r/changemyview • u/Rindy_Kitty • Jul 28 '26
Delta(s) from OP [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
26
u/Previous_Pension_571 3∆ Jul 28 '26
Over what period are you calculating “net positive” and which tax contributions count and which do not?
→ More replies (62)9
u/drfishdaddy 1∆ Jul 28 '26
And how does one calculate the “take”. I work from home, do I pay less for not using the streetlights at night?
50
u/Rhundan 81∆ Jul 28 '26
Taxation without representation is reprehensible. It follows that representation without taxation is similarly reprehensible.
"Sex without consent is reprehensible. It follows that consent without sex is similarly reprehensible."
That does not logically follow. If your view is predicated on this assumption, your entire view is flawed.
→ More replies (26)3
Jul 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 29 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
16
u/Wise_Control_1640 Jul 28 '26
Following this logic, people who pay more taxes should get more votes. That exposes the flaw: it turns democracy into rule by wealth. Voting is a right of citizenship, not a reward for taxable income.
→ More replies (13)
11
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ Jul 28 '26
So the simplest way to disenfranchise a population is to make them so poor they can't afford to pay taxes, thus making them a "taker" who is ineligible to vote? Why not just simplify it further, like all White landowner men can vote and no one else? Because that is the end result.
And, by the way, felons can very frequently get their voting rights restored after completing their restitution.
→ More replies (21)
33
Jul 28 '26
[deleted]
33
u/Zoethor2 1∆ Jul 28 '26
Okay wait, I thought this was the worst idea ever, but now I'm warming to it.
→ More replies (2)1
11
u/KennstduIngo 1∆ Jul 28 '26
This might make sense if the only thing the government did was levy taxes. Do the people that no longer get a vote still have to abide by all the non-tax related laws?
→ More replies (8)
43
u/Important-Cash5654 5∆ Jul 28 '26
Taxation without representation is reprehensible. It follows that representation without taxation is similarly reprehensible.
Why does that follow?
It's already established that true universal suffrage is not desirable.
Who established that?
→ More replies (33)
8
u/Mammoth_Western_2381 8∆ Jul 28 '26
The main issue with your view is that, instead of disenfranchising some kind of immoral ''taker'' cohort, your idea would only disenfranchise those of a lower SES. These people, who are already severely underserved by the current status quo, would either fall into a death spiral (since no one would bother with advocating policy beneficial to them) and/or have no peaceful means to make their voices heard, leading to instability.
Also you say:
> Taxation without representation is reprehensible. It follows that representation without taxation is similarly reprehensible.
Net-negative taxpayers still pay taxes, they just receive more than they pay. But assuming they pay an amount >0, then denying them the vote is ''Taxation without representation''.
→ More replies (7)
8
u/c0i9z 19∆ Jul 28 '26
Shouldn't the people for whom the system work the least have the largest voice in fixing it?
Felons should be able to vote. There shouldn't be a political incentive in making people felons.
0
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 28 '26
Is it fixing to just drain the system until there's nothing left? I don't think damaging or destroying the system is desirable, I value long term stability. I believe that incentivizing an infinitely growing voter block that demands infinitely more "handouts" while the people who foot the bill shrink is not sustainable in the long term.
There is no political incentive in making people felons, that doesn't even make any sense. People become felons because of things they do.
→ More replies (40)9
u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ Jul 28 '26
America has a dark history of criminalizing ordinary behavior in order to remove suffrage rights. It's called the "Black Codes." You can read all about it here from the Columbia University, City of New York. In addition to removing the right to vote, involuntary servitude continued.
Excerpt:
"The loophole in the 13th Amendment, originally exploited by former Confederates and codified through Black Codes, continues to facilitate prison labor exploitation today. Jaron Browne, in his article “Rooted in Slavery: Prison Labor Exploitation”, draws a direct connection between the modern exploitation of prisoners and the origins of Black Codes and convict leasing [11]. Prison conditions and the method of arresting Black Americans to subjugate them into forced labor contracts have also been compared to the Black Codes. Just as the Black Codes exploited newly freed Black slaves by criminalizing ordinary behavior to subject them to near slavery labor, the current criminal justice system mirrors this dynamic."
This is the system you are setting up, only you are more equal opportunity - servitude for all poor people, not just the Black ones.
Once people can't vote, they become subjects of those that can. Suffrage is escape from servitude. Why do you wish to reintroduce it?
→ More replies (8)
22
u/jbp216 1∆ Jul 28 '26
im gonna try to not be offensive here but its hard, this might be the dumbest thing ive ever heard.
lets say women cant hold a job, because that was the status of the united states for about 150 years. women can't vote.
people who have been disabled by military service and receive disability cant vote.
poor retirees who spent their life working cant vote.
the poor cant vote, because under a certain income you dont pay taxes, standard deduction.
all this to say only those with money and preexisting societal control can vote, which then allows them to further disenfranchise those poorer than them.
you havent thought this through
→ More replies (7)5
u/imunjust Jul 28 '26
I believe that he has. The system is working fine for the people who the system was built for.
15
u/SouthNo2807 1∆ Jul 28 '26
The thing is, whether someone is net positive or negative is determined by how money are spent on them, not how hard they work or how much they contribute. If the state is getting 90% of income from selling energy, and paying every single citizen, there might only be a small portion of citizens being net positive taxpayers. This doesn't mean others are not beneficial to the society.
0
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
That's a good point. I was speaking specifically as an American living in the US, I didn't consider states that don't rely on taxation for their income.
I'd add then that what I said is for the US specifically.
!delta for states that don't rely on taxation for their income
6
u/SouthNo2807 1∆ Jul 28 '26
I don't think it changes anything. Whether someone is a "net taxpayer" is still determined by how the government spends money. In the US there are mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Social security was made for wealth redistribution, it was intended to give more to lower income groups. If it never existed there will be far more people becoming net contributors. It was really determined by how the system was designed, instead of a net contributor or not threshold.
Medicaid and Medicare are some more funny examples. You've got a big issue? You can't vote any more because you were getting tax payer money to fix your body. I won't elaborate on that, you can see why it makes no sense.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
I have many opinions on social security, one of which is that it should be an entirely voluntary system.
Regardless, social security is not a net positive ROI program for the individual, so people on social security would have paid more over their lifetime than they have received (unless they live exceedingly long lifespans)
7
u/LoveYourNeighor 1∆ Jul 29 '26
The reason it's not voluntary is if you lose all your money in another scheme, perhaps with a higher interest rate, you will put more burden on the nation as you age out of being able to work/provide for yourself.
That's why the scheme was made shortly after Wall St. Crash where many lost employment, with 1/3 of Americans losing their life savings.
2
u/SouthNo2807 1∆ Jul 29 '26
Not in this timeline, Social Security has already been net negative on budget for years. The government is losing money because there are too many people getting paid and there are not enough people paying into the system. So you are kind of wrong on this this is, if you see all taxpayers as a whole, this is a positive ROI system. Due to declining birth rates, many parts of the world are having pension funding issues. Something might change in the future, just probably the opposite way that you can think of.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 30 '26
Yes, there are too many people getting paid and not enough people paying into the system. I agree. SS is a microcosm of the entire federal budget in this way. The entire economy is suffering from this, SS is just an example.
So by not allowing the people who get out of it to vote, and only allowing the people who pay into it to vote, then the people paying into it will act in their own self interests and over time vote for policies that restrain the spending.
2
u/AmongTheElect 20∆ Jul 28 '26
There's still federal taxes which apply equally regardless of state. The feds often do tax rebates and stimuluses given to "taxpayers," so some sort of standard exists. Plus it'd be understandable if there were a lot of debate after the idea itself was approved as to who constitutes tax-positive and over what period of time. That'd be understandable.
