3 ms·

it is sad that people believe that is function of government.... Wealth Redistribution. Government sole and only purpose should be protect persons, liberties,

by 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.
  - klipt 5y ago
    > a functioning society with roads is possible with out the government funding said roads Do you have any real world examples of functioning societies where none of the roads are funded by the government (or similar quasi-government collective)?
  - locallost 5y ago
    So... You do realize that this is all related to NY allowing residents to vote in LOCAL elections and that my comment is about that? With a specific comparison to the EU that does the same (but only partially sadly)? Why does it matter what is theoretically possible? It is currently the case that it gets funded from taxes I guess pretty much everywhere. Thus despite not having a citizenship, foreigners have an additional claim why they should decide how the pie is sliced -- namely, that they pay for the pie. I never wrote anywhere that taxation should be the only factor in who gets to vote, and if there was any confusion about this, I wrote so explicitly in another post. So I would encourage you to start reading what other people specifically say, the context behind it and not have knee jerk reactions.
cloudfifty 5y ago
Do you want to go back to the times of property qualifications?
- syshum 5y ago
  Absolutely not. I am not the one making the claim that voting rights should be tied to taxation. I am not necessarily opposed to the NYC law either, I just disagree with the premise that we should evaluate things based on taxation as the comment I replied to suggested. That it was acceptable to give them voting rights because they paid taxes. For federal elections I think citizenship is the proper test, or local elections I believe establishment of residency for a defined time would be more applicable qualification, tax payer status not withstanding. I do believe that residency should be a number of years greater than 1 and should apply to both citizens and non-citizens (i.e if you move from California to Florida you can not just start voting in the next local elections immediately even if you are a citizen as you have not established residency in the community)

by syshum 5y ago

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.
- klipt 5y ago
  > a functioning society with roads is possible with out the government funding said roads Do you have any real world examples of functioning societies where none of the roads are funded by the government (or similar quasi-government collective)?
- locallost 5y ago
  So... You do realize that this is all related to NY allowing residents to vote in LOCAL elections and that my comment is about that? With a specific comparison to the EU that does the same (but only partially sadly)? Why does it matter what is theoretically possible? It is currently the case that it gets funded from taxes I guess pretty much everywhere. Thus despite not having a citizenship, foreigners have an additional claim why they should decide how the pie is sliced -- namely, that they pay for the pie. I never wrote anywhere that taxation should be the only factor in who gets to vote, and if there was any confusion about this, I wrote so explicitly in another post. So I would encourage you to start reading what other people specifically say, the context behind it and not have knee jerk reactions.

cloudfifty 5y ago

Do you want to go back to the times of property qualifications?

syshum 5y ago
Absolutely not. I am not the one making the claim that voting rights should be tied to taxation. I am not necessarily opposed to the NYC law either, I just disagree with the premise that we should evaluate things based on taxation as the comment I replied to suggested. That it was acceptable to give them voting rights because they paid taxes. For federal elections I think citizenship is the proper test, or local elections I believe establishment of residency for a defined time would be more applicable qualification, tax payer status not withstanding. I do believe that residency should be a number of years greater than 1 and should apply to both citizens and non-citizens (i.e if you move from California to Florida you can not just start voting in the next local elections immediately even if you are a citizen as you have not established residency in the community)