6 ms·

The EU already has this albeit only for citizens of other EU countries. One of the important things a government does is allocate tax money, and sets priorities

The EU already has this albeit only for citizens of other EU countries. One of the important things a government does is allocate tax money, and sets priorities. If you pay taxes you should have a say in how this money is spent. I also think it's really weird that I get to vote in my home country and decide what the people there should do without having to live the consequences of those decisions or even pay for them.

rendall 5y ago
As a legal resident of Finland, from NYC, I can vote in local, municipal elections here, too. I think it actually makes sense to let people who pay tax have a say in how it is spent.
- Proven 5y ago
klipt 5y ago
> The EU already has this albeit only for citizens of other EU countries. Seems about the same as US states allowing people from other US states to vote.
- rendall 5y ago
  > Seems about the same as US states allowing people from other US states to vote. That's not a correct analogy. The EU is a voluntary economic coalition of multiple sovereign nations while US States are administrative districts of a single sovereign nation. EU nations allow residency status to citizens of other EU nations, but it's definitely still "moving abroad" not like "moving from California to Texas"
  - klipt 5y ago
    But the EU wants to move in the direction of a single sovereign nation, doesn't it? Letting citizens vote for EU level elections is a step towards that. But most EU countries won't yet allow EU citizens from other countries to vote for, e.g. president of that country, to my knowledge.
    - locallost 5y ago
      I don't know if it wants to move there, but even if it does it's not there yet. So it's not the same as someone moving from Texas to California. That's like saying I am about the same as Steph Curry because I spend a couple hours a day practicing three pointers.
  - valec 5y ago
    >while US States are administrative districts of a single sovereign nation this is false. under a unitary government system that would be true but the US runs under a federalist system. states and the federal government are considered sovereign---at least as far as domestic issues go---and maintain a clear separation of powers. federal government is involved with national and intra-state issues while the states are involved with police and making regulations for their citizens. the federal government, can't, for example dissolve a state government like China could dissolve a province's government.
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      Total tangent but: Ignorance of the federal structure of the US is unbelievably rampant, especially at an intuitive level and even (or especially?) among educated parts of the population. I recommend keeping an eye out for it whenever you're baffled by political discourse around a given topic. It's pretty fascinating how often it pops up and explains how two sides of a conversation can be speaking completely different languages.
    - rendall 5y ago
      > this is false. Not exactly, but we're arguing semantics. Nothing I said contradicts what you wrote. Still, Federal Law supercedes State Law, and no State Constitution can contradict the US Constitution. Your Federalist idea was probably more true before the Civil War, but these days not so much. No, in practice, States are administrative regions, not sovereign powers. Whenever governors or state legislatures start behaving as if they are, they get slapped down by the Feds. qv the Rhode Island governor trying to prevent New Yorkers from entering; California legalizing Marijuana; Arkansas cops raiding Indian reservations selling cigarettes. I mean, unless you want to define "administrative region" as "able to be dissolved by Presidential fiat" then, sure. Ok. Otherwise it's a distinction without a difference.
      - torstenvl 5y ago
        > > this is false. > Not exactly Yes, exactly. > Federal Law supercedes State Law Not on state issues. The federal government has to stay in its lane. > no State Constitution can contradict the US Constitution Yes, they can, unless explicitly overridden. For example, most states do not have grand juries, even though the U.S. Constitution requires one before charging someone with a felony.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >while US States are administrative districts of a single sovereign nation. That is not accurate. Most of the legal power in the US comes from the individual states, unless specifically enumerated at the federal level.
