedy act.... as anything but · · ·a steaming pile of joke broe stan.

He's kinda like an oversized crap encrusted corp govt brand Shit-ladle....one with exceptional utility because it can stir almost anything...even non-shit based mixtures....it achieves this by magically producing an endless stream of shit while it stirs

 

[CuriousFiend]

You’re pushing @MortgageHorn for dumbest poster on the forum.

....man, even though ya regularly fall back to lazily regurgitating the same weak shit for weeks on end, I gotta say, ya do seem like someone with a reasonably developed sense of humour....

Spoiler

...and no. Surprisingly I'm not actually meaning that with sarcasm at all.

Spoiler

In a way, beyond the fake digital "Jake Broe Stan" character, I can sorta see hints of your actively concealed—true underlying personality......it's very similar to Lafester's.

Butt fisting...or ahhhnah sorry I prolly meant - but just like - Lafester's act, both ya cuntified fucklets clearly can wilfully portray a somewhat convincing act whenever it suits ya'z-allbeit simplistic-while also apparently being limited to very brief bursts at best and always in between the more consistent & pronounced presentations of relatively subtle misalignment issues, which—in a characterological sense—unavoidably leads to cascading behavioural incongruities.

Spoiler

If this is too difficult to grasp, try thinking of your favourite firearm... except for some unknown reason it's cursed with almost always being ever-so slightly off the fuckin' target no matter how many shots ya take—even point blank....somehow it still misses.

Spoiler

 

[TheResister]

Yeah nah I strongly disagree!

Obviously @Jake Broe Stan is infact entirely comprised of shit, for sure.
No argument there.


However I certainly do take fake Jake's fed boi fucklery quite seriously... because whereas if otherwise I did not, well then I'd be at greater risk of potentially mistaking his low grade disinfo meta-comedy act.... as anything but · · ·a steaming pile of joke broe stan.

He's kinda like an oversized crap encrusted corp govt brand Shit-ladle....one with exceptional utility because it can stir almost anything...even non-shit based mixtures....it achieves this by magically producing an endless stream of shit while it stirs

He's like Santa Claus. He is everywhere, all at once. He leaves a shit trail behind himself wherever he goes. Posting that fairy face as his avatar wherein he looks like the gay blade that just swallowed a penis is the only humorous thing he ever does. I wonder how many IQ points he wastes calling others names associated with mental issues and always reminding us of his autism when he weighs in on posts here. The dude is pathetic. BTW, I'm not challenging him for the lowest IQ poster on the Internet. He may be jealous, but I'm no threat to his title.

 

[Joe King]

The Founders didn’t believe in only direct taxes.

Property taxes could certainly be considered to be a direct tax. They are directly taxing a person based upon real property they own. If that's not a direct tax, nothing is.

How much you are taxed is up to you based on the choices you make. The government doesn’t treat anyone differently (everyone can choose for themselves). If you choose to earn more than you’ve chosen to pay more. The government doesn’t force you to work or have an income at all.

Unless one commits a Capital offense, one has an absolute Right to their life. If one has an absolute Right to one's own life, then one must also have an absolute Right to support that life. To tax one's pay should not be Constitutional, as Rights cannot legally be taxed. To tax one's pay says that the gov does not recognize one's Right to support their life. The gov sees it as engaging in a taxable privilege.

If you live in a district, village, municipality, ect. then you very likely pay a tax on your income specific to that location which justifies everyone in that area having a right to vote (in your proposed system).

That's something else that should be unConstitutional.

Hell, many people pay those taxes multiple times just for simply earning income in a local jurisdiction.

That's also something that should be unConstitutional.

I’m one of those people as a matter of fact. Should I be able to vote in both jurisdictions local elections since I paid taxes in both or just the one I live in?

Yes, if you own property in both jurisdictions. The issue I was getting at was that of property taxes only. Ie: that only those owning property in a given jurisdiction should be permitted to vote on raising property owners taxes.

It seems the situation you are complaining about doesn’t actually exist very frequently.

