Should the USA adopt a poll tax for its elections?

[Angleter]

Bring back the three-class franchise is what I say. The higher rate you pay, the more important vote.
Not actually serious.

[Sibirsky]

So the amount you raise is ridiculously low at $1.25/vote.

And as soon as that money starts coming in, the politicians will change the rules to make it available for any kind of spending.

No, instead, it would be placed into an American amendment of the constitution, so they won't change it, am I right?

Based on precedent, I disagree. We have special fees and taxes, that are supposed to go for specific programs. Except they don't, most of the time.

Besides, $1.25/vote is almost useless, other than to limit turnout. At the 2008 election, with relatively high voter turnout, there was a total of 131,257,328 votes cast. Voter turnout was the highest since 1960, and the absolute number of votes was the highest ever. Assuming no effect of the $1.25 poll tax, you raised $164,071,660. That would pay for about seven hours worth of interest alone. It's pointless. Does not address the issue it's designed for, and creates many negative consequences.

[The Emmerian Unions]

No, instead, it would be placed into an American amendment of the constitution, so they won't change it, am I right?

Based on precedent, I disagree. We have special fees and taxes, that are supposed to go for specific programs. Except they don't, most of the time.

Besides, $1.25/vote is almost useless, other than to limit turnout. At the 2008 election, with relatively high voter turnout, there was a total of 131,257,328 votes cast. Voter turnout was the highest since 1960, and the absolute number of votes was the highest ever. Assuming no effect of the $1.25 poll tax, you raised $164,071,660. That would pay for about seven hours worth of interest alone. It's pointless. Does not address the issue it's designed for, and creates many negative consequences.

Yeah, if a poll tax is introduced, which would be unconstitutional anyways, no one would vote. Also, Sibirsky, your research skills are strong, grasshopper.

[Sibirsky]

Based on precedent, I disagree. We have special fees and taxes, that are supposed to go for specific programs. Except they don't, most of the time.

Besides, $1.25/vote is almost useless, other than to limit turnout. At the 2008 election, with relatively high voter turnout, there was a total of 131,257,328 votes cast. Voter turnout was the highest since 1960, and the absolute number of votes was the highest ever. Assuming no effect of the $1.25 poll tax, you raised $164,071,660. That would pay for about seven hours worth of interest alone. It's pointless. Does not address the issue it's designed for, and creates many negative consequences.

Yeah, if a poll tax is introduced, which would be unconstitutional anyways, no one would vote. Also, Sibirsky, your research skills are strong, grasshopper.

Thanks. Somehow I ended up with a different (but close) number than Ifreann.

The point still stands though.

[Ifreann]

Bring back the three-class franchise is what I say. The higher rate you pay, the more important vote.
Not actually serious.

"And in world news, the United States has recently elected Bill Gates as God Emperor For All Time. Foreign commentators believe that Gates' personal fortune may have played a role in his victory, but criticism from the United States of Gates(as it is now known) has been sparse and brief."

[Shadow25]

The question I present to you is that should the USA adopt a poll tax for elections?

In my opinion, I do think they should, because it encourages people to vote for the right candidate, and donate some money, of which it would go to helping the USA pay it's deficit. After all, the goal of the poll tax is to ensure that people actually contribute something to the government, without fear of it going to a slush fund.

So, should the USA adopted a poll tax?

that would discourage more and more people from voting resulting in winners whom represent less people, not to mention that the greater propitiation from those who won't go will be in minorities

[Sibirsky]

The question I present to you is that should the USA adopt a poll tax for elections?

In my opinion, I do think they should, because it encourages people to vote for the right candidate, and donate some money, of which it would go to helping the USA pay it's deficit. After all, the goal of the poll tax is to ensure that people actually contribute something to the government, without fear of it going to a slush fund.

So, should the USA adopted a poll tax?

Maybe USA should reduce its nuclear force with 75%, resize its army with 50% and invade a few countries less each year.
Later they will have more than enough money to do useful stuff.

Good start, but not enough.

[Tekania]

The question I present to you is that should the USA adopt a poll tax for elections?