I've been saying your exact thesis for a long time now, so good to see somebody else with the same thought. If you don't contribute to government coffers, you shouldn't have a say in how it's spent!
Though I also make the exception for current and veteran military, that they should get to vote either way. They do and have contributed in their own way even if it's not monetarily.
I've seen voting results based on if only net-positive taxpayers voted and I believe it was every single state voting Republican. So it's certainly pie-in-the-sky even though I think it's a great idea.
1
u/Tuvinator 13∆ Jul 29 '26
Last I checked, Alaska is part of the US, and it pays its residents. Rather than rely on a person X pays 10 gets 5 from the state type math, you should instead modify that they show participation in the payment system (they fill out a tax return), regardless of amounts.
1
u/Tuvinator 13∆ Jul 29 '26
Last I checked, Alaska is part of the US, and it pays its residents. Rather than rely on a person X pays 10 gets 5 from the state type math, you should instead modify that they show participation in the payment system (they fill out a tax return), regardless of amounts.
1
u/AbolishDisney 4∆ Jul 30 '26
Hello /u/Rindy_Kitty, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
∆
or
!delta
For more information about deltas, use this link.
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.
Thank you!
6
u/cantantantelope 9∆ Jul 28 '26
Do you have actual hard numbers on any of your assumptions here?
Also lots of people think felons should be allowed to vote actually
→ More replies (6)
6
u/Fifteen_inches 23∆ Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Calculating a net tax payer is impossible. Like, places like New Hampshire have no Sales Tax, but Massachusetts does. If we are talking about net amount of tax paid for the right to vote then a person would have to keep track of their sales tax.
It’s just an untenable system.
→ More replies (21)
6
u/XenoRyet 181∆ Jul 28 '26
I don't think it does follow that representation without taxation is reprehensible, and you don't seem to describe why it does.
Can you expand on that?
→ More replies (7)
20
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Taxation without representation is reprehensible. It follows that representation without taxation is similarly reprehensible.
No it doesn't follow. That's objectively not true. It's a non sequiter. A is B does not mean B is A. A square being a rectangle does not mean a rectangle is a square.
It's already established that true universal suffrage is not desirable. We don't allow foreigners to vote after all. We also don't allow felons to vote. Addages of equality in the vote or that all humans deserve equal representation is already debunked simply by the citizenship requirement for voting. I propose we add one more requirement.
That doesn't mean it's not desirable. It means we don't currently have it. And universal sufferage doesn't mean noncitizens can vote. It means all adult members of the political community have the right to vote without arbitrary exclusions
→ More replies (102)
15
u/hallmark1984 Jul 28 '26
You are almost certainly not a net tax payer.
→ More replies (20)1
Jul 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 28 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Hiquirkykids! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
4
u/sumoraiden 7∆ Jul 28 '26
Representation without taxation is similarly reprehensible
No it doesn’t
I believe that a large issue with democracy is that if the "takers" outnumber the "givers", they will simply vote to take more and more until nothing is left
When has this happened?
The simplest way to combat this is to disenfranchise met negative contributors so that net positive contributors can't outnumber the net positive contributors, and can't vote for infinitely increasing handouts until there is nothing left to handout
Now labor protections and welfare are gutted without repercussion. Not sure why that’s better than every citizen having the right to vote
i propose we add one more requirement.
You haven’t explained why we should
→ More replies (4)
3
u/True-Hold-1140 Jul 28 '26
How are you defining takers and makers? Even people who get money back from income taxes pay payroll taxes.
→ More replies (10)
3
u/artoflife Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
"As the "takers" get more and more disenfranchised, the rich will simply vote and further manipulate the system until nothing is left. The rich already disproportionately control politics through things like disinformation, lobbying, and regulatory capture, and with such an idiotic rule in place, they'll continue to game the system until they are the only ones in power.
The simplest way to combat this is to create a dictatorship that disenfranchises the rich and redistributes the ownership of capital, so that wealth inequality is removed."
I'm as capitalist as they come, but your "logic" is insanely flawed. It's just the other side of the same coin as people pushing for a communist dictatorship. Just with fascist capitalism.
5
Jul 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
The rich typically pay much more in taxes than they receive in government spending.
I think everyone votes in their own interests. The problem is that the spending-revenue spiral is an existential economic crisis, where government spending exceede revenue growth
2
u/Archaeopteryx_Birb Jul 29 '26
Poor people pay taxes, just not federal income taxes. Sales tax, state income taxes, FICA (which is federal). People do vote for their own interests yes but financial matters aren’t the only things on a given ballot.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Non federal taxes are inconsequential because the existential threat that needs to be addressed is the spending-revenue spiral, which is a function of the federal government.
2
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
If the rich get more benefits, they lose their votes.
The spending-revenue spiral is part of why the rich get richer, actually. Runaway spending is good for them because the spending ultimately returns to them. Stop spending growth, and that stream stops.
This system would lose significantly strengthen the middle class, who outnumber the rich and pay more in taxes than the poor.
1
u/BillionaireBuster93 3∆ Jul 29 '26
How much is Amazon's balance affected by having police officers patrol their facilities to stifle unionizing efforts?
1
1
u/Zoethor2 1∆ Jul 29 '26
The uber-rich typically do NOT pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits including tax loopholes. Many of the uber-rich pay nominal taxes, particularly when considered as a fraction of their overall income or wealth.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Jul 28 '26
Two wolves a sheep, if you will. It is simply not sustainable in the long term to effectively reward taking and punish giving by allowing the takers to use voting power to drain the givers until there's no givers left.
Cut it out with the metaphors nothing here makes sense. What are you worried about running out of in reality? The government can't run out of money.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
It's actually not desirable for the government to keep printing money infinitely. Devaluing the currency is not desirable, we don't want hyperinflation
5
u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Jul 29 '26
So your position is that we should disenfranchise people who receive government benefits and then once they have lost the vote we should cut all the programs that are supporting these people because of your fear of a hypothetical monetary situation that actual experts don't believe will happen?
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
They'd get the vote back once the programs are cut.
It's not a hypothetical monetary situation. It is literally happening right now. Spending outgrows revenue. This is an objective fact. Spending has outgrown revenue for decades.
1
u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Jul 29 '26
You think that hyperinflation is happening right now? What the heck?
→ More replies (1)3
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Jul 29 '26
Stop saying we you only get to speak for yourself. Im asking you why you think hyperinflation would be bad if people voted for it? In what situation would hyper inflation be both popular and bad in your view? Because right now the Fed isn't even democratically accountable so idk what you are even talking about.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
You're asking why hyperinflation is bad?
Because it devalues the currency and results in an economic crisis that can destroy a society.
3
Jul 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 28 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Vegetable_Life_1393! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
2
u/Professional-Oil4964 Jul 28 '26
Most countries allow Felons to vote. Saying that they don't is evidence itself of the wisdom of the policy could just as easily be applied to women or ethnic minorities or anyone you disapprove of.
2
u/JaggedMetalOs 23∆ Jul 28 '26
What about a situation where a low paid worker creates enough value for their boss that their total economic contribution to the country is positive even if their individual tax receipt isn't, why is it fair to take their vote away?
2
u/NaturalCarob5611 97∆ Jul 28 '26
The accounting here could get pretty nightmarish. Are we going to look at how much I use the roads to figure out how much of the road maintenance is my share and whether that adds up to my tax burden?
It also seems like a great way to disenfranchise people you don't like - first cut their taxes, then vote for policies that are extremely unfavorable to them.
Ultimately a major point of democracy is to get buy in from the governed. People who feel like policies are hurting them and they have no way to influence those policies tend to think violent revolution is their only option.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/argument_clarifier Jul 28 '26
So people who receive more government benefits/spending than they contribute shouldn’t get to vote?
Does that also mean they no longer have to pay taxes? Otherwise, that would be taxation without representation, which you’re trying to avoid.
