 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
This is unconstitutional, but people who are tax burdens should not get to vote.
The forefathers could not have foreseen the magnitude of the welfare state.
Anyone who has less than zero net tax liability should not get to vote. People with no skin in the game and dependent on others for survival should not be a part of decision making. Did you get a vote when your mom and dad made the rules?
You want to vote because you don't like things? Wean yourself off the handouts.
Couldnt agree with you more.
stop making posts that make sense...
you are being disrespectful to the morons at this site...
everyone gets along in 2012...
stop it now!!!
Voting is an illusion. I was an Obama supporter up until the NDAA.
Was it not the founding fathers who fought against British rule because they did not get a chance to vote? Whether or not you make enough money to pay taxes should not limit your individual liberty. By your logic, those who pay more taxes should get more than one vote?
Internet intellctuals, gotta love them. They know more than the guys who contruct, create, and carry out the rules.
Back then there was taxation without representation, now we have representation without taxation. They both suck. One already has, and the other just might lead to revolution.Originally Posted by mnpickle
If I'm not mistaken, felons lose the right to vote don't they? Now I'm not quite comparing tax burdens to felons, but the concept of voting as a priviledge and not as an unalienable right isn't a new one.
What you are recomending would just create more social inequities. In other words, those living in high socioeconomic status would work to make sure those living in lower socioeconomic status' stay there. Creating more glass ceilings, hardships, virtual caste system.
Voting is not a privilege. Everyone 18+, and of America citizenry can vote.
Whether it is 'taxation without representation' or 'representation without taxation' does not matter. The fundamental principle is everyone is part of the government. 'For the people, by the people' does not translate to "For the people, by only those who have opportunities to succeed"
That's not a democracy. If you have a problem with democracy fine, but that's a different argument.
But there are plenty of countries who ignore the wishes of their poor, and work to keep them poor. See "Arab Spring" same thing would happen here. There are more poor than rich, and middle class combined. They would fight for their rights, creating a revolution, which is something your first post is opposed to.
I understand what you're saying, and I would agree. The advantage of the system I propose over the current system though is that mine pushes for elevated standards, while the current ensures a cycle of lower and lower standards. Tax burdens will keep voting for lawmakers who pander to a tax burden base, creating more tax burdens.
In my opinion, the welfare state is a gradual decay into chaos, or disorder. Just like in nature, the tendency is toward disorder, and it takes energy to combat this and create structure. It's the path of more resistance but it's more civilized and has purpose.
so the rich worked harder than the poor and thats why they are rich and why the poor is poor?
Nothing you said had any validity to it. If you think America is headed towards choas, then never leave. Better yet, never read books about the current state of the Middle East.
Here's my idea... The Marshmallow Test. All politicians should have to take it. You wouldn't have to actually use Marshmallows. You could make it specific to whatever their particular vice is. It could be a cheeseburger, crack, coffee, cigarette, jelly donut, money, sex, beer, weed, etc etc ...basically anything that that particular person thinks that they can't live without. We could give the same test to voters. Here's an example of the original version:
Move to India, thy already have a caste sytem waiting for you to take advantage of.
Why 18+? How about anyone old enough to read? Oh, maybe because people should only vote once they have a certain level of maturity and responsibility? Imagine that!
Last edited by TheCentaur; 04-05-12 at 11:33 PM.
Invalid analogy. In India you are stuck where ur born, in this you control your own fate. Once you hit 0 or above in net taxes paid you show you're responsible enough to make decisions.
lol @ thinking votes really count...
so you don't think black people should vote?
racist
I just think someone should have to pass a political test about the two candidates before they can cast their vote.
Millions of people voted for Obama based solely on the color of his skin. When some of these voters were asked why they were voting Obama, they had no idea and even confused some of McCain's policies with reasons as to why they were voting for Obama.
Make a candidate pass a test on what each candidate stands for before they vote. There is no reason allowing citizens to vote when they don't even know what their candidate represents.
Hell, what percentage of Obama's voters even knew who the vice president was they were voting for? Some thought it was Palin.
That was great! Did any of them just eat all three marshmallows and then ring the bell?
Since these people receiving "hand outs" have it so easy, why not join them ?
I've never understood why people can't stand seeing others receive help. If it bothers you that much, quit your job, and join the glamorous lifestyle of receiving food stamps and other welfare benefits.
So where do we draw the line, what if a person worked for 30 years but now is receiving medicare, and on dialysis, and would fall into the category of "drain" and is receiving far more than they ever paid into the system. Do they lose their vote ?
I'm glad I will never be so miserable that I begrudge people receiving help with my tax dollars.
You are already receiving more bang for your tax dollar buck than one could imagine, but that's not enough for you, you need to go after EVERYONE receiving help, because of the few examples of exploitation that you've seen.
