Only those that have paid a certain ammount in tax should be allowed to vote. Thoughts?

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

 

[Lord Pantaloons]

stupid as hell

[flibberdipper]

No. The US would be screwed then.

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

stupid as hell

Why? Please explain.

[nsyedhasan]

Why? Please explain.

Richer people can control the vote easily.

[Worth]

Should be a certain percentage... Also the law in the US that makes people with a higher income pay a higher percentage is dumb and punishes the successful

[Lord Pantaloons]

Why? Please explain.

You pay more taxes when you make more money, only the wealthy would be able to vote thus screwing over anyone who doesn't make enough money. The wealthy could just vote in someone who will pass laws to make it easier for wealthy people to make and keep more of their money.

[minimalist]

Not sure.  People who understand very little about politics are easily manipulated and cast stupid ass votes all of the time.  I think a better idea is to take a test on politics in order to be able to vote.  Outright banning would cause riots or too much drama.

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

Richer people can control the vote easily.

If it was a limit such as £25,000 then  the majority of people that have worked for 5 or so years would be able to vote. Just because there is a limit, doesnt mean it shoudl be a very high limit.

 

My thoughts are that it would give the people who contribute to the country a more meaningful vote over somebody that does not contribute. I realised shortly after posting that the majority of the people on this forum havent paid tax.

[ultimatemythbuster]

Does that mean that we don't have to pay taxes if we don't want to vote? 

[beebskadoo]

It's a bad idea, once you start that concept it can be manipulated even further to cut out certain classes completely from having a voice.

[Worth]

Not sure.  People who understand very little about politics are easily manipulated and cast stupid ass votes all of the time.  I think a better idea is to take a test on politics in order to be able to vote.  Outright banning would cause riots or too much drama.

I like the way Italy does it. After a certai number of years of not voting all right to the vote is lost(if I understand correctly)

[Murdoch]

Why? Please explain.

 

Because the system would only account for the people who can vote, the people that earn enough to pay Tax. It would only represent them, and work in their interests. Leaving vast amounts of people with no influence whatsoever over policy. It's bad enough as it is now, it'd be a terrible idea to make it worse.

 

You can contribute to society without earning money. Students don't pay tax. As a result, students would be completely unrepresented by the system, because by the time they can vote... they won't be students anymore.

[flibberdipper]

Richer people can control the vote easily.

Which is why the US would be screwed.

[Dragonzeanse]

Fail troll is fail.

[SeanE]

I don't think it should be that way. The main reason why is because voting affects everyone lives, not just the people who pay in to taxes. Just because someone doesn't make that much money doesn't mean they shouldn't have a say in how the government runs. If laws just applied to people who pay a considerable amount of taxes, then go for it, but laws affect everyone, not just people who pay a considerable amount in taxes.

[ohJey]

No we want the masses to vote.  What we don't want is the top %s to buy and pay for politicians and votes.

[minimalist]

I like the way Italy does it. After a certai number of years of not voting all right to the vote is lost(if I understand correctly)

That's interesting. I still think people need to truly understand the issues they are voting for though. There are people who thought Obama's VP was going to be Sarah Palin. They shouldn't be voting, I'm sorry.

[_ASSASSIN_]

Which is why the US would be screwed.

are you trying to say the US is poor or there is a big gap between the rich and poor?

[Dragonzeanse]

Why are people dignifying this thread with genuine responses? You do realize it's massive troll bait, right?

[flibberdipper]

are you trying to say the US is poor or there is a big gap between the rich and poor?

Huge ass gap. I found a video on wealth inequality in America and it was amazing...

[_ASSASSIN_]

Huge ass gap. I found a video on wealth inequality in America and it was amazing...

yeah I was hoping you were going to say that

because it's true mainly.

[Murdoch]

That's interesting. I still think people need to truly understand the issues they are voting for though. There are people who thought Obama's VP was going to be Sarah Palin. They shouldn't be voting, I'm sorry.

 

While true. Most politicians don't even understand the particular issues they are voting for. They just vote how they're told. Not to mention they campaign on one stance, and completely change their minds later, with no consequences.

[madscientist56]

I think if you fall under the definition of a citizen you should be able to vote.

[helping]

If it was a limit such as £25,000 then  the majority of people that have worked for 5 or so years would be able to vote. Just because there is a limit, doesnt mean it shoudl be a very high limit.

 

My thoughts are that it would give the people who contribute to the country a more meaningful vote over somebody that does not contribute. I realised shortly after posting that the majority of the people on this forum havent paid tax.

you're suggesting a lower limit of 5k per year, correct?

 

Can you elaborate more on the benefits rather than it allows people who contribute to have better representation?

 

not really disagreeing, but not sure if that's the best way to go about doing it.