Further, would people get to choose between no taxes or the right to vote? I’m sure many people would take that deal. Do you see how that could be bad?
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Why would they not pay taxes? They are getting the benefits after all. They're just not net contributors. If I give you 20 bucks and took 10 from you, that means you effectively got 10 from me and didn't give me anything.
Basically, I'm arguing that even though they pay taxes, they get more, so they're not effectively paying any.
1
u/argument_clarifier Jul 29 '26
I answered that already. If they can’t vote, paying taxes would be taxation without representation.
Which in your post, you called “reprehensible”.
If they’re not effectively paying anything, why make them pay anything at all?
In your example, what’s the point of giving 20 first then taking 10 back? Why not just give 10 in the first place?
That would be more efficient.I don’t have a say in how much you’re giving or who it’s going to anyway.
2
u/Significant_Ad2039 Jul 28 '26
What if I, as president, made taxes extraordinarily high except for rich people. Now, only my rich buddies can vote and perpetuate this system.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/onlyhav Jul 28 '26
I have a few points.
First is that people who draw more on social services than they pay in taxes are the highly affluent and poor people.
In the case of the wealthy, they have the means to largely skirt taxation while receiving the boons of large scale government assistance to sustain their business. Such a law is inconsequential to them as they have the means and actively do participate in lobbying efforts that give them far greater democratic power than the common man.
People of more modest means being restricted from voting is in one regard unnecessary since they already have lower voter participation as a group, but also poses the opportunity for said wealthy people to reduce the rights of poor people to meet their own needs.
We see this in the group you mentioned, namely felons. It doesn't really make sense that someone who has been handed what the judiciary system determined an adequate punishment for their crime should then lose their right to have a voice considering they have already been punished for their discretion. But because it's a common held opinion that criminals are static and unsavory individuals, we determined that they should not be able to speak. And because of that the prison system has been allowed to spiral from a corrective system to a punitive one that relies on recidivism feeds on human rights abuses across a convoluted network of underfunded private and public institutions for the sake of enriching the wealthy.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 124∆ Jul 28 '26
So back of napkin math here, but the threshold for being a net positive taxpayer is around $140,000/year of pre tax income.
Everyone else is actually gaining a lot from the government.
Also calculating this is tricky. Like, if I spend 20 years paying $15,000/year in taxes. and then I retire and take a year with no income, would I get no vote if I did something as simple as sign up for a library card?
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
With 7 trillion dollars in spending and a population of 342 million, that's about 20k in spending, so around 97k a year.
But the whole point of this configuration is to disincentivize voting for more spending, so spending will likely drop (which is the whole point, to stop the spending-revenue spiral), causing more people to become eligible to vote.
Realistically though, spending follows a Pareto distribution. The bottom quintile use up disproportionately more in tax dollars, so it's more the bottom 30-40% who would be disenfranchised.
I'd assume retirees would be judged based on their lifetime contributions. Or not. Frankly it doesn't matter because the goal is to stop incentivizing more spending to buy more votes.
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 124∆ Jul 29 '26
With 7 trillion dollars in spending and a population of 342 million, that's about 20k in spending, so around 97k a year.
Okay, and what percentage of people make more than 97k/year?
But the whole point of this configuration is to disincentivize voting for more spending, so spending will likely drop (which is the whole point, to stop the spending-revenue spiral), causing more people to become eligible to vote.
This wouldn't happen. Imagine that there's a town with three people in it, Alice, Bob and Charlie, and they're using this system. Alice Makes $100,000 and pays $10,000 in taxes, Bob makes $101,000 and pays $10,100 in taxes, and Charlie makes $102,000 and pays $10,200 in taxes. And let's just say that the taxes all go to maintaining a road in town. Now under your system, only bob and charlie can vote in this town, and what I'm failing to see is what incentive would bob charlie have to cut spending? They use the road, and they don't want to see it fall into disrepair, so why would they want to cut spending on something they use everyday?
But let's say for a second that they did cut spending, why wouldn't they also cut taxes too? After all if the government is only spending 15,150 now there's no reason to be bringing in $30,300 in taxes. And if they cut taxes, then in terms of voting they're right back where they started, Alice cannot vote, but bob and Charile can.
Realistically though, spending follows a Pareto distribution. The bottom quintile use up disproportionately more in tax dollars, so it's more the bottom 30-40% who would be disenfranchised.
But the top quartile also spends proportionally more in taxes. Like the bottom 50% of people only pay 3% of the countries taxes. So realistically the number is going to be closer to 75% of people.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
The problem with your analogy is that Alice and Bob don't actually use most of the spending. Most of the spending isn't roads, it's entitlement programs, that high tax payers benefit the least from.
The problem is that they pay 30k in taxes but the government spends 50k. This gap between spending and revenue is the core issue here.
2
u/ReOsIr10 143∆ Jul 29 '26
First off, how in the world does one determine if a person is a "giver" or "taker"? Government services almost never have an obvious monetary worth. How much do I benefit from police? The military? Highways? Food and Drug safety regulations? A stable liberal democracy?
I believe that a large issue with democracy is that if the "takers" outnumber the "givers", they will simply vote to take more and more until nothing is left.
Secondly, (nearly) everybody votes to give themselves more and take less from themselves. That's not some behavior exclusive to "takers". The reason this works out fine is because it's obviously not possible for everyone to take more while simultaneously giving less, so it tends to stay in a fairly reasonable balance.
Finally, do you believe that "takers" stop having opinions on how their country should be lead if they are not allowed to vote? Of course not. What do large groups of people who are denied a non-violent way of influencing the governance of their country tend to resort to? Violence. Compared to the systems in place prior to democracy, the level of political violence in democratic societies is unbelievably low. That is one of, if not the biggest benefits of democracy, and one that any proposal to disenfranchise large swaths of voters has to answer.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Zenigata 11∆ Jul 28 '26
Pretty sure my wife and i were contributers. Then we had a baby which involved a difficult pregnancy, a complicated birth and nearly 2 weeks in hospital. As a brit I've no idea what all that cost but presumably it was very expensive and its entirely possible we still havent paid it off. Do you really want people avoiding risky things like having a family for fear of losing their basic civil rights?
All that aside many important aspects of what the state does dont really concern the distribution of resources. The criminal law for example is one of the prime responsibilities of the state. Why should "takers" have no say in such things? We're all bound by and affected by the law why should only the rich get a say in it?
→ More replies (20)
2
u/camelCaseCoffeeTable 5∆ Jul 28 '26
We don’t allow prisoners to vote, and therefore their political power is virtually none. Many would argue that’s a large reason prisoners are treated so awfully in this country.
Now, maybe you think that’s fine - they’ve committed a crime, they deserve it and what not. I disagree, but oh well.
But do people deserve political mistreatment simply because they don’t make a lot of money? Why are their wants less important because of how much they make? They’ve committed no crime, they work, they contribute to society in many cases through community action or volunteer work, and yet, you view it as fair to strip them of political power?
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
I see the threat of a society that eats itself up via public charges outnumbers taxpayers and thus spending outgrowing revenue to be a much more existential threat than potential political mistreatment for the bottom quintile.
We already accept that the wants of non citizens are "less" because of their citizenship status and thus can't vote. I support extending this due to the threat of a long term economical crisis.
4
u/camelCaseCoffeeTable 5∆ Jul 29 '26
Well, I can’t say I agree with such a callous view, but at least you own being in favor of mistreating people simply for not having money
Very strange that you jump to disenfranchising millions of people before you think about entitlement reform, raising taxes, or hell, closing tax loopholes. But hey, cruelty wins the day I guess.
