That right there is key. Just because a hard working citizen can't afford 500k to "own" property, that should not exclude them from voting. On the flip side. Lazy bastard playing video games all day chomping on EBT bought and paid for Doritos, no that person should not get a vote.
Women are nurtures by nature. Think about all the government programs that are designed to reward irresponsibility and when/how these programs came into being
Term limits
Reward responsibility. Not just financial responsibility but social responsibility.
Careful, you're talking dangerous and all the libertarians will come out to tell you you're evil. But in all seriousness, I've long since thought something like this need to be done. As other's have said, there's too many people who contribute literally nothing to society, yet have the same power as the rest of us when it comes to voting. I'm not entirely sure tying it to property rights is the right answer, especially given a lot of people actually rent by choice since they enjoy moving every year or two to experience a new area, or it makes financial sense to them since they're taking the money they'd spend on a mortgage, taxes, etc. and investing for retirement/passive income to make their lives better.
Perhaps add an exception that allows people who rent to opt in and pay the taxes on their property as a means of counting that as their "property" and allowing them to vote? It's a complicated topic without a perfect answer, but I do agree that some kind of reform is needed.
Aren't property taxes figured into rent to start with? I'm not a landlord, but I remember reading that in some blog about investment property. It's how rent is determined. You factor in the costs of the property, which includes things like taxes and insurance and such.
Maybe someone who is/has been a landlord could clarify?
Yeah they're figured into it, but the landlord/property owner still pays them. It's part of the "expenses/fees" that renters have to pay. As the legal property owner, the landlord is the one responsible for taxes, they just pass it along to the renters as part of the rental agreement. Gross rent is different from what a landlord actually gets. It includes at least part of the expenses that come with housing, usually at minimum the property taxes, but often utilities and other expenses.
The upside for a renter, is that in 95% of cases, the leases are written in such a way that if monthly expenses are excessive of ran unforeseen reason (E.G. a water leak, or faulty circuit breaker) the landlord has to eat the extra expense and take a loss on it. This also applies to other things that may not be very expensive monetarily, but are a hassle to deal with and offer convenience.
I assume EVERYONE has at some point dealt with an incompetent Buffoon on the phone while trying to get their shoddy internet services fixed? Well that's the landlord's responsibility since the internet is in their name and they're responsible for it.
I realize I went on a bit of a rant, but basically, yes renters pay property taxes, but not in a legal sense. I'm saying to let them take sign an exception that allows them to use that "fee/expense" in place of the legal property tax.
Let's start with low hanging fruit such as one vote per citizen with a heartbeat. That alone would solve 80% of the problem. Otherwise people would just quit claim minimal rights to a property and everyone is a "property owner".
Always learn the opinion of your birthing person 'friend' before deciding if you have an opinion you want to share with said birthing person 'friend'. Wise He/Him you are!
Edit: Whoever down voted this comment has never "had" a birthing person "friend"...
your article, "quite possible, though impossible to prove" ...i am not wanting to argue, just stating my opinion on your "GIVEN the right to vote" comment...
If your net debts are more than your net savings or equity, you're jobless or a dependant of another person or the state, you shouldn't get to vote, since you're not a net contributor to the country and likely to vote to the determinant of the 'common good'.
Not saying we should make 'the rich richer', but people should get to keep more of what they earn, have more of a say in how their taxes are spent and be incentivised to work hard.
The exact solution and policies needed to fix the problem of the modern welfare state is debateable, but I think we can all agree that people who pay No taxes and even Minus Taxes having the same say in how tax dollars are spent is ridiculous - a 4 year old could tell you that.
A child who did their chores will rightfully feel more entitled to watch television and decide what channel to watch over the lazy child who ignored their parent and did nothing.
An idea (especially a political one) is seldom perfect, and the people who then spot the areas needing improvement can constructively criticise if they want (or just point out the problem and another person can provide the solution).
Seldom are there genuine who can come up with great ideas, identify problems and provide effective solutions to all of the problems.
Yes that would be the wrong way around, better to simply say if you claim any benefits from the government, that would include a bar to voting. As a system that would work because the person would have chosen to receive from the government first, they want the money, they pay the price.
It also would have the added systematic benefit that the government could not bribe the electorate, as the bribe itself would neutralise the vote of that person.
So what are we including in "benefits from the government "?