    - rendall 5y ago
      Non-sequitur. Remember, the comparison is the EU (multiple sovereign nations, plural) to the United States, a single nation. Is it the word 'sovereign' that's confusing people, here? 'Administrative districts'?
      - yucky 5y ago
        >Is it the word 'sovereign' that's confusing people, here? 'Administrative districts'? Perhaps, since US States are closer to sovereign than to administrative districts. In reality, they are neither. But to call them administrative districts is easily falsifiable, so I think that's why you got pushback. Things like gay marriage up until a few years ago, abortion laws and drug laws today are the most visible examples where states are far from administrative districts. People can open up stores in some states to sell drugs out in the open, despite them being illegal according to the US Government. Yet there is nothing the Federal Government can do to stop it. Even taxation where you see some states have no state income tax (Florida, Tennessee and a few others) while states like California tax almost everything. The Federal government has no power over the states in those areas. None. Whereas gun laws are probably the best example of the limits on that sovereignty only because the enumerated things in the Constitution (ie 2nd Amendment) put some limitations on the freedom of states to do as they please. But the Constitution is a small document and the limitations contained are few, leaving states with far more power than an administrative district.
        rendall 5y ago
        > to call them administrative districts is easily falsifiable Perhaps if we had a common definition of what "administrative district" means, then I would agree. Until then, we're all just making things up inside our heads and arguing about that. Even the lawyer scolding me here for discussing such matters without his permission admitted there is no legal definition for that term. There is nothing about the plain definitions of "district" nor "administrative" that does not apply to the (US) State, and if anyone argues otherwise they're choosing an unwarrantedly restrictive definition. There is nothing inherent about that term that excludes domestic "sovereignty" nor asserts anything about State relationship to the Feds. Again, the original contrast is sovereign nation to top-level region inside sovereign nation. I labeled this "administrative district" as a generic term for all of the States/Provinces/Oblasts/Regions/what-have-you in every country of the world, of whatever size, number, method of government. None is like the other, except that they are all districts (using the reasonable, every day, broad definition) that are administered in some way, whether by a governor, king, parliament, minister, whatever. And now, we are literally arguing semantics. > closer to sovereign At the risk of my getting bullied by the lawyer again, you all really have to get off this tip. Internationally, no one cares about state "sovereignty". It has meaning only inside the US. It's like the word "Autonomous" appended to the name of some administrative districts of the USSR. It surely had some legal meaning within their framework, and for them their "Autonomy" was very, very, very important but no one else cares. As far as anyone else cares, how the US chooses to "administer" its "districts", it has nothing to do with international sovereignty. I'm sure if I said the USSR was autonomous like the US is but unlike their respective administrative districts, some pedant would argue about how this or that Oblast is "autonomous", too, completely unlike the US states. That's what's happening here.
throwaway27727 5y ago
Should we also use the inverse of that? I.e., those who don't contribute in taxes should not get a vote? If not, why?
- locallost 5y ago
  Because there could be other reasons why you should have a say in what the government prioritizes. My main point is that living somewhere should be reason enough, and for people saying that being a foreigner disenfranchises you from deciding if the city should prioritize bike lanes or parking spaces, I say those things are paid from my taxes, and I should have a say.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    "Because I pay taxes I should have a say in how that money is used" seems like an argument, but you also seem to reject the inverse of the argument "Because this person doesn't pay taxes they shouldn't have a say in how tax money is spent". That makes it seem like you don't believe that paying taxes is what entitles a person to vote. Regarding your other point, that "living somewhere should be reason enough" that is really just a restatement of the conclusion. i.e. "Non citizen residents should be allowed to vote because non citizen residents should be allowed to vote." It's tautological. To me, it doesn't make sense to say that long term residents who have invested in the community, potentially over generations, should have an equal vote to newcomers who are not even citizens.