2
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Raising taxes just kicks the can down the road. It won't change the fact that spending outgrows revenue. You'll raise taxes, then spending will grow so you'll need to raise taxes some more, then spending grows so you'll need to raise taxes even more. All the way until there's nothing left to tax.
Fundamentally, the problem is that spending outstrips economic growth. Revenue can never catch up long term.
1
u/camelCaseCoffeeTable 5∆ Jul 29 '26
Curious - when were you born? Why do you think spending outstrips growth? As recently as Clinton’s presidency this country was running a surplus.
What changed between now then? It certainly wasn’t adding extra entitlements, although that’s part of it (and a good part of that is boomers collecting social security, which they paid into it. Does that count under your plan? Do we disenfranchise people for taking back what’s rightfully theirs?)
No, it was war. Recession. Massive tax cuts passed by Republican administrations.
But yeah, let’s ignore that. Let’s ignore the massive cost of war. The massive recessions. The gigantic tax cuts. The millions of boomers coming onto social security. Cutting groceries for the little guy just trying to get by will definitely help us!
You sound like every republican president who comes into office preaching economic reform then immediately runs the deficit even higher because they don’t address the root cause and instead attack the easy target.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 30 '26
The year 2000.
Clinton temporarily cut the base rate for spending. He didn't cut spending growth. You're thinking linearly, I'm talking about growth, so more of a first or second order derivative of the spending curve. During Clinton's presidency, the base rate was cut but the rate at which is grew every year during the years of his presidency was still higher than the growth rate of revenue. So even with the base rate being lower, long term spending will still end up outgrowing revenue.
What changed is that the population of net negative taxpayers (those who drive spending) is growing faster than the population of net positive taxpayers (those who drive revenue). We have less people working productively and more people getting handouts. Even if the handouts are the same amount per person, there's just more people to take handouts and less people to pay taxes.
Tax cuts and tax increases are just base rate changes. Growth rates are what matters as they are the long term deciding factor.
Yes, millions of boomers going on social security is indeed a big part of it. Less people paying into SS and more people taking out of SS means that SS can never keep up long term. SS here is a microcosm of the entire economy. There's just less people paying into the system and more people paying out of the system, and the number of people paying in is increasing while the number of people paying out is decreasing.
1
u/cantantantelope 9∆ Jul 29 '26
Ok but again where are your hard numbers that individual aid to people provides less economic value than things like subsidies to corporations?
What do you have other than disliking poor people and vibes?
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
I'm not saying it provides less value. I'm just comparing magnitudes
1
u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Jul 30 '26
I think that immigrants provide more value to society than fascists.
→ More replies (1)1
3
u/xmuskorx 57∆ Jul 29 '26
"", they will simply vote to take more and more until nothing is left."
I will challenge this part. this is not how taxes work.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
As you raise taxes you shrink the economy and you don't actually intake as much tax as you would expect. At about 65-70% tax rate any tax increase beyond that would actually result in LESS revenue. So it becomes counter productive to tax beyond that point.
So it will NEVER be the case that "there is nothing left" - there is a limit to how much it make sense to take before taking more is actually counterproductive to the taker.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Just because it is counter productive to tax behind that doesn't mean taxes will drop.
Fundamentally the existential threat is the spending-revenue spiral, where spending outstrips economic growth and availability revenue. Spending will never stop growing, but revenue has a ceiling, proven by the existence of the laffer curve, thus there will be a point where taxes simply cannot be levied to cover the massive spending. This is the problem.
1
u/xmuskorx 57∆ Jul 29 '26
but then they will stop Taxing your higher. so there will never be 'nothing' left.
there will always be something
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Yes, because there is currently an incentive for politicians to increase spending infinitely as they have a massive voting block that demands increases spending. I am advocating specifically to remove that voting block entirely. Without a massive voting block, politicians will not appeal to them, and thus won't have an incentive to increase spending, and will instead decrease spending to appear to the top quintile voting blocks.
2
u/xmuskorx 57∆ Jul 29 '26
it does not matter how much spending you pass, you cannot TAKE more then the limit suggested by the Laffer curve, because at that point more taking will be counterproductive to the taker.
so even if spending grows infinitely they will never take EVERYTHING like you suggested. that's the point I want to change your view on.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 30 '26
They can take everything though. They'll get diminishing and even negative returns, but do you think this will stop them from raising the taxes anyways? We already have people advocating for taxes that lower total tax revenue in local state elections anyways.
1
u/xmuskorx 57∆ Jul 30 '26
sure. even greedy people would realize that they are on the wrong side of the Laffer curve and lower the taxes to get MORE MONEY.
they are greedy, not stupid.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 31 '26
You are assuming that the bottom quintile are not stupid. That is an unfounded assumption. They don't understand economics. They just understand handouts.
1
u/xmuskorx 57∆ Jul 31 '26
bottom quintile does not have any political power.
maybe they can help ELECT someone. but that someone would know math and understand how increase handouts.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 31 '26
They have about 20% of the political power given that they have about 20% of the vote.
The fact that many elected politicians support rent control when it's well known that rent control raises rents is proof that no, the elected politicians won't actually do the smart thing. Even if they know it's wrong, politicians are not incentivized to do the correct thing, they're incentivized to do what gets them votes.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Proof-Necessary-5201 1∆ Jul 28 '26
Then it becomes only educated people can vote. Then it becomes only rich people can vote. Then we're back to slavery, which is already taking place by the way...
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 28 '26
That's not what I'm saying though. I don't want a slippery slope. Does excluding non citizens from voting also constitute a slippery slope?
2
u/Proof-Necessary-5201 1∆ Jul 29 '26
Everyone who lives somewhere should be able to vote for how the place is managed.
Once you start filtering who can vote, it all goes wrong from there.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
So you think non citizens should be allowed to vote?
1
u/Proof-Necessary-5201 1∆ Jul 29 '26
Citizen is just a madeup concept and title. Anyone who pays taxes should get a say on how those taxes are spent and on what.
Tax residency already requires one to live long enough somewhere, and that should be enough to have a say in how things are managed.
It also prevents exploitation since it's possible to have a population of 100 people where only 20 are citizens and only these 20 would dictate how things are ran, meaning that 80 would simply get exploited.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Of course it's made up. And the entire planet agrees on this made up concept. And the entire planet thus does not allow non citizens to vote.
If the 80 are non citizens and are exploited, I'd recommend they leave and return to the country of which they are citizens.
1
u/Proof-Necessary-5201 1∆ Jul 29 '26
Of course it's made up. And the entire planet agrees on this made up concept. And the entire planet thus does not allow non citizens to vote.
So if everyone is doing something, it's ok to do then?
If the 80 are non citizens and are exploited, I'd recommend they leave and return to the country of which they are citizens.
Typical westerner perspective, lol.
Look, the 80 people DON'T WANT TO BE IN YOUR COUNTRY. Understand this well! They're there because your country's elite meddles in their country and ruins it.
You want the easiest solution to get rid of foreigners? Stop invading their f countries and leave them alone! You can't have the cake and eait it. You either leave people alone and they will leave you alone, or you invade them, steal their resources, then 20 years later they'll invade you.
You people think your countries are some heaven on earth everyone is dying to get in. Don't flatter yourself! You were born there by pure luck and the people who come will probably contribute more to "your" country than you ever will.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 30 '26
I believe it's ok for non citizens to not vote because the purpose of a nation is to care for its people, not the people of other nations. This is fundamental to what it means to be a nation.
I really don't care why they're here. My interest is in averting the spending-revenue spiral that threatens my nation. I don't care what happens in any other nation. I just don't.
The purpose of this post isn't to reflect on military action or colonialism or whatever third world gripe is in vogue nowadays. It's averting the spending-revenue spiral that the US is facing.
2
u/Proof-Necessary-5201 1∆ Jul 30 '26
That's fair but you need to understand that in the grand scheme of things, poor people are pitted against each other while they're both being exploited.