It exists all the time. There is almost always some type of Bond issue tied to property tax rates on the ballot.

Maybe the homeless? Even then they could be a veteran. Are you really going to claim that a veteran shouldn’t have a right to vote just because they are homeless?

If they do not own property, they should not be able to vote on raising property owners taxes. I'm not saying they should not be able to vote for a represenative.

Maybe they want to vote for more police so when they’re sleeping in their box it’s less likely they’ll get stabbed to death? It would raise taxes on other people but if a vet wants to sleep in a box (and some do prefer that to the rest of society) then who are we to tell him he can’t?

If it raises property taxes, no they should not be able to vote on that particular issue.

If you believe the question of why “transient people”should be allowed to vote to raise taxes on other people is worth asking then certainly the question of why shouldn’t transient people be able to vote to raise other people’s taxes is worth asking as well.

No one who doesn't pay a particular tax should be allowed to vote as to whether or not taxes should be raised on other people. It's a pretty straight forward concept.

My personal bias causes me to lean towards your opinion on the topic, if I’m being selfish, but certainly neither arguement has moral superiority over the other.

It's not selfish in the least to want to keep your own money. If you wish to donate, you have the freedom to do that. You just shouldn't be able to force other people to have to pay more if it is a tax you do not already pay yourself.

What I'm talking about is basic fairness.


IMHO, I don't see the need for anything more than a head tax where everyone pays an equal dollar amount. There would be great benefits to such a system, but too many greedy people want others to have to pay more so that they get their gov services at a discounted rate. If companies were to charge prices for goods and services based on how taxes (property and income), the gov would declare it to be illegal and shut them down, but if the gov does it, it is somehow seen as normal.

 

[LafesterMacintosh]

Property taxes could certainly be considered to be a direct tax. They are directly taxing a person based upon real property they own. If that's not a direct tax, nothing is.


Unless one commits a Capital offense, one has an absolute Right to their life. If one has an absolute Right to one's own life, then one must also have an absolute Right to support that life. To tax one's pay should not be Constitutional, as Rights cannot legally be taxed. To tax one's pay says that the gov does not recognize one's Right to support their life. The gov sees it as engaging in a taxable privilege.



That's something else that should be unConstitutional.



That's also something that should be unConstitutional.



Yes, if you own property in both jurisdictions. The issue I was getting at was that of property taxes only. Ie: that only those owning property in a given jurisdiction should be permitted to vote on raising property owners taxes.


It exists all the time. There is almost always some type of Bond issue tied to property tax rates on the ballot.


If they do not own property, they should not be able to vote on raising property owners taxes. I'm not saying they should not be able to vote for a represenative.



If it raises property taxes, no they should not be able to vote on that particular issue.



No one who doesn't pay a particular tax should be allowed to vote as to whether or not taxes should be raised on other people. It's a pretty straight forward concept.


It's not selfish in the least to want to keep your own money. If you wish to donate, you have the freedom to do that. You just shouldn't be able to force other people to have to pay more if it is a tax you do not already pay yourself.

What I'm talking about is basic fairness.


IMHO, I don't see the need for anything more than a head tax where everyone pays an equal dollar amount. There would be great benefits to such a system, but too many greedy people want others to have to pay more so that they get their gov services at a discounted rate. If companies were to charge prices for goods and services based on how taxes (property and income), the gov would declare it to be illegal and shut them down, but if the gov does it, it is somehow seen as normal.

How are you so easily trolled?

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Property taxes could certainly be considered to be a direct tax. They are directly taxing a person based upon real property they own. If that's not a direct tax, nothing is.


Unless one commits a Capital offense, one has an absolute Right to their life. If one has an absolute Right to one's own life, then one must also have an absolute Right to support that life. To tax one's pay should not be Constitutional, as Rights cannot legally be taxed. To tax one's pay says that the gov does not recognize one's Right to support their life. The gov sees it as engaging in a taxable privilege.



That's something else that should be unConstitutional.



That's also something that should be unConstitutional.



