New Testingstan

edgeplay_cgo wrote:We used to do that. Many states had literacy tests for voting. It was abused to disenfranchise Blacks. I think it was a good idea, but ideology trumped practicality. This is why we can't have nice things.

Rob Herrick wrote:Why should people be allowed to purchase things and not pay for them?

That's what voting is, and that's expressly half the strategy of the Democratic Party: getting people to vote for people who will give them something free, and make their political opponents pay for it. Voting for moocherism, more than anything else, is destroying this country, because the people making the decisions are insulated from the costs of said decision.

The solution is obvious: universal taxation. Everybody pays something, so everybody has skin in the game. Ideally, everybody has the same tax burden, so they have the same skin in the game, no matter how much they make.

Rob Herrick wrote:So what? What makes your needs any more important than anybody elses? Why should you get to reap the benefits of subsidy, hiding the costs from you, and pushing them on somebody else? Should we make all your other expenses charge you less, just cause you don't make as much? Why are you - or anybody else - allowed to hide from the costs of the government you vote for?

You're essentially saying that our government should treat you special, providing the exact same level of service - or more service - at less cost to you. That fundamentally destroys any price signal - just like any other subsidy. You make choices based on flawed information about what the choice costs you. So of course you're gonna vote for more stuff and somebody else to pay for it - it doesn't cost you anything. That's why you need as much skin in the game as anybody else - the more your government does, the more your taxes go up and the less money in your pocket. Then you get a feel for the true cost to you, and you can accurately decide if it's worth it to you.

The actual rate doesn't matter. What matters is that we have people who don't have to cut a check - be it because their rate is too low, or they withheld more than they owe or they get unearned tax "credits" and the like. That's the problem - the true cost of government is hidden from ~80% of the citizenry, who pay less in taxes than they contribute to the income stream. We make economic decisions based on price signals, and the tax code subsidizes people so they pay less, sometimes MUCH less, than their share of what's needed to pay for what they want. So they think they can afford more and buy more. Even folks who're not moochers by nature are being turned into stealth moochers, because they're not getting all the information.

That's the problem.

Keller wrote:That said, restrictions that can be applied to everyone equally are possible. Things such as:
Raise the voting age to 30. With most people going through the protective environments of college, it takes until about 30 (at least) to have real enough life experience to maybe make a thoughtful choice. Maybe index it to the average national college graduation age + 5 years.

In jail, no vote during and for 5 years after release/end of probation.

Make anyone that receives a government (federal, state or local) check for other than goods and services rendered ineligible to vote during that time and plus one voting period afterwards. I would exempt social security payments for those at retirement age. Sorry, living on the dole or subsidy costs you your right to have a say in how that dole comes about. Want to vote, don't take the check.

Zod wrote:It just means democracy's working the way it's supposed to. You can change it up all you want but then it won't be a democracy anymore.

Negative Knub wrote:

Zod wrote:It just means democracy's working the way it's supposed to. You can change it up all you want but then it won't be a democracy anymore.

Democracy is bullshit. You all know it. Some matters shouldn't be left to the population to decide on.

Zod wrote:We already had the Bush administration. Also, Japanese internment camps in WW2.

Oxymoron wrote:I...
Knub...

Just...



Do you seriously believe that, or are you just in a bad mood ?

Oxymoron wrote:I...
Knub...

Just...



Do you seriously believe that, or are you just in a bad mood ?

Negative Knub wrote:The likelihood of them being morons is high because they disagree with me.

evilsoup wrote:How long are they working you?

>:3 wrote:Anything interesting from them about possible Puerto Rican statehood?

Jeremy wrote:I hope we don't have to start printing everything in Spanish and English for it to be official now.

Negative Knub wrote:I don't think everyone should be allowed to vote. Then again I'm not a fan of democracy. Look at it this way. The educated's votes are considered equal to those who aren't. Does that seem right to you? Does it seem right that the moron in Alabama's vote carries the same weight as the guy from Harvard?

evilsoup wrote:democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others

evilsoup wrote:If he was telling her secrets, that's actually a serious problem, so

adr wrote:Logically, we should be considering the idea of having no government!