I really hope you make over 250k a year, so that you actually have a reason to want to create a greater social and economic divide than there already is. But, like 99% of republicans, you probably don't and vote against your own economic interests.
|
This post was nominated 2
times
. To view the nominated thread please click here.
People who nominated: Naz18, and Full Time Hobo
|
Most of the people this idea would impact don't vote anyways.
Voting is a waste of time almost impossible that your vote will change the result, and the difference between the two would probably barely change your life anyway.
So you don't think anyone not paying taxes shouldn't get a right to vote. You obviously pay taxes and feel slighted that someone not paying into the system as much as you are has the same voice you do.
So here's my plan. I make a little over 250k/yr and likely pay more in taxes that you make/year. So I think only the top 50% of taxpayers should have the right to vote because obviously they're paying in the most. Have the most skin in the game and the most to lose. So it makes since to eliminate the others. Let's let the real elite vote on matters. Seeing as you likely aren't in the top 50% of tax payers Centaur, I'm sorry for your luck but your voice will not be heard.
Also, I think everyone that votes should have to take an IQ test. Not only do we want voters that are paying taxes but we need smart voters. So prior to getting a voters registration card, everyone is mandated to take an IQ test. Bottom 50% are thrown out, no vote. Top 50% are in. However, the top 10% get to have the voices heard most since they're the smartest amongst us in society, so their vote counts twice.
Also, to make sure history doesn't repeat itself, the top 50% of tax payers and IQ test takers will be mandated to take a history course or two. From this class, only those that score in the half of the class get to vote. The others don't get their voices heard. They don't contribute as much as I do nor are they as smart as I am.
Centaur don't worry about the IQ test and history courses, you never paid enough into the system to even make it that far into the process. Even if you make the top 50% of tax payers, my elitist ass will think of another way to invalidate our opinion and keep your voice from being heard. I like feeling special.
Last edited by The Kraken; 04-06-12 at 06:33 AM.
internet politicians...lmaooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo
more then half the country gets some form of entitlement. social security/medicare/section 8/ebt/welfare/food stamps
agreed.
One could argue the poor continue to be poor because they are born into it.
Predictably several posters see this as a way to keep people down and poor. It's a common reaction by the left when any new policy doesn't help the poor at least as much as the rich.
Several inaccuracies in your post I would like to address.
-I didn't say anyone not paying taxes, I said anyone who receives more tax benefits/refundable credits than they pay in. There is a huge difference between for example a retired person on non taxable SSI and a single mother of 5 who pays nothing and receives 8k at tax time, and her sister or uncle claim the other 2 children to get their big check. Many low income citizens pay zero net tax but receive no government payments ON THEIR TAX RETURN.
-My plan does not favor those who pay more in taxes over those who pay less or nothing. You have quickly jumped into the liberal thinking that this must be a sinister plot to take advantage of the poor and make their life harder. It would be wonderful if everyone could have everything they want, but it can't happen that way and trying to force it brings everyone and everything down. This system i propose is to preserve a country that is in danger of destruction from the growing numbers and voting power of a tax burden group that is purposefully living an unamerican lifestyle.
-You love to throw out negative words like elitist. Is it elitist that the people who have a monetary interest in SBR make the decisions regarding content, advertising, store prices, etc.? Is it elitist that the bread winners and bill payers of a household make the decisions and rules in that household, and not the kids or the freeloading relatives/in laws?
I realize it's a drastic measure that would probably never happen, and it goes against important values of a democracy. Yet never has a democracy been in a situation where such a large portion of its voting citizens will bring about its collapse. The idea has little to do with shifting power to an elite class as you suggest and everything to do with allocating decisions on the production and organization of a society to people that want production and organization.
Please don't take the stance that this would be a caste system or tyranny, as anyone who refuses the government payments or even has no paying job and no source of income would be able to vote.
Last edited by TheCentaur; 04-06-12 at 12:06 PM.
They actually did, boss - thus no blacks (didn't own property) or women voters back in the day.
White Landowners = voting public back in the day.
And for you wideyed patriots: If voting actually meant something, they'd outlaw it. Your voice don't mean shit, it's the top putting on a show for the piss-ants to believe their life means something.
Rat race buddy. Rats don't get to pick the maker of the maze.
Poor guy thought you had to be asleep to believe in the American Dream...I wonder how big of a house that multi millionaire slept in?
Inevitably people want to bring up race or gender even though I said nothing about it. So you are comparing the system I proposed in which everyone can vote (although some may have to choose to not accept certain gov. payments, they don't make you take it you know!) to a system in which race or gender automatically disqualified you from voting?
i am against letting people vote that have an IQ below 115.
these people aren't smart enough to analysis information and make a reasoned decision.
Reply With Quote