Small business loans? GI Bill? Farming subsidy? Pell grants? Student financial aid from government in general, there are quite a few. SSDI? Or are we limiting this to welfare and food stamps?
I think you might get more pushback than you would think on this, because I know more than a few people here who have relied on one or both of those at one time or another.
Small business loans should be private sector, not gov. Veteran assistance should be nominally functioning like a pension accrued during service, so would be in essence an insurance scheme, so could be allowed as it is money paid in coming out. Farming subsidy could be achieved better by tariffing foreign imports, it's a defacto subsidy, but costs none of us money. Grants from the government would be included. Student loans would, but only while taking, not after school when paying back.
I know it would get push back (ferocious pushback) but the fact remains all money coming from the government came from our pockets, and the money buys loyalty - it purchases the pushback.
The debate will never end... but I will still make the case that money should not be doled out to an electorate. Keep in mind also, people can take a little crisis-help and maybe that is well and good, and later, when they elect to stop receiving, then the franchise is returned to them, so its only temporary, or should be. If nothing changes but you get free money, you will just vote to keep the money and the degeneration of humanity is the result.
"divulge", as if they don't already know more about your finances than you do.
A standard credit check (which is already done on basically every adult most years) would suffice, and it was really only a suggestion - I didn't think it was the best or most likely fix, but certainly better than what we have now.
Because first you make a stupid-as-fuck suggestion about how things SHOULD BE, and when I point out the serious flaw in your moronic idea, you disregard my point, citing how things CURRENTLY ARE.
Well which is it skippy? Are we discussing how things should be, or how they currently are?
Just admit your idea was stupid and move on with your life.
How is "people should get to keep more of what they earn, have more of a say in how their taxes are spent and be incentivised to work hard." "stupid-as-fuck".
No need for vulgar language, it does you no credit.
I have thought for years that military, vets, current homes owners, & functional (ie produces more value than consumed) business owners should be the only ones allowed to vote.
Easy enough to set up a business & sell items for a profit online.
I agree that the high ranking military are compromised and tend to be DS political stooges in uniform, but don't forget the ratio...
There are thousands of rank and file soldiers to every high-level officer. The soldier vote would greatly outnumber any of those in high levels of leadership. The average soldier by and large is super red-pilled due to being exposed to how the world truly works. Very few people leave the military as registered democrats.
So long as a soldier's vote is equal in weigh to a high-level officer's vote (as it should be) then I do think that Heinlein's idea would still work.
I definitely think one should earn the right to vote, but perhaps a bit more refined than just landowners.
Maybe base it out of an aggregate consideration on IQ, psych evaluations, accomplishments, family and many other things that could be used as an qualifier.
Also I believe not all votes should count the same, and it should all be based on merit, maybe you earn the right but your vote is still simple, only counts for 1, but you have the chance, say 10 years later, to go through the process once more, and up your "level", of course having bettered yourself in the meantime.
How about a constantly rotating panel of (actual) experts? you can only serve for a couple of years in that position, then can only serve again after 10 years, would perhaps prevent bias and corruption
Whatever it is it must be contemplated, you can't avoid doing something out of fear of mistakes and obstacles, it must happen
Or do you really think people who:
can't control their own finances
can't hold a job
treat their family like garbage
are drug addicts
have the IQ of a potato
Should be allowed to help decide the fate of a nation?
Maybe just really go back to the land-owner thing, it has it's set-backs, because one can just inherit land.... but at least it would be something.
I understand the sentiment but disagree with the results because our taxes are too complicated and are collected in many ways that are not easily traced back to the individual paying them. I'll try my best to clarify what I mean by that.
Local taxes are mainly collected through property taxes, sales taxes and in some states income taxes. Corporations don't pay taxes - they just pass the tax along to their customers as part of the price of their goods and services - land lords don't pay property taxes, they just raise the rent to cover the cost of the taxes so the renters are the ones actually footing that bill.
Income taxes, what a can of worms that would be. Imagine the logistics required to figure out who pays taxes and who does not (example: if you pay taxes one year but then get a huge right-off the next year because of a business loss or something along those lines that could offset what you paid the previous year - which year's taxes would you count or do you take the average paid (or not paid)). Everyone with a job (legally speaking) should be paying SS and Medicare taxes. They get collected separately from income tax but when they get sent to the gov, they just lump them into the general fund.
Drive an internal combustion engine powered vehicle? You're paying fed and local gas tax built into the per gallon price. Drink adult beverages? Around 50% of their actual price is built in taxes.