    - halpert 5y ago
      The GP is not saying taxes are the ONLY reason to get a say, just one of potentially many reasons.
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      By this logic, wouldn’t it be better to consider who will be investing in the community moving forward, rather than looking backward? Where someone lives is the biggest investment they can make. It cannot be collected by rich people, and even poor people invest where they spend their time. People putting money in to something is often out of self-interest. Those people already have the control afforded to them via money - an inequality that should be reduced, not exacerbated, by voting.
syshum 5y ago
it is sad that people believe that is function of government.... Wealth Redistribution. Government sole and only purpose should be protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign. Not to redistribute wealth based on the whims of the majority I am also intrigued to know if you would accept removing representation from those that are not tax payers, that receive more in government subsidies and benefits than are paid in taxes After all if there is no taxation with out representation, should it not follow there should be no representation with out taxation?
- locallost 5y ago
  No, I already explained above. I never mentioned wealth distribution. Protection of persons, liberties, all of the above -- how do you get that? How do you pay for it? Taxes. But that's not all, what about all the public infrastructure like roads, without which you cannot have a functioning society? But wait, it's not even only that -- who decides on what is more important, the police or the fire department? So why shouldn't a foreigner get to decide if the government should be composed of people who want to prioritize the fire department instead of the police? People vote with their own interest of any kind in mind, that's how majorities are formed that decide how things should work. If you remove a part of society from the equation, that part gets to foot the bill for what somebody else wants. If they are good enough to be members of the society and have responsibilities (e.g. taxes), they are good enough to have privileges (deciding on how the taxes are spent).
  - syshum 5y ago
    >>how do you get that? How do you pay for it? Taxes. There are any number of Public Finance theories that do not require individuals to pay taxes, when talking about taxes most infer income based taxation, there are many ways to fund a limited "night watchmen" state that do not involve income based taxation, and some that do not even involve taxation at all. >>But that's not all, what about all the public infrastructure like roads, without which you cannot have a functioning society? ahh the who will build the roads meme... I can assure you a functioning society with roads is possible with out the government funding said roads. Infact based on the condition of most roads I would much rather someone else take that over. Roads are often given the LEAST resources by government because it is the lever government always pull to justify more taxes, thus they will NEVER actual fully maintain the roads because then they would lose their on going coercion to extract every growing amounts of money from the public. I would encourage you to really look at where the money in your local government goes, see what percent is taken up by road maintenance. I think the results of your inquiry would be illuminating >who decides on what is more important, the police or the fire department? I would prefer those services be billed monthly via user fees just like my water, sewer, trash, and even storm drainage is by the local government. >>If they are good enough to be members of the society I never said they should not have the right to vote in local elections, you made that assumption based on me challenging your position on using taxation as rational for who has or does not have the right to vote.