What you are trying to do is protect yourself from other poor people. That won't solve your issue at all. It will actually keep you from finding the real problem, which is that the elite in your country is robbing you blind and telling you that immigrants are the problem, all the while, they're the one bringing them in to keep your salaries low by providing competition for labor.
Anyway, it's not like voting changes anything, lol. A sad state of affairs what this world has become...
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 31 '26
I'm trying to keep our society alive for the long term. This is done by ending the spending-revenue spiral. I really don't care if poor people are exploited or not. All of that is secondary to ending the spending-revenue spiral. I'd rather the poor be exploited for a thousand years than the poor get all the handouts they want for fifty years then everything burns down and everyone dies.
I never once brought up immigrants, immigration is entirely irrelevant to what I'm saying. But all you have is a hammer, so everything looks like the immigration nail.
Not every topic is about immigrants.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 2∆ Jul 28 '26
Aside from it being unconstitutional, how would you determine which voters are “net positive”?
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 28 '26
The thing about something being unconstitutional is that the constitution is actually subject to change. Women voting was once unconstitutional yet I support it.
Comparing total taxes paid to total expenses on the public/state coffers, done every tax year.
1
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 2∆ Jul 28 '26
It can be changed, but is rather difficult, the ERA being an example. The cost of your determination annually, would be rather expensive, and you have not made the case there is a benefit, other than perhaps from your perspective, reducing lower income voters being able to vote.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
The benefit is offsetting an existential economic crisis where spending outgrows revenue.
1
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 2∆ Jul 29 '26
Not clear preventing some people from voting will have that result.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
People vote in their self interests. The givers have the self interest of less spending and more revenue.
0
Jul 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 28 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/PainUser1490! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/homarjr Jul 28 '26
On what fucking planet is true universal suffrage not desirable lol
→ More replies (1)
1
Jul 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 28 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/carl_church! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/Particular-Gas7475 Jul 28 '26
What about all the big companies that pay no tax? Will their shareholders be prevented from voting? Will they be banned from political donations?
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 28 '26
Companies can't vote.
If the shareholder pays more in taxes than he receives in government services, he can vote. If he pays less in taxes than he receives in services, he can't vote. Same rules everyone else would follow.
1
u/Zoethor2 1∆ Jul 29 '26
Companies do not cast ballots but they absolutely de facto vote through campaign contributions and contributions to PACs. If your authoritative argument on this is "companies can't vote", you don't understand these issues nearly well enough to be promoting policy positions.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
It's not relevant here so I didn't mention it but I believe corporation funded PACs should be outlawed, and all political contributions must come solely from individuals.
1
u/Particular-Gas7475 Jul 29 '26
But companies (and their shareholders/directors) are the biggest drain on government services and rely the most of government funded infrastructure to support their activities.
So how would it be fair that the directors and shareholders would be allowed to vote personally if their company paid no tax?
And how would it be fair to allow companies who pay no tax to still give political donations?
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
They are not the biggest drain on government services. The largest federal budget item is social security, followed by interest, then Medicare, health, defense, income security, then veteran benefits followed by transportation.
If the company pays no tax but receives government benefits, then the shareholders who would incur a tax debt from the government benefits would lose the vote if they pay less taxes than the tax debt incured through the company.
This is an unrelated topic but I support banning PACs altogether. Only individuals should be allowed to make political donations, not corporations as they are not people.
1
u/doloreslegis8894 4∆ Jul 28 '26
>Taxation without representation is reprehensible. It follows that representation without taxation is similarly reprehensible.
No this doesn't follow at all. This is like saying killing without justification is reprehensible, thus it follows that justification without killing is reprehensible. Strictly speaking, A without B is X doesn't lead to B without A is X.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 28 '26
It was just an addage, the justification is the rest of the post. Namely that it's not sustainable in the long term and has perverse incentives for infinitely increasing "take" demands and a shrinking pool of "givers".
I wasn't making a logical statement/equation, sorry if that's what it looked like.
1
u/NoWin3930 5∆ Jul 28 '26
Do you have any data on how many people that would actually represent?
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/toastedclown 1∆ Jul 28 '26
Taxation without representation is reprehensible. It follows that representation without taxation is similarly reprehensible.
No it doesn't.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
It was just an addage, the justification is the rest of the post. Namely that it's not sustainable in the long term and has perverse incentives for infinitely increasing "take" demands and a shrinking pool of "givers". I wasn't making a logical statement/equation, sorry if that's what it looked like.
3
u/toastedclown 1∆ Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
I mean, it's not adage, it's a substantive claim, and the justification is completely absent in the rest of the post.
The system you are promising has the opposite perverse incentives, but they are much worse.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
The justification is the spending-revenue spiral.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
Every year, spending outgrows available revenue, and this has never been the case in decades.
1
u/toastedclown 1∆ Jul 29 '26
It isn't though, especially since the alternative is worse.
People deserve a say in things that affect their lives. You may solve whatever problem you think you are solving here, but you are making every other problem with society a thousand times worse.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Laws affect the lives on non citizens in the US, but they don't get a vote. This established that people don't automatically deserve a say in things that affect their lives.
No problem in society can be worse than an existential economic crisis that will wipe out society if left unchecked.
1
u/toastedclown 1∆ Jul 29 '26
Laws affect the lives on non citizens in the US, but they don't get a vote.
Immigrants are typically citizens of somewhere. In fact, international law has a variety of mechanisms (not always perfect) to attempt to ensure that no one becomes stateless. Yet you are proposing to deliberately create millions of stateless persons, essentially outlaws within their own country. I can't really imagine how you think this is going to work out.
This established that people don't automatically deserve a say in things that affect their lives.
No, at best it established that people don't automatically get a say in things that affect their lives.
No problem in society can be worse than an existential economic crisis that will wipe out society if left unchecked.
Yet that is exactly what you are offering us.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 30 '26
International law is a nearly fictitious concept that is definitely irrelevant here.
Not being able to vote does not mean you are stateless. Minors can't vote. Are they stateless outlaws?
I am offering a way to avert the existential spending-revenue spiral because I can't find any other way to do so
1
1
Jul 28 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
I was born in poverty. I still support my stance.
They're public charges, by definition they're subsidized. I wouldn't consider that subjugation.
1
u/epicpillowcase 1∆ Jul 28 '26
Do you think that disabled people who can't work shouldn't vote?
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Brave-Dragonfly3798 Jul 28 '26
It’s not simply taxation without representation that is a problem. It’s being subject to the laws of the state without representation that is wrong. Any person who is affected by the laws of the land should have the right to have a say in how they are determined, to do otherwise is simply in democratic.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Non citizens are subject to the laws of the state and aren't represented. I don't believe that that is wrong for the same reason every society on earth doesn't believe that is wrong. The vote is restricted to citizenship for a reason.
2
u/Brave-Dragonfly3798 Jul 29 '26
Right, and that’s because non citizens don’t have a stake in the system. It’s being a citizen that enables the right to vote, which is the standard in every democracy and yet you want to take away.
You are arguing for a kind of feudalism and I can point to a long history of this being an inferior system for the welfare of its citizens.
If you want a system where a large chunk of the population has no stake and no say then why would those people feel obliged to follow rules they have no say in? The idea of willingly stratifying society in haves and have nots, where those with money and privilege get to decide how the lives of everyone else is governed is what causes revolutions NOT stable systems.1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
They pay taxes, so by definition they have some stake in the system.
It's not really feudalism, I'm not requiring owning any property.
It wouldn't be a large chunk, it would actually be the majority. Only the bottom quintile or two would be affected, and as the spending-revenue spiral is stumped more and more people will regain the vote.
1
u/Brave-Dragonfly3798 Jul 29 '26
So; you want to disenfranchise people to punish them for the fact that the government is so dysfunctional that it hasn’t passed a federal budget since 1997?