The real issue is that our government is using the tax code to redistribute wealth to buy votes and create giant slush funds that corrupt pols can skim off of.
Simple solution: Limit the scope of government and fund it by a flat tax and sales taxes that are collected in a transparent way. Make laws that elected officials have to list all their sources of income into public record. Robust voter ID laws and purging the voter rolls of moved or deceased voters annually.
Perhaps allowing only married women to vote would be appropriate, in consultation and with the agreement of their husband, this would encourage marriage and also boost the voting power of that critical foundation of society, the married couple.
I am only typing this to irritate shills, but I am also serious, even though it appears unfair, I think its a mistake to see voting as an individual right, better as a social good, that should only be given to people with a stake. I also agree that receipt from the state should pause your voting privileges until you are self supporting.
This all comes from the desire to have a system of voting and a structure to society that is generative, it doesn't come from a desire to take from people, quite the opposite..
I already do that instead of donating to “charity”. Free babysitting for a friend when she was trying to find a better job, restaurant or grocery store gift cards when money’s tight and food is running low…that’s how it should be. None of this government handout BS.
It was a family vote.
Why should ppl who own no property be able to vote for taxes on people who do own property?
Yep. Anyone getting freebies from the government shouldn’t be voting.
That right there is key. Just because a hard working citizen can't afford 500k to "own" property, that should not exclude them from voting. On the flip side. Lazy bastard playing video games all day chomping on EBT bought and paid for Doritos, no that person should not get a vote.
...because it's a conflict of interest.
I believe voting should be a privilege not a right.
How about if you take the citizens equivalent test and understand our nation's Constitution then you should have that privilege of voting.
Worry not, if voting made any difference they would not let you do it!
Careful, you're talking dangerous and all the libertarians will come out to tell you you're evil. But in all seriousness, I've long since thought something like this need to be done. As other's have said, there's too many people who contribute literally nothing to society, yet have the same power as the rest of us when it comes to voting. I'm not entirely sure tying it to property rights is the right answer, especially given a lot of people actually rent by choice since they enjoy moving every year or two to experience a new area, or it makes financial sense to them since they're taking the money they'd spend on a mortgage, taxes, etc. and investing for retirement/passive income to make their lives better.
Perhaps add an exception that allows people who rent to opt in and pay the taxes on their property as a means of counting that as their "property" and allowing them to vote? It's a complicated topic without a perfect answer, but I do agree that some kind of reform is needed.
Aren't property taxes figured into rent to start with? I'm not a landlord, but I remember reading that in some blog about investment property. It's how rent is determined. You factor in the costs of the property, which includes things like taxes and insurance and such.
Maybe someone who is/has been a landlord could clarify?
Yeah they're figured into it, but the landlord/property owner still pays them. It's part of the "expenses/fees" that renters have to pay. As the legal property owner, the landlord is the one responsible for taxes, they just pass it along to the renters as part of the rental agreement. Gross rent is different from what a landlord actually gets. It includes at least part of the expenses that come with housing, usually at minimum the property taxes, but often utilities and other expenses.
The upside for a renter, is that in 95% of cases, the leases are written in such a way that if monthly expenses are excessive of ran unforeseen reason (E.G. a water leak, or faulty circuit breaker) the landlord has to eat the extra expense and take a loss on it. This also applies to other things that may not be very expensive monetarily, but are a hassle to deal with and offer convenience.
I assume EVERYONE has at some point dealt with an incompetent Buffoon on the phone while trying to get their shoddy internet services fixed? Well that's the landlord's responsibility since the internet is in their name and they're responsible for it.
I realize I went on a bit of a rant, but basically, yes renters pay property taxes, but not in a legal sense. I'm saying to let them take sign an exception that allows them to use that "fee/expense" in place of the legal property tax.
Thank you! That's a very clear and easy to understand explanation. 👍👍
Let's start with low hanging fruit such as one vote per citizen with a heartbeat. That alone would solve 80% of the problem. Otherwise people would just quit claim minimal rights to a property and everyone is a "property owner".
My Birthing Person 'friend' thinks women are batshit crazy and shouldn't be running anything. Being a He/Him/Penis I have no opinion 😎
Always learn the opinion of your birthing person 'friend' before deciding if you have an opinion you want to share with said birthing person 'friend'. Wise He/Him you are!