rendall 5y ago

As a legal resident of Finland, from NYC, I can vote in local, municipal elections here, too. I think it actually makes sense to let people who pay tax have a say in how it is spent.

Proven 5y ago

klipt 5y ago

> The EU already has this albeit only for citizens of other EU countries. Seems about the same as US states allowing people from other US states to vote.

rendall 5y ago
> Seems about the same as US states allowing people from other US states to vote. That's not a correct analogy. The EU is a voluntary economic coalition of multiple sovereign nations while US States are administrative districts of a single sovereign nation. EU nations allow residency status to citizens of other EU nations, but it's definitely still "moving abroad" not like "moving from California to Texas"
- klipt 5y ago
  But the EU wants to move in the direction of a single sovereign nation, doesn't it? Letting citizens vote for EU level elections is a step towards that. But most EU countries won't yet allow EU citizens from other countries to vote for, e.g. president of that country, to my knowledge.
  - locallost 5y ago
    I don't know if it wants to move there, but even if it does it's not there yet. So it's not the same as someone moving from Texas to California. That's like saying I am about the same as Steph Curry because I spend a couple hours a day practicing three pointers.
- valec 5y ago
  >while US States are administrative districts of a single sovereign nation this is false. under a unitary government system that would be true but the US runs under a federalist system. states and the federal government are considered sovereign---at least as far as domestic issues go---and maintain a clear separation of powers. federal government is involved with national and intra-state issues while the states are involved with police and making regulations for their citizens. the federal government, can't, for example dissolve a state government like China could dissolve a province's government.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    Total tangent but: Ignorance of the federal structure of the US is unbelievably rampant, especially at an intuitive level and even (or especially?) among educated parts of the population. I recommend keeping an eye out for it whenever you're baffled by political discourse around a given topic. It's pretty fascinating how often it pops up and explains how two sides of a conversation can be speaking completely different languages.
  - rendall 5y ago
    > this is false. Not exactly, but we're arguing semantics. Nothing I said contradicts what you wrote. Still, Federal Law supercedes State Law, and no State Constitution can contradict the US Constitution. Your Federalist idea was probably more true before the Civil War, but these days not so much. No, in practice, States are administrative regions, not sovereign powers. Whenever governors or state legislatures start behaving as if they are, they get slapped down by the Feds. qv the Rhode Island governor trying to prevent New Yorkers from entering; California legalizing Marijuana; Arkansas cops raiding Indian reservations selling cigarettes. I mean, unless you want to define "administrative region" as "able to be dissolved by Presidential fiat" then, sure. Ok. Otherwise it's a distinction without a difference.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      > > this is false. > Not exactly Yes, exactly. > Federal Law supercedes State Law Not on state issues. The federal government has to stay in its lane. > no State Constitution can contradict the US Constitution Yes, they can, unless explicitly overridden. For example, most states do not have grand juries, even though the U.S. Constitution requires one before charging someone with a felony.
- yucky 5y ago
  >while US States are administrative districts of a single sovereign nation. That is not accurate. Most of the legal power in the US comes from the individual states, unless specifically enumerated at the federal level.
  - rendall 5y ago
    Non-sequitur. Remember, the comparison is the EU (multiple sovereign nations, plural) to the United States, a single nation. Is it the word 'sovereign' that's confusing people, here? 'Administrative districts'?
    - yucky 5y ago
      >Is it the word 'sovereign' that's confusing people, here? 'Administrative districts'? Perhaps, since US States are closer to sovereign than to administrative districts. In reality, they are neither. But to call them administrative districts is easily falsifiable, so I think that's why you got pushback. Things like gay marriage up until a few years ago, abortion laws and drug laws today are the most visible examples where states are far from administrative districts. People can open up stores in some states to sell drugs out in the open, despite them being illegal according to the US Government. Yet there is nothing the Federal Government can do to stop it. Even taxation where you see some states have no state income tax (Florida, Tennessee and a few others) while states like California tax almost everything. The Federal government has no power over the states in those areas. None. Whereas gun laws are probably the best example of the limits on that sovereignty only because the enumerated things in the Constitution (ie 2nd Amendment) put some limitations on the freedom of states to do as they please. But the Constitution is a small document and the limitations contained are few, leaving states with far more power than an administrative district.
      - rendall 5y ago
        > to call them administrative districts is easily falsifiable Perhaps if we had a common definition of what "administrative district" means, then I would agree. Until then, we're all just making things up inside our heads and arguing about that. Even the lawyer scolding me here for discussing such matters without his permission admitted there is no legal definition for that term. There is nothing about the plain definitions of "district" nor "administrative" that does not apply to the (US) State, and if anyone argues otherwise they're choosing an unwarrantedly restrictive definition. There is nothing inherent about that term that excludes domestic "sovereignty" nor asserts anything about State relationship to the Feds. Again, the original contrast is sovereign nation to top-level region inside sovereign nation. I labeled this "administrative district" as a generic term for all of the States/Provinces/Oblasts/Regions/what-have-you in every country of the world, of whatever size, number, method of government. None is like the other, except that they are all districts (using the reasonable, every day, broad definition) that are administered in some way, whether by a governor, king, parliament, minister, whatever. And now, we are literally arguing semantics. > closer to sovereign At the risk of my getting bullied by the lawyer again, you all really have to get off this tip. Internationally, no one cares about state "sovereignty". It has meaning only inside the US. It's like the word "Autonomous" appended to the name of some administrative districts of the USSR. It surely had some legal meaning within their framework, and for them their "Autonomy" was very, very, very important but no one else cares. As far as anyone else cares, how the US chooses to "administer" its "districts", it has nothing to do with international sovereignty. I'm sure if I said the USSR was autonomous like the US is but unlike their respective administrative districts, some pedant would argue about how this or that Oblast is "autonomous", too, completely unlike the US states. That's what's happening here.