In my opinion, I do think they should, because it encourages people to vote for the right candidate, and donate some money, of which it would go to helping the USA pay it's deficit. After all, the goal of the poll tax is to ensure that people actually contribute something to the government, without fear of it going to a slush fund.

So, should the USA adopted a poll tax?

Yes of course, because it can never be wrong to disenfranchize those lazy good-for-nothing welfare receiving bums.... Like Veterans whose benefits have been cut after bleeding for your ass.

If you stick around long enough, I may even tell you what I really think.

[The Emmerian Unions]

"And in world news, the United States has recently elected Bill Gates as God Emperor For All Time. Foreign commentators believe that Gates' personal fortune may have played a role in his victory, but criticism from the United States of Gates(as it is now known) has been sparse and brief."

If I could quote this without breaking my sig, I would.

[Ifreann]

"And in world news, the United States has recently elected Bill Gates as God Emperor For All Time. Foreign commentators believe that Gates' personal fortune may have played a role in his victory, but criticism from the United States of Gates(as it is now known) has been sparse and brief."

If I could quote this without breaking my sig, I would.

Sig a link to the post, saves space *nods*

[Syvorji]

The question I present to you is that should the USA adopt a poll tax for elections?

In my opinion, I do think they should, because it encourages people to vote for the right candidate, and donate some money, of which it would go to helping the USA pay it's deficit. After all, the goal of the poll tax is to ensure that people actually contribute something to the government, without fear of it going to a slush fund.

So, should the USA adopted a poll tax?

Yes of course, because it can never be wrong to disenfranchize those lazy good-for-nothing welfare receiving bums.... Like Veterans whose benefits have been cut after bleeding for your ass.

If you stick around long enough, I may even tell you what I really think.

It is a good thing that you are so serious. You really agreed with me, so good job.

[Mature Related]

Bring back the three-class franchise is what I say. The higher rate you pay, the more important vote.
Not actually serious.

Then they will just vote in guys who will ensure them more fortune.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The question I present to you is that should the USA adopt a poll tax for elections?

In my opinion, I do think they should, because it encourages people to vote for the right candidate, and donate some money, of which it would go to helping the USA pay it's deficit. After all, the goal of the poll tax is to ensure that people actually contribute something to the government, without fear of it going to a slush fund.

So, should the USA adopted a poll tax?

No way in hell.

[Risottia]

The question I present to you is that should the USA adopt a poll tax for elections?
In my opinion, I do think they should, because it encourages people to vote for the right candidate, and donate some money, of which it would go to helping the USA pay it's deficit. After all, the goal of the poll tax is to ensure that people actually contribute something to the government, without fear of it going to a slush fund.
So, should the USA adopted a poll tax?

No. Its only effect would be enforcing a census-based electoral right.

I do think they should issue fines for bad grammar. The goal is to have people actually pay attention in class, at least up to 8th grade.

[Syvorji]

The question I present to you is that should the USA adopt a poll tax for elections?
In my opinion, I do think they should, because it encourages people to vote for the right candidate, and donate some money, of which it would go to helping the USA pay it's deficit. After all, the goal of the poll tax is to ensure that people actually contribute something to the government, without fear of it going to a slush fund.
So, should the USA adopted a poll tax?

No. Its only effect would be enforcing a census-based electoral right.

I do think they should issue fines for bad grammar. The goal is to have people actually pay attention in class, at least up to 8th grade.

Pardon my Korean accent. Though really, we already do that in the DPRK.

[Malgrave]

Although I don't agree with a poll tax it's still amusing to see the American's reaction to the word 'taxes'. It's like pointing honey near to someone allergic.

[Angleter]

Bring back the three-class franchise is what I say. The higher rate you pay, the more important vote.
Not actually serious.

Then they will just vote in guys who will ensure them more fortune.

AH! But they couldn't reduce their taxes since they'd lose their vote weighting! And besides, to tell someone who pays the government 50% of their income they have the same influence as someone who pays only 20% is immoral, no?

Not actually serious. But being Devil's Advocate is fun.

