3 ms·

Like I said, an "experiment". Really a "thought experiment" since I don't see this being constitutional anywhere in the USA, and I'm not familiar enough with ot

Like I said, an "experiment". Really a "thought experiment" since I don't see this being constitutional anywhere in the USA, and I'm not familiar enough with other countries to know where it could be tried. Here's something simpler: Look at your previous year Federal tax return. If it shows that you paid even $1 in taxes, you get a vote in Federal elections. If not, then no vote. Same with State taxes. Simple enough? Or would that still give too much representation to "the wealthy"? Edit: I suppose one could voluntarily pay $1 in taxes just to get a vote. But this would probably be considered a "poll tax", and that has definitely been ruled unconstitutional in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_%28United_States%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_%28United_States%29

crdoconnor 11y ago
>Here's something simpler: Look at your previous year Federal tax return. If it shows that you paid even $1 in taxes, you get a vote in Federal elections. >Simple enough? Or would that still give too much representation to "the wealthy"? No, but then again it's not substantially different to what we already have, so I don't see the point. WTF is up with your quotation marks anyway?
- PhantomGremlin 11y ago
  According to one article, 46% of US households didn't pay any Federal income taxes in 2011.[1] That was the observation that got Romney in trouble. If those people weren't voting, that would be a very substantially different to what we have now. E.g. quite likely Romney would be president. (Let's not debate if Romney would have done better than Obama. Too much of a tangent.) You're absolutely right about the "quotation marks". :) I went way overboard. Please accept an upvote as an apology. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/w... Edit: I forgot that, to a considerable minority of people, Romney and Obama aren't substantially different. It's easy to think Republican vs Democrat is the entirety of the political spectrum, but it's not.

crdoconnor 11y ago

>Here's something simpler: Look at your previous year Federal tax return. If it shows that you paid even $1 in taxes, you get a vote in Federal elections. >Simple enough? Or would that still give too much representation to "the wealthy"? No, but then again it's not substantially different to what we already have, so I don't see the point. WTF is up with your quotation marks anyway?

PhantomGremlin 11y ago
According to one article, 46% of US households didn't pay any Federal income taxes in 2011.[1] That was the observation that got Romney in trouble. If those people weren't voting, that would be a very substantially different to what we have now. E.g. quite likely Romney would be president. (Let's not debate if Romney would have done better than Obama. Too much of a tangent.) You're absolutely right about the "quotation marks". :) I went way overboard. Please accept an upvote as an apology. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/w... Edit: I forgot that, to a considerable minority of people, Romney and Obama aren't substantially different. It's easy to think Republican vs Democrat is the entirety of the political spectrum, but it's not.