Yes, if you own property in both jurisdictions. The issue I was getting at was that of property taxes only. Ie: that only those owning property in a given jurisdiction should be permitted to vote on raising property owners taxes.


It exists all the time. There is almost always some type of Bond issue tied to property tax rates on the ballot.


If they do not own property, they should not be able to vote on raising property owners taxes. I'm not saying they should not be able to vote for a represenative.



If it raises property taxes, no they should not be able to vote on that particular issue.



No one who doesn't pay a particular tax should be allowed to vote as to whether or not taxes should be raised on other people. It's a pretty straight forward concept.


It's not selfish in the least to want to keep your own money. If you wish to donate, you have the freedom to do that. You just shouldn't be able to force other people to have to pay more if it is a tax you do not already pay yourself.

What I'm talking about is basic fairness.


IMHO, I don't see the need for anything more than a head tax where everyone pays an equal dollar amount. There would be great benefits to such a system, but too many greedy people want others to have to pay more so that they get their gov services at a discounted rate. If companies were to charge prices for goods and services based on how taxes (property and income), the gov would declare it to be illegal and shut them down, but if the gov does it, it is somehow seen as normal.

Troll attempt.

 

[MalO]

I've always wanted a 20% flat tax with no deductions or exemptions. No paperwork full of checkboxes. No way for a lawyer or even an army of lawyers to reduce the tax burden. No special consideration for losses that year or emergency circumstances.

You pay 20% or you go to jail and your assets are liquidated.

It applies equally to everyone, from the poorest man to the richest man.

That's what I want and let the corrupt crony capitalist scream at the sky if they don't like it. Gnash their teeth. Threaten to move to a different country. Other countries won't treat them as well as they have it here.

I dare any of our billionaires to move to China. They're happy exploiting slave labor there and they might be willing to visit but they don't want to live there as Chinese citizens.

 

[MalO]

Right now Billionaires might as well not pay income tax. They have tax lawyers who know all the loopholes and drop their tax burden to nothing. I paid more income tax than Donald Trump paid in 2017. He also paid no income tax at all for the previous 15 years.

Funny how he can post so much loss for 15 years straight that he pays nothing, yet still somehow remains a billionaire.

Our corporate tax rate dropped from 35% to 21%

USA Congress repeatedly fails to properly fund the IRS. They don't want tax enforcement.

Yet our country is over 30 trillion dollars in debt, runs on deficit spending, and continually wants to wage war and have the largest most expensive military on planet Earth.

And for some reason, I'm the only person who wants a return to sanity. Everyone needs to pay their taxes. The deficit spending has to stop. The national debt must be paid. The IRS has a legitimate job to do, and needs proper funding so they can do it.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Yet our country is over 30 trillion dollars in debt

but this is not due to a lack of taxation

Everyone needs to pay their taxes. The deficit spending has to stop. The national debt must be paid. The IRS has a legitimate job to do

100% agree, but at 10%

needs proper funding so they can do it.

they have plenty of funding

 

[Joe King]

The national debt must be paid.

The national debt will never be "paid". All the gov does is to issue new debt in the amount of any that matures. Ie: old debt gets "paid" with new debt. If the gov actually tried paying it off, we'd be bankrupt virtually overnight.

Everyone needs to pay their taxes.

Only for what they have incurred liability for. Not everyone incurs liability.

 

[Joe King]

100% agree, but at 10%

If everyone has to pay, everyone should pay the same dollar amount.

We all get the same gov services and same gov protection, so why should we not all pay the same amount for those things? We're supposed to be equal in the eyes of gov. Having everyone pay a different amount for the same thing, is where inequality starts.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

If everyone has to pay, everyone should pay the same dollar amount.

We all get the same gov services and same gov protection, so why should we not all pay the same amount for those things? We're supposed to be equal in the eyes of gov. Having everyone pay a different amount for the same thing, is where inequality starts.

what, I said 10%, across the board, everyone pays the same......oh wait you said dollar amount.......

So how much would you say as a proper $ dollar amount? per person?