Edit: Whoever down voted this comment has never "had" a birthing person "friend"...
i disagree.
your article, "quite possible, though impossible to prove" ...i am not wanting to argue, just stating my opinion on your "GIVEN the right to vote" comment...
But what Texastornado replied to appeared to be an arbitrary opinion. Your link changed the dynamic. Snark was unnecessary.
If your net debts are more than your net savings or equity, you're jobless or a dependant of another person or the state, you shouldn't get to vote, since you're not a net contributor to the country and likely to vote to the determinant of the 'common good'.
Not saying we should make 'the rich richer', but people should get to keep more of what they earn, have more of a say in how their taxes are spent and be incentivised to work hard.
The exact solution and policies needed to fix the problem of the modern welfare state is debateable, but I think we can all agree that people who pay No taxes and even Minus Taxes having the same say in how tax dollars are spent is ridiculous - a 4 year old could tell you that.
A child who did their chores will rightfully feel more entitled to watch television and decide what channel to watch over the lazy child who ignored their parent and did nothing.
You just excluded practically everyone with mortgage on their home. So you only want the rich to vote then?
An idea (especially a political one) is seldom perfect, and the people who then spot the areas needing improvement can constructively criticise if they want (or just point out the problem and another person can provide the solution).
Seldom are there genuine who can come up with great ideas, identify problems and provide effective solutions to all of the problems.
I'm no genuis, as you can see.
So now we have to divulge our finances to the government in order to be given the privilege of voting? No thank you.
Yes that would be the wrong way around, better to simply say if you claim any benefits from the government, that would include a bar to voting. As a system that would work because the person would have chosen to receive from the government first, they want the money, they pay the price.
It also would have the added systematic benefit that the government could not bribe the electorate, as the bribe itself would neutralise the vote of that person.
Bingo!
So what are we including in "benefits from the government "?
Small business loans? GI Bill? Farming subsidy? Pell grants? Student financial aid from government in general, there are quite a few. SSDI? Or are we limiting this to welfare and food stamps?
I think you might get more pushback than you would think on this, because I know more than a few people here who have relied on one or both of those at one time or another.
Small business loans should be private sector, not gov. Veteran assistance should be nominally functioning like a pension accrued during service, so would be in essence an insurance scheme, so could be allowed as it is money paid in coming out. Farming subsidy could be achieved better by tariffing foreign imports, it's a defacto subsidy, but costs none of us money. Grants from the government would be included. Student loans would, but only while taking, not after school when paying back.
I know it would get push back (ferocious pushback) but the fact remains all money coming from the government came from our pockets, and the money buys loyalty - it purchases the pushback.
The debate will never end... but I will still make the case that money should not be doled out to an electorate. Keep in mind also, people can take a little crisis-help and maybe that is well and good, and later, when they elect to stop receiving, then the franchise is returned to them, so its only temporary, or should be. If nothing changes but you get free money, you will just vote to keep the money and the degeneration of humanity is the result.
"divulge", as if they don't already know more about your finances than you do.
A standard credit check (which is already done on basically every adult most years) would suffice, and it was really only a suggestion - I didn't think it was the best or most likely fix, but certainly better than what we have now.
Have you taken your schitzo meds?
Because first you make a stupid-as-fuck suggestion about how things SHOULD BE, and when I point out the serious flaw in your moronic idea, you disregard my point, citing how things CURRENTLY ARE.
Well which is it skippy? Are we discussing how things should be, or how they currently are?
Just admit your idea was stupid and move on with your life.
How is "people should get to keep more of what they earn, have more of a say in how their taxes are spent and be incentivised to work hard." "stupid-as-fuck".
No need for vulgar language, it does you no credit.
You sound and act like a parasite, Blocked.
Dude. Reading comprehension is your friend.
Any idea that requires the government to have access to your financials in order to participate in society is a brain dead, stupid, fucked up idea.
THAT is the issue, Captain Sidestepper.
THAT was my first comment to you.
THEN you used the excuse “well, they already know your financials”.
Yeah, no kidding. That’s part of the reason the world is so fucked up right now - people with power having TOO MUCH power over the little guy.
Go right ahead and block me. I don’t give a flying fuck about how you think I sound, your opinion of me, or anything else you have to say.
You’ve already proven you’re too stupid to warrant further attention.
If women are not longer allowed to vote, do they still have to pay taxes?
Wouldn't that be "taxation without representation?"
asking for a friend
The gender gap in voting has receded quite a bit.
