.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (67)
sorted by:
.
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.