throwaway27727 5y ago

Should we also use the inverse of that? I.e., those who don't contribute in taxes should not get a vote? If not, why?

locallost 5y ago
Because there could be other reasons why you should have a say in what the government prioritizes. My main point is that living somewhere should be reason enough, and for people saying that being a foreigner disenfranchises you from deciding if the city should prioritize bike lanes or parking spaces, I say those things are paid from my taxes, and I should have a say.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  "Because I pay taxes I should have a say in how that money is used" seems like an argument, but you also seem to reject the inverse of the argument "Because this person doesn't pay taxes they shouldn't have a say in how tax money is spent". That makes it seem like you don't believe that paying taxes is what entitles a person to vote. Regarding your other point, that "living somewhere should be reason enough" that is really just a restatement of the conclusion. i.e. "Non citizen residents should be allowed to vote because non citizen residents should be allowed to vote." It's tautological. To me, it doesn't make sense to say that long term residents who have invested in the community, potentially over generations, should have an equal vote to newcomers who are not even citizens.
  - halpert 5y ago
    The GP is not saying taxes are the ONLY reason to get a say, just one of potentially many reasons.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    By this logic, wouldn’t it be better to consider who will be investing in the community moving forward, rather than looking backward? Where someone lives is the biggest investment they can make. It cannot be collected by rich people, and even poor people invest where they spend their time. People putting money in to something is often out of self-interest. Those people already have the control afforded to them via money - an inequality that should be reduced, not exacerbated, by voting.

syshum 5y ago

it is sad that people believe that is function of government.... Wealth Redistribution. Government sole and only purpose should be protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign. Not to redistribute wealth based on the whims of the majority I am also intrigued to know if you would accept removing representation from those that are not tax payers, that receive more in government subsidies and benefits than are paid in taxes After all if there is no taxation with out representation, should it not follow there should be no representation with out taxation?

locallost 5y ago
No, I already explained above. I never mentioned wealth distribution. Protection of persons, liberties, all of the above -- how do you get that? How do you pay for it? Taxes. But that's not all, what about all the public infrastructure like roads, without which you cannot have a functioning society? But wait, it's not even only that -- who decides on what is more important, the police or the fire department? So why shouldn't a foreigner get to decide if the government should be composed of people who want to prioritize the fire department instead of the police? People vote with their own interest of any kind in mind, that's how majorities are formed that decide how things should work. If you remove a part of society from the equation, that part gets to foot the bill for what somebody else wants. If they are good enough to be members of the society and have responsibilities (e.g. taxes), they are good enough to have privileges (deciding on how the taxes are spent).
- syshum 5y ago
  >>how do you get that? How do you pay for it? Taxes. There are any number of Public Finance theories that do not require individuals to pay taxes, when talking about taxes most infer income based taxation, there are many ways to fund a limited "night watchmen" state that do not involve income based taxation, and some that do not even involve taxation at all. >>But that's not all, what about all the public infrastructure like roads, without which you cannot have a functioning society? ahh the who will build the roads meme... I can assure you a functioning society with roads is possible with out the government funding said roads. Infact based on the condition of most roads I would much rather someone else take that over. Roads are often given the LEAST resources by government because it is the lever government always pull to justify more taxes, thus they will NEVER actual fully maintain the roads because then they would lose their on going coercion to extract every growing amounts of money from the public. I would encourage you to really look at where the money in your local government goes, see what percent is taken up by road maintenance. I think the results of your inquiry would be illuminating >who decides on what is more important, the police or the fire department? I would prefer those services be billed monthly via user fees just like my water, sewer, trash, and even storm drainage is by the local government. >>If they are good enough to be members of the society I never said they should not have the right to vote in local elections, you made that assumption based on me challenging your position on using taxation as rational for who has or does not have the right to vote.