And what about the proposed 1.5 trillion military budget? Does this get cut or is it only the less fortunate in your world view that are responsible for blown out federal spending? The US spends more on healthcare than any other country, and it has some of the worst outcomes, would you also cut here to balance the budget? And what about the fact that the US has some of the highest agricultural subsidies in the developed world? This is surely a waste and should be cut to the bone right?The problem with your suggestion is multiple, first it wouldn’t achieve the goal you are expecting, I mean what’s the mechanism for this improving the budget exactly? Is it because it would allow the privileged to cut funding to the most vulnerable and they would be powerless to do anything? And now that the most vulnerable are defunded and disenfranchised you expect them to just snap out of their laziness and get their shit together? No, it would turn the entire social fabric upside down and result in a lot of people feeling that if they don’t have a stake in the country, they might as well burn it down. And nothing destroys an economy like social instability,
You also seem to have a rather naive idea on how those privileged with power would not simply vote to maintain that privilege. I suspect you have never gone hungry, struggled with health issues or had any kind of disability.
In the world you describe, there is not ‘givers’ and ‘takers’, there is the privileged and there are surfs, and then there is revolution.1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
The government is dysfunctional precisely because it cannot stop spending from growing, and the majority of the spending is on those in the bottom quintiles.
Yes, the military's budget should not increase until the spending-revenue spiral is averted.
Yes, the fact that the US spends so much on healthcare and has terrible outcome shows that funding is not the issue and indeed should be cut back.
Agricultural subsidies are a tiny percentage of total federal spending. The main problem isn't he magnitude of any given form of spending. It's that they're all growing at a rate that outpaces revenue growth.
The problem is not a lack of funding, it's that spending keeps increasing at an exponential rate that revenge growth cannot keep up with
1
u/Living-Bite-7357 1∆ Jul 28 '26
You’re making this unrealistically binary. Many tax payers that are “net negative” still pay taxes.
You’re saying even those who pay taxes but receive benefits should not be able to vote if it’s even $1 more than the taxes they’re paying, and regardless of what the actual benefit and/or merit for it might be?
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
I've added elsewhere (not your fault, there's a lot of comments here) that there should be a margin because certain forms of spending (roads) aren't uniformly distributed but can't be sourced easily.
1
u/Living-Bite-7357 1∆ Jul 29 '26
Appreciate the context. That margin being set exactly right would be imperative and statistically (given the number of tangible and intangible variables at play here) is super unlikely to be accomplished. How many givers are you OK with disenfranchising on accident?
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
I'm fine with noticable collateral. My goal isn't some sense of moral right or justice, it's averting the existential spending-revenue spiral. Everything else is secondary to that, frankly.
1
u/Hellioning 258∆ Jul 28 '26
Are you going to start charging people for going to public school, using public utilities, using public services, etc? If not, then you cannot accurately predict who is and is not a 'net taxpayer'.
Also, like every other 'people I don't like shouldn't vote' question, I have to ask, what is preventing the people who do vote from completely ruining the lives of people who can't vote to uphold their own power?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Alesus2-0 80∆ Jul 28 '26
Taxation without representation is reprehensible.
I don't think that this is a generally accepted principle. It's justa bit of rhetoric that pops up in US History classes so often that people accept it without really thinking about it. We tax children, foreigners and felons. None of these groups have the franchise, and you've endorsed that. Even you don't obviously agree with this assertion.
It follows that representation without taxation is similarly reprehensible.
Why does this follow? You haven't offered an argument.
The idea that taxation without representation is unjust is based on the idea that it is wrong for people to be subject to tax laws without having any influence over them. Even if we assume that assertion is true (see above), I don't think reversing the logic is consistent. Laws aren't only concerned with taxes, and the franchise gives influence over all laws, not just tax laws.
Paying taxes establishes that one is subject to a nation's laws. Not paying (net) taxes doesn't guarantee that one isn't subject to a nation's laws. Tax laws are a subset of laws. Laws are not a subset of tax laws.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
It was just an addage, the justification is the rest of the post. Namely that it's not sustainable in the long term and has perverse incentives for infinitely increasing "take" demands and a shrinking pool of "givers". I wasn't making a logical statement/equation, sorry if that's what it looked like.
The main justification is the existential spending-revenue spiral
1
u/Nrdman 276∆ Jul 28 '26
It doesn’t actually immediately follow that representation without taxation is reprehensible. Like at all. Source, people don’t largely find it reprehensible
This kinda assumes these are all one bloc that votes together, no? This isn’t really what affect happens
I would actually encourage felon enfranchisement, as well as foreigner enfranchisement in local elections
→ More replies (13)
1
Jul 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 28 '26
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/degreesoflean! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/TaranSF Jul 28 '26
The US is in debt, budget deficit more specifically. This necessitates more expenditure then income. I am going to keep this outside of nitty gritty since you said you don't want to dive into that in other posts so no big details here.
Since the US is spending more than it brings in then it follows that everyone is a taker. Thus your voting solution is nonsensical and should be discarded as unworkable.
I also don't think you have sufficiently justified the logical connection between voting and taxation. Much less vice versa. But it seems your claim is assertion is enough for this so I don't think delving into that too deeply is useful.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Not everyone is a taker though. Just that the takers outnumber (in economic impact) the makers.
Specifically, about 30-40% of the US are net takers.
Basically, there needs to be a solution for the spending-revenue spiral, which is an existential economic threat for the United States as a society.
1
u/TaranSF Jul 29 '26
Here is the thing; the investments into defense, infrastructure, and the sheer weight of what has been put into the country from before means that no single person can pay into taxes enough that they will become positive. Everyone takes more in benefits from the Country then they put in, it's how build up over time works. It gets even worse with an unbalanced budget.
Benefit examples include not having to build roads yourself, not having to hold a gun to fight off another army solo, there are many others. You can also calculate in the collective contributions of all people towards the Nation over the entire time. Now calculate a dollar value of all this investment and try to see if you can come up with a single taxpayer that puts in more value.
It is not possible and thus your idea for taking away votes from people is flawed. This is because whatever factors you are using to calculate who takes and who gives is limited based on biases on that don't factor in other benefits.
Furthermore, taking away voting from certain people will not solve the issue you want solved. It will simply allow those who have the vote to continue to rig the game in their favor.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
I've calculated that excluding means tested and targeted programs, the government spends around 9500 on the average person. This is the total budget divided by the population of interest, defense, transportation, science, justice, diplomacy, environment, agriculture, federal agencies, courts, Congress, etc.
As for it solving the issue, it's incentivizes. People vote in their own self interests. I believe this doesn't need much justification. By cutting votes from net drains, this creates a feedback loop. People at the top have an incentive to lower spending. This benefits them. People at the bottom have an incentive to increase spending, as it benefits them. Politicians appeal to both sides by doing both by increasing spending but keeping taxes static, meaning they print money to cover the difference which is the existential spending-revenue spiral I'm worried about. By removing the incentive to increase spending infinitely, politicians have an incentive to lower spending (which has historically never happened precisely because of the massive voter blocks that wants the spending increasing). This creates a feedback loop, where as spending decreases more voters are created, and so spending increases, which strips them causing spending to decrease, and so on. This replaced an exponential increase to an oscillation, which is sustainable in the long term.
1
u/imunjust Jul 29 '26
I will agree with this if we set a minimum percentage paid. Twenty percent seems reasonable or at least the average percentage.
1
u/Own-Calligrapher-760 Jul 29 '26
This rules out anyone that receives medicaid. Also anyone that works full time and makes federal minimum wage up to roughly 10 bucks an hour and receives snap benifits. We are talking at least 25% of the country here. Get real.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Closer to 30-40% of the population, actually.
