Should the USA adopt a poll tax for its elections?

[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 its 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 adopt a poll tax?

[The Emmerian Unions]

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.

[Dyakovo]

No.

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

Okay, here is proof that you are wrong.

First, lets say the deficit was 1 trillion dollars. To help eradicate it, we increase taxes, or add a poll tax. Over time, the tax comes in, ergo eradicating said deficit, and then after a period of time (say, 4 years), there would be no more deficit.

Now, you know why your own statement ran away.

[Ashmoria]

no

it is important to have voting be as open and easy as possible. putting up artificial barriers skews the results and people lose faith in the fairness of the system.

[New Chalcedon]

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?

Erm, no. Per the Constitution, the right to vote is just that: a right. Not a privilege to be paid for with "pay-per-use" taxes. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the poll tax was what killed Margaret Thatcher's Prime Ministership.

[Syvorji]

no

it is important to have voting be as open and easy as possible. putting up artificial barriers skews the results and people lose faith in the fairness of the system.

Still, it would still be free and fair, since the money used in poll taxes goes straight to help end the deficit. When the deficit is gone, we then send the poll tax to raise funds for the programs.

[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?

Erm, no. Per the Constitution, the right to vote is just that: a right. Not a privilege to be paid for with "pay-per-use" taxes. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the poll tax was what killed Margaret Thatcher's Prime Ministership.

I see what you did there. You deliberately spun, so you confused the electoral tax with the head tax.

[Ifreann]

no

it is important to have voting be as open and easy as possible. putting up artificial barriers skews the results and people lose faith in the fairness of the system.

Yeah, this. Making it more difficult to vote won't accomplish anything except lowering voter turnout.

---

no

it is important to have voting be as open and easy as possible. putting up artificial barriers skews the results and people lose faith in the fairness of the system.

Still, it would still be free and fair, since the money used in poll taxes goes straight to help end the deficit. When the deficit is gone, we then send the poll tax to raise funds for the programs.