Rasmussen today
Total Biden Approval
men 41% women 45%
How dare Rasmussen only break it down into two genders.
To be able to vote, you should have to pass a test similar to the one you take if you want to become a U.S. citizen.
I have thought for years that military, vets, current homes owners, & functional (ie produces more value than consumed) business owners should be the only ones allowed to vote.
Easy enough to set up a business & sell items for a profit online.
I agree that the high ranking military are compromised and tend to be DS political stooges in uniform, but don't forget the ratio...
There are thousands of rank and file soldiers to every high-level officer. The soldier vote would greatly outnumber any of those in high levels of leadership. The average soldier by and large is super red-pilled due to being exposed to how the world truly works. Very few people leave the military as registered democrats.
So long as a soldier's vote is equal in weigh to a high-level officer's vote (as it should be) then I do think that Heinlein's idea would still work.
I definitely think one should earn the right to vote, but perhaps a bit more refined than just landowners.
Maybe base it out of an aggregate consideration on IQ, psych evaluations, accomplishments, family and many other things that could be used as an qualifier.
Also I believe not all votes should count the same, and it should all be based on merit, maybe you earn the right but your vote is still simple, only counts for 1, but you have the chance, say 10 years later, to go through the process once more, and up your "level", of course having bettered yourself in the meantime.
Something like this must happen.
Not necessarily performance based, it's just that said performance is a very good measure of capacity.
Let's call it performance based then, also known as meritocracy, you're against it?
IDk, it doesn't exist yet
How about a constantly rotating panel of (actual) experts? you can only serve for a couple of years in that position, then can only serve again after 10 years, would perhaps prevent bias and corruption
Whatever it is it must be contemplated, you can't avoid doing something out of fear of mistakes and obstacles, it must happen
Or do you really think people who:
Should be allowed to help decide the fate of a nation?
Maybe just really go back to the land-owner thing, it has it's set-backs, because one can just inherit land.... but at least it would be something.
I understand the sentiment but disagree with the results because our taxes are too complicated and are collected in many ways that are not easily traced back to the individual paying them. I'll try my best to clarify what I mean by that.
Local taxes are mainly collected through property taxes, sales taxes and in some states income taxes. Corporations don't pay taxes - they just pass the tax along to their customers as part of the price of their goods and services - land lords don't pay property taxes, they just raise the rent to cover the cost of the taxes so the renters are the ones actually footing that bill.
Income taxes, what a can of worms that would be. Imagine the logistics required to figure out who pays taxes and who does not (example: if you pay taxes one year but then get a huge right-off the next year because of a business loss or something along those lines that could offset what you paid the previous year - which year's taxes would you count or do you take the average paid (or not paid)). Everyone with a job (legally speaking) should be paying SS and Medicare taxes. They get collected separately from income tax but when they get sent to the gov, they just lump them into the general fund.
Drive an internal combustion engine powered vehicle? You're paying fed and local gas tax built into the per gallon price. Drink adult beverages? Around 50% of their actual price is built in taxes.
The real issue is that our government is using the tax code to redistribute wealth to buy votes and create giant slush funds that corrupt pols can skim off of.
Simple solution: Limit the scope of government and fund it by a flat tax and sales taxes that are collected in a transparent way. Make laws that elected officials have to list all their sources of income into public record. Robust voter ID laws and purging the voter rolls of moved or deceased voters annually.
Some great points.
Thanks - someone disagreed with you though 0 I apparently have a downvote follower.
A lot of great info from the GA folks
Perhaps allowing only married women to vote would be appropriate, in consultation and with the agreement of their husband, this would encourage marriage and also boost the voting power of that critical foundation of society, the married couple.
I am only typing this to irritate shills, but I am also serious, even though it appears unfair, I think its a mistake to see voting as an individual right, better as a social good, that should only be given to people with a stake. I also agree that receipt from the state should pause your voting privileges until you are self supporting.
This all comes from the desire to have a system of voting and a structure to society that is generative, it doesn't come from a desire to take from people, quite the opposite..
I already do that instead of donating to “charity”. Free babysitting for a friend when she was trying to find a better job, restaurant or grocery store gift cards when money’s tight and food is running low…that’s how it should be. None of this government handout BS.
But were we ever really at a point where the majority of people who needed help were getting it from private donations?
This is it!!! We end up here because of fiat, and all that flowed from it.