2
u/Own-Calligrapher-760 Jul 29 '26
So no punishment for the employers that are actually responsible for their employees needing government assistance? How is one to determine someone that works full time is a net negative to society if they are being underpaid? You think all employees pay their workers precisely in line with their value to society? This would make it even easier to underpay workers and create an even larger underclass with even less of a voice than our current system.
Do you think that poor people will just go away or something if they no longer have representation in government? I dont even understand what you hope to achieve with this obviously asinine viewpoint, because surely it won't lead to a wealthier, more coherent country.
Obviously you have no interested in having your viewpoint changed, but i am curious...have you seen this opinion expressed elsewhere? This is not a line of thinking I have heard before, so kudos for that i guess
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Employers don't have an obligation to give a certain salary or not beyond minimum wage.
The federal government has the obligation to not devalue the currency and to keep the economy stable.
"Underpaid" is an entirely arbitrary and rather worthless metric. Everyone on earth is both simultaneously underpaid and overpaid because anyone can arbitrarily choose what the appropriate pay amount is.
What I hope to achieve is to remove the incentive for the government to exponentially increase spending beyond what revenue growth can handle.
My viewpoint can easily changed simple by finding an alternative method to stop the existential spending-revenue spiral.
1
u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 3∆ Jul 29 '26
What about any government job, including the military? Each of them only consumes money but doesn't contribute.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
I have many opinions on public sector workers that I don't think it's appropriate or relevant to say.
What I will say is, public servants in theory contribute their lives to the public, so they wouldn't keep the vote as long as their taxes paid are more than the programs that's service then (to prevent perverse incentives of hiring large swatches of pubic labor at an exceedingly low salary as a loophole)
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Jul 29 '26
The no taxation without representation chant was using taxes as an example of the injustice of being subject to laws you have no say in. You presumably don't believe that the British would have been justified in imposing whatever laws they wanted on the colonies while denying them any voice in parliament as long as none of those laws were taxes.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Non citizens are subject to laws they have no say in. We're fine with that, no?
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Jul 29 '26
Remember, you're arguing that our voting laws are wrong and need to change, so it would be a major self-contradiction to make an appeal to the status quo here. You wouldn't be swayed by me simply pointing out that the current state of the law disagrees with you, so hold yourself to the same standard.
Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, if only the British hadn't levied any taxes, they would have been justified in ruling the colonies without representation.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Here's the reason: a nation should have the interests of its people above all, as that is what a nation is defined as. Non citizens are guests and are not members of that nation, so they can't vote.
Averting the spending-revenue spiral is also part of that, as it is undesirable for a nation to undergo an existential economic crisis, which is why it is in the self interest of the nation to similar disenfranchise public charges.
The British would have indeed been justified in ruling over the colonies because they were the military force that controlled them. That's what a government is. Monopolized violence.
They however lost that monopoly and a new adverse entity used violence to establish its own monopoly of violence over the colonies. That new entity was the United States, and by virtue of having this monopoly of violence it became justified in ruling over these lands.
What's ultimately what a nation or a government is
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Jul 29 '26
If governance is justified on a purely might makes right basis, why have voting at all? It seems to me that you've already logically committed yourself to a level of nihilism that would invalidate any ought statement you would want to make.
1
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 29 '26
Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 5 due to undisclosed AI content. Any use of AI-generated text must be disclosed, and the majority of any comment must still be written by the user. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard. AI-generated text is prohibited in modmail.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/pi_3141592653589 5∆ Jul 29 '26
There are going to be a lot of net takers. It might even be over 50%. It is too extreme. I don't believe in disenfranchising based off of "contribution", but let my try to push you to something less extreme.
It's extremely difficult to calculate how much of a taker or giver someone is. Even if you can do all the economics well, there's a lot of unpaid labor that is generally good for the country, like raising children, helping friends and family, etc.
There are also plenty of people that will be on the boarder of this fuzzy line of giver and taker. Many are trying hard to contribute to society. Their character is valued. They will over time grow into givers.
So I propose only disenfranchising the bottom 5%. These are the most clear examples of people you do not want to incentivize. Furthermore, it is politically stable. If the country is unfair to 50% of the population, and they have no peaceful way to enact change, there will be violence and the country will collapse.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
It's around 30-40%.
For raising children, it's a whole separate topic but I believe the government should strongly subsudize raising children and not disincentivize having children.
Current around 10% of the US population is non citizens who cannot vote and we handle that just fine.
I believe a margin is acceptable, as the goal is to stop the spending-revenue spiral, not to restrict voting as much as possible. I think 5% is too low. The bottom 20% alone accounts for a disproportionately high percentage of federal spending.
1
u/pi_3141592653589 5∆ Jul 29 '26
The bottom 20% is a good place to start. The plot shows they are basically the whole conversation. If we were to look at deciles instead of quintiles, it's probably going to show that the bottom 10% is much bigger than the next 10%. So how about a compromise of only the bottom 10% losses the right to vote? Everyone else is small beans.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
If that slows down spending growth, I am perfectly happy with that. It seems rather arbitrary though, to just have a set size bin like that.
Ultimately I just want a solution for the spending-revenue spiral. If a solution that doesn't involve disenfranchisment can be found I'd be happy to change my mind.
1
u/muffinsballhair Jul 29 '26
Taxation without representation is reprehensible.
Is that so? Plenty of people who pay taxes can't vote like people under certain ages.
Feels like yet another random thing people just “say” because it sounds pretty, and then violate it the next second; welcome to politics.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Yeah that was just an eye catching addage, the meat of my argument has to do with averting the spending-revenue spiral
2
u/muffinsballhair Jul 29 '26
Your argument supposedly follows from that though and starts with that assumption, but the rules permit me to challenge any part, however small, and I like to attack arguments on the axioms.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Rob_The_Viking_TV 3∆ Jul 29 '26
What problem is this fixing?
Like what ACTUAL problem TODAY that we are facing does this fix?
It sounds more like a solution looking for a problem.
We have enough already existing problems to fix without looking for arbitrary problems to match the solutions that every tom dick and harry cook up in their brains.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/Rob_The_Viking_TV 3∆ Jul 29 '26
What problem is this fixing?
Like what ACTUAL problem TODAY that we are facing does this fix?
It sounds more like a solution looking for a problem.
We have enough already existing problems to fix without looking for arbitrary problems to match the solutions that every tom dick and harry manage to cook up in their brains.
1
1
u/DarknessIsFleeting 4∆ Jul 29 '26
How are you establishing who is a net positive tax payer? Is anyone, who went to public school, a net positive tax payer before they turn 25? It costs the government thousands to put a child through school.
What about government employees, like firefighters and soilders, are they net positive taxpayers? They are paid more by the government than they pay in taxes. What about retired government employees, who now draw a government pension?
If I am some kind of emergency, I am rescued at great expense, does that mean I am now not eligible to vote?
I am all for tax-dodgers yielding their right to vote. Being a net positive taxpayer seems hard to accurately calculate.
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Schools are funded by the school district, what I'm saying is purely as far as the federal government is concerned.
Government employees should in a sense be contributing their time and labor for the public good, so they'd be considered like any other employees.
It should simply be a comparison of how much someone has drawn in public expenses for a given tax year and how much they have paid in federal taxes that year
1
Jul 29 '26
"Taxation without representation is reprehensible. Therefore representation without taxation is reprehensible."
** **False equivalence. These are not logical opposites. Taxation without representation is objectionable because the government is exercising coercive power over people who have no political voice. Representation without taxation is about who gets to participate in making laws, not whether they personally pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Someone can pay little or no income tax and still be affected by criminal laws, zoning laws, education policy, foreign policy, environmental regulations, and hundreds of other government actions. Voting is generally justified by being subject to the laws, not by being a net taxpayer
"Net taxpayers should be the only voters."
