» Home » Politics
Individuals Who Don't Pay Taxes, Have No "right" To Vote.
Since the definition of rights has become quite ambiguous and cloudy, i.e. Positive rights, economic rights, negative rights, political rights, human rights, etc etc.; I would like to remove the right to vote if one does not pay taxes. It seems quite obvious where the cultural path will ultimately lead when those who don't produce can take from those who do, by a simple vote on a ballot.
 charlee  07 Oct 2009 00:10
                           (What's this?)  Add to Firefox  RSS
I agree however are you talking just income tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax because everyone pays something to the gov. I think it should include income and property tax in order to vote. (either or)
 
 doran  11 Oct 2009 01:58
 Add a Comment
 
 
If a person chooses not to pay taxies when they can or a person chooses not to work when they could be working and could have a job then I think they should lose their right to vote. I'd go a step further than Damian in regard to illegal immigrants or immigrants in general who choose not to pay taxies but are on benefits, I would just have them thrown out the country. Apart from the situations raised by 2cents I agree with the above debate.
 
 kddan  07 Oct 2009 13:49
 Add a Comment
 
 
An interesting theory. Including My2cents2u's post about people who are simply in a situation where they cannot pay taxes, what about the people who can pay taxes but choose not to? What about people who could get a job but choose not to because they're too proud to work in retail after being some bigshot CEO? What about illegal immigrants--assuming they can--that don't pay taxes and are paid under the table?

Even though the topic might be too broad, I'm wondering what people think about this more specific line of thought.
 
 Damien  07 Oct 2009 12:54
 1 Comment
 
 I don't disagree that there are some people who do not pay taxes or seek gainful employment when they are, in fact, perfectly able to work. I don't know if I believe that they should have their right to vote stripped from them though. That is something I just don't feel too comfortable with. How do we determine who is legitimately "out of work" or unable to work and who is just living off of government handouts? There are some individuals who commit disability fraud. That shouldn't mean that all disables individuals are faking a disability. Some people who are unemployed who say they cannot find a position may be able to work, but what about those who, because of job loss and the huge cut in pay, have become depressed and somewhat disabled for the time being? People who had high paying jobs and the bills that they could pay because of that salary are likely to be very stressed over their inability to make the same money so that they can keep their credit intact. I doubt all of them are only concerned about the status that their job provided. As far as those who enter the country illegally, I wasn't aware that they were able to vote. I thought one had to be a citizen of the US to vote. I would definitely agree that anyone here illegally should have no right to vote and should, in most cases, be deported. It isn't that I do not want to see people come here for more opportunity. I do, but I believe it should be done legally. We, as the citizens of the US, have to follow the laws of our country and it doesn't seem like it makes any sense that they would not. Aside from those who come here because staying where they are means certain death, I would say they should be able to get in any way they can, but the people who just run over the boarders are entering illegally and should be following the legal process to become a US citizen.
by  my2cents2u
 07 Oct 2009 14:15
Comment
  
Comment
  
Back to the days of the Land Owners when the country first started who were only allowed to vote. Do you really want that? I don't think so. So basically if you lose your job, you lose the right to vote until you get rehired?

How do you manage that? That would take so much resources to keep track of that.

I think it is an underhanded attempt to attack people perceived as don't work or are lazy. CODE WORDS.
 
 moreno  07 Oct 2009 17:51
 Add a Comment
 
 
Democracys point is all should be allowed the vote. Say your unemployed due to lack of opportunity or jobs, you have the right to cast a vote for the guy who says he'll get you jobs.
Mind you, thats how Hitler got in.
If the unemployed can't vote, possibly the full point of democrays lost.
 
 2free  07 Oct 2009 14:27
 Add a Comment
 
 
So basically you want to take from the poor and give to the rich. How elitist of you.
 
 dlmiller82  07 Oct 2009 02:25
 2 Comments
 
 I'm not sure that's what he meant. Charlee just doesn't strike me as that type of person, but I guess he will comment and we'll know. I just think he means that some poor choices may be made in an effort by some people who don't want to contribute to society and who want to continue to receive welfare or other financial assistance. There are some people out there who do abuse the system, but I don't think it's enough to warrant removing their right to vote. I just think you are being a little hard on charlee before you seek clarification.
by  my2cents2u
 07 Oct 2009 11:24
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
That statement is too broad. There are people who have been productive members of society, but due to some situation beyond their control, may not be working at election time. There are also housewives who do work hard to maintain a home and raise their children. How about those who are in wheel chairs due to tragic accident, yet have fully functional minds and who have been well educated and want to contribute more to society, but cannot because of the restrictions of their disability? I just named a few possible reasons why someone may be out of work and not paying taxes. There are some people who probably shouldn't vote, but I don't think that we can assume that all people who are not working are going to vote in such a way that would be uneducated and of sole benefit to themselves...I'm assuming that you are suggesting that they would vote for someone who promoted welfare or some other form of public assistance. Had you worded your debate a bit differently, I may have seen your point as a valid one, but to generalize that way is not something that anyone can do about any group of people. It is evident in many other debates and I think the same applies here.
 
 my2cents2u  07 Oct 2009 02:05
 3 Comments
 
 I was about to blindly agree with charlee's idea - until I read your post. Well done.
by  Grenache
 07 Oct 2009 10:52
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Sign In / Sign Up
 For and Against Recent Activity
Related Debates
McCain Is More Macho Than Obama
Animal Experiments Are One Of The Greatest Evils Of Our Time
Obama Shouldn't Win The Election.
David Davis Was Right To Resign Over The Issue Of "42 Days".
Children Ages 10-17 Should Be Allowed To Vote!
The US Is Now Attacking The Moon; Maybe This Is One We Can Win!
Electoral College Is Undemocratic
The 14 Characteristics Of Fascism Seem To Be A More American Conservative Or NeoCon Trait
McCain And Palin Would Be Laughed Out Of Europe
If You Want Corporations To Pay Taxes, You Have To Let Them Have A Say In Governance Through Political...
New Debates
Porche 911 Turbo Is A Noticable Car On The Streets.
Is It Creul To Leave A Pet At Home (dog)
Is Coke The Best Cola
Is God More Renowned Than Buda!
Should There Be Another Major Event Created Like Christmas.
Is Taco Bell The Best Place To Eat Tacos
Should An Animal Get Introduced To Australia To Kill The Cane Toads.
If You Meet An Alien It Will Suck Out Your Brains.
Chicken Is Nice
Should Scientists Keep Working On The Value Of Pi?