[Angleter]

I do think they should issue fines for bad grammar. The goal is to have people actually pay attention in class, at least up to 8th grade.

^This.

[New Manvir]

I thought Eternal Leader Kim Il-Sung and the Glorious Juche Revolution didn't approve of decadent bourgeois customs such as elections, why the change of heart Syvorji?

Nevertheless, I don't think people should have to pay money for access to the ballot box.

[Dyakovo]

I thought Eternal Leader Kim Il-Sung and the Glorious Juche Revolution didn't approve of decadent bourgeois customs such as elections, why the change of heart Syvorji?

Because he isn't Kim.

[Risottia]

I thought Eternal Leader Kim Il-Sung and the Glorious Juche Revolution didn't approve of decadent bourgeois customs such as elections,

You don't understand Juche. They're a perfect democracy and they circumvened Arrow's impossibility theorem.

The point is that the set of all electors (the demos) contains only three people: Kim Yong-Il, the Eternal Leader (voting through the present Kimmie avatar), and a random NK citizen.

Unrestricted domain: the outcome of the elections depends only on the preferences. Check.
Non-dictatorship: it's not based on the preferences of a single person. It's just that the Eternal Leader and the present Kimmie avatar always happen to agree. Check.
Pareto efficiency: Juche is what makes North Korea BEST Korea, and you can't get better than best. Check.
Indipendence of irrelevant alternatives: any alternative to the ideas of the Eternal Leader is considered irrelevant. Check.

[Big Jim P]

The question I present to you is that should the USA adopt a poll tax for elections?

In my opinion, I do think they should, because it encourages people to vote for the right candidate, and donate some money, of which it would go to helping the USA pay it's deficit. After all, the goal of the poll tax is to ensure that people actually contribute something to the government, without fear of it going to a slush fund.

So, should the USA adopted a poll tax?

NO! HELL NO! FUCK NO! No more damn fuckin' taxes. Taxes do NOT solve problems, they create them.

QFFT and [/thread]

[RobCo Industries]

Fuck no.

This would turn away anyone in poverty, and I'm too cheap to pay for my constitutional right to vote for whom I want to run the country.

Edit: Also this smells of the ol' times when they would make tests so hard that any African American couldn't answer it successfully to vote, and all whites would get the answers for it. Could be easily exploited.

[ZombieRothbard]

Doesn't work in practice. Ever. The more money that comes in the more money the politicians spend.

2nd, you discourage lower income people from voting. I gotta pay to vote? I have to pay, to pick one of two evils, and my vote is virtually assured to make no difference in the election. I'm not voting.

Only the better off will vote. And government policy will change to favor them.

Firstly, the more money that comes into the poll tax, it bypasses any politicians, greedy to spend it, to fix our deficit. Secondly, the maximum poll tax should be at $1.25, so that way, poll taxes can easily be used for the people.

At 1.25, even if everybody in the country voted every election for like, 10000 years, it still couldn't pay for that shit. And that is assuming all government spending halted. This is a horrible idea, we need to slash taxes and go back to the gold standard.

[New Manvir]

I thought Eternal Leader Kim Il-Sung and the Glorious Juche Revolution didn't approve of decadent bourgeois customs such as elections,

You don't understand Juche. They're a perfect democracy and they circumvened Arrow's impossibility theorem.

The point is that the set of all electors (the demos) contains only three people: Kim Yong-Il, the Eternal Leader (voting through the present Kimmie avatar), and a random NK citizen.

Unrestricted domain: the outcome of the elections depends only on the preferences. Check.
Non-dictatorship: it's not based on the preferences of a single person. It's just that the Eternal Leader and the present Kimmie avatar always happen to agree. Check.
Pareto efficiency: Juche is what makes North Korea BEST Korea, and you can't get better than best. Check.
Indipendence of irrelevant alternatives: any alternative to the ideas of the Eternal Leader is considered irrelevant. Check.

Brilliant. Probably saves the country money too, and does away with all that unnecessary "debate" and "legislating" that the Western imperialists are always going on about.