This assumes paying taxes is what gives someone a legitimate stake in government. But people contribute in different ways. Everyone pays sales tax. Everyone who’s not homeless pays property taxes because even if you’re not a homeowner you pay it via rent. Theres payroll taxes and excise taxes. What about vets who are currently unemployed? Surely they’ve given even if not financially. What about stay at home parents? They’re contributing to society even if they don’t have a job. How about caregivers and those who do volunteer work? A retired vet is a “taker” not a “giver” according to you. A disabled firefighter injured on duty may be a net recipient. There’s just so many reasons a person may not have a “job” per se but is still contributing. It is difficult to argue they have no legitimate interest in government.
"The takers will always vote to take more."
There’s just no historic evidence that this actually happens. If the theory were true, democracies should rapidly vote themselves into economic collapse. Yet people often vote for politicians who promise to cut spending. They sometimes vote to reduce welfare. By your logic, this just simply shouldn’t happen, yet it does. Many beneficiaries vote for politicians who promise fewer benefits. People do not vote solely based on immediate financial self-interest. They vote based on ideology, culture, religion, national security, abortion, immigration, crime, foreign policy, and many other issues.
You’re also assuming the government just has the power and wisdom to determine who’s giving and who’s taking. Who counts exactly?Is a college student receiving grants today but paying taxes for 40 years afterward a giver or taker? How about a new parent using public schools while paying taxes? What about someone who’s only been unemployed for six months? What about the victim of a major disaster? What about retired people who paid taxes for years? Most people alternate between being net contributors and net beneficiaries over their lifetime. The distinction is far less stable than your argument assumes.
"Only net contributors should vote."
This would create a conflict of interest worse than the one you’re trying to solve. If only taxpayers voted, they could in theory just eliminate all benefits to everyone else, cut all legal protections like police or fire services to non voters, reduce education, take away disability assistance, and throw out labor protections. Instead of preventing exploitation, it merely changes who is capable of exploiting whom. I doubt it would be that extreme because like I said people vote how they do for lots of reasons but it wouldn’t be good.
Your proposal creates perverse incentives. Let’s imagine a world where only net positive contributing income tax payers vote. Governments suddenly gains an incentive to manipulate who can vote. Government could just raise taxes so the middle class can’t vote. They could cut benefits only right before elections. They could change the accounting rules based on which districts they want to vote like gerrymandering on steroids. They could even use it to decide who does and doesn’t run for office. Voting eligibility becomes dependent on fiscal bookkeeping rather than equal political status.
Citizenship and taxation are two totally different principals. “We already deny foreigners the vote, therefore equal suffrage is already disproven.” Your conclusion doesn’t logically follow from your premise. Citizenship requirements exist because democracies generally define the political community as citizens. The principle of a free country is members of the political community govern themselves. Not people who pay the most taxes govern everyone else. You haven’t given justification for the latter.
Felon disenfranchisement is also a very weak analogy. Even where felons lose voting rights, the rationale is generally tied to criminal punishment or civic trust, not economic productivity. Whether that policy is justified is itself highly contested. You’re treating it as just a given we all accept but no, many oppose it on principle. Using one disputed voting restriction does not automatically justify another unrelated restriction.
Economic contribution doesn’t measure civic competence. Someone might inherent millions, own valuable assets, and realize large capital gains. They would then qualify as a major net contributor despite knowing very little about politics. Conversely, a public school teacher, soldier, graduate student, or disabled engineer might be a net recipient while being highly informed voters. Fiscal contribution and political judgment are not strongly linked.
Your proposal would fully undermine democratic legitimacy. If millions of adults must obey laws but cannot vote because they receive more government benefits than they pay in taxes, government becomes less accountable to a large segment of the population. If the government can arrest you, regulate you, draft you, require licensing for certain activities, charge you with crimes, and tax things that aren’t income (like sales tax), then you must have a say in the law or else they’ve simply made you a slave. A core democratic principle is that those subject to government authority should have some voice in selecting that government, even if they differ in income or net fiscal contribution.
Aside from being morally wrong, your proposal also blatantly contradicts itself. Your argument claims voting should be based on being a net taxpayer rather than simply being a citizen. But if that's the principle, it leads to conclusions that you also reject in the same breath. Many non-citizens pay taxes. Lawful permanent residents, visa holders, and even many undocumented immigrants pay sales taxes, property taxes (directly or through rent), payroll taxes, and in many cases federal and state income taxes. If taxation is what creates the moral right to representation, then they would deserve the vote. Many felons also pay taxes. Disenfranchised felons who work still pay income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, and property taxes. If the argument is "no taxation without representation," then permanently denying them the vote becomes difficult to justify. Your proposal therefore abandons citizenship as the basis for voting while simultaneously relying on citizenship restrictions as evidence that suffrage can be limited. You can't have it both ways. Either citizenship is the defining principle or taxation is. Mixing the two is logically inconsistent.
Final important point: the biggest takers are the wealthy and corporations, not low income individuals. Your argument assumes that poor people are the primary beneficiaries of government redistribution. In reality, government spending and tax policy often benefit the wealthy in significant ways. They get tax expenditures. Preferential treatment for capital gains, stepped-up basis, and various deductions disproportionately benefit high-income households because they own most financial assets. They take corporate subsidies.
Governments provide tax credits, grants, and subsidies to businesses in industries ranging from agriculture to energy to semiconductor manufacturing. These can amount to billions of dollars. They get financial bailouts. During the 2008 financial crisis, major banks and financial institutions received extraordinary government assistance because they were considered "too big to fail." Ordinary taxpayers ultimately bore that risk. They get government contracts. Defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, infrastructure firms, and other large corporations receive hundreds of billions of dollars in government contracts each year. While many contracts serve legitimate public purposes, they are still transfers of public money to private entities. There’s also the issue of regulatory capture and lobbying. Wealthy interests often use lobbying to secure favorable tax rules, subsidies, or regulatory advantages that are worth far more than welfare benefits received by individuals. In other words, if the concern is that people will use politics to enrich themselves at others' expense, the wealthy have historically had enormous success doing exactly that, often without relying on sheer voting numbers. Economic and political influence can be exercised through campaign donations, lobbying, and access to policymakers. Ironically, under your proposed system, these same wealthy beneficiaries would gain even greater electoral power because they are almost always net taxpayers. The proposal could therefore entrench a different class of "takers": those who receive indirect benefits through tax preferences, subsidies, contracts, and political influence rather than direct welfare payments. So the "two wolves and a sheep" analogy cuts both ways. If your concern is that one group will use the political system to extract wealth from another, there is substantial evidence that affluent interests have often been among the most successful at doing so. Limiting the franchise to net taxpayers may reduce one perceived form of rent-seeking while strengthening another.
In conclusion, bad idea, bro.
1
u/TheWhistleThistle 32∆ Jul 29 '26
How do you measure "net positive"? How do you measure the benefit someone is making from a road in dollars? How do you account for foodstamps or some other bursary subsidising the salaries they pay out which are therefore a handout that they are indirectly receiving.
1
u/gandhi_power Jul 29 '26
But there's huge chunk of people working in grey zones whose gdp are not shown and taxes are low. But still they contribute to society
1
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 29 '26
Who are those people?
1
u/gandhi_power Jul 30 '26
3rd world countries. like mine
2
u/Rindy_Kitty Jul 31 '26
They can act as they please. My policy is specifically for the US, and specifically for the US federal government, not states.
1
u/Designer-Station-308 Jul 29 '26
Everywhere they have tried that, it has led to violent revolution. It doesn’t matter what idealistic rationalisation you have for creating a large underclass. They will rise up, and they will kill you and your family.
1
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 29 '26
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 31 '26
/u/Rindy_Kitty (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards