- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:21 pm to geauxldeneye
quote:
In the interest of fairness and plain common sense; why should someone who pays no taxes be allowed to have a say in whether or not I should pay more?
So much *boom* in this.
I know this is hard to understand by most of a Progressive persuasion, but those who produce for the good of society should have the most say in how society is structured and governed. Flame away.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:21 pm to TrueTiger
No it doesn't. What should be argued is that the non-tax paying welfare recipients lack skin in the game so there is no risk to them individually for voting for politicians who may increase taxes. That interest may conflict with your individual interests but it isn't a "conflict of interest".
A true conflict of interest at the political level would be a senator voting for a road project in his state where he owns the road contracting company. There his interest in his private business venture has the potential to conflict his duties to the office he holds and the people he represents. See? Individual voters aren't subject to such conflicts.
A true conflict of interest at the political level would be a senator voting for a road project in his state where he owns the road contracting company. There his interest in his private business venture has the potential to conflict his duties to the office he holds and the people he represents. See? Individual voters aren't subject to such conflicts.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:29 pm to cwill
You haven't convinced me.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:30 pm to TrueTiger
Then you're not very bright.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:31 pm to cwill
Going to ad hominem. That's a sure sign of defeat. 
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:33 pm to fr33manator
quote:Screw the literacy test....I want to bring back the property ownership requirement in order to vote!
Should we bring back the literacy test?
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:34 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I want to bring back the property ownership requirement in order to vote!
Yup. Simple as that.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:35 pm to Wolfhound45
now that you said it on a message board you better hope that nobody ever finds out your real identity, and you never run for public office...that probably goes for this whole board
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:36 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Going to ad hominem. That's a sure sign of defeat.
I don't think you really know the definition of ad hom either. You've made no argument other than Nuh-uh.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:37 pm to Wolfhound45
Haven't read this thread because it's too long. Zach has a long standing opinion:
1. People who receive govt. assistance should not be allowed to vote.
2. People who are on welfare should be given one month to get a job. Then, they should be taken out and shot.
3. Harsh? Perhaps.
1. People who receive govt. assistance should not be allowed to vote.
2. People who are on welfare should be given one month to get a job. Then, they should be taken out and shot.
3. Harsh? Perhaps.
This post was edited on 11/4/14 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:40 pm to Zach
quote:
2. People who are on welfare should be given one month to get a job. Then, they should be taken out and shot.
i like this one
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:41 pm to Zach
quote:Why a whole month, Zach?
2. People who are on welfare should be given one month to get a job. Then, they should be taken out and shot.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:43 pm to geauxldeneye
quote:
In the interest of fairness and plain common sense; why should someone who pays no taxes be allowed to have a say in whether or not I should pay more?
Sounds fair. Of course if you carry this to its logical conclusion, I doubt there are many people on this board who would have much of a say at all. Those who pay $10,000,000 /yr in taxes obviously should have 1000 X as many votes as those who pay $10,000 a year - so the vast majority of the population would be ruled by a tiny class of elite. These elitists would of course structure the tax code so that it appeared on paper that they paid even MORE taxes - to keep their political power - while in practice they would be paying nothing.
All nice and fair and much the way the Founders intended - except for one thing - 84% of the states disagreed with your fricked up position in ratifying the 24th amendment, and the Founders decided that was more than enough to determine fair.
BTW - Why do you hate the Constitution?
This post was edited on 11/4/14 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:49 pm to cwill
quote:
I don't think you really know the definition of ad hom either.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 5:46 pm to gaetti15
Lot of truth in that bro. I have a feeling that my conservative, evangelical Christian leanings would not appeal to 80% of the voters. So there is no chance of me ever running.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 5:47 pm to fr33manator
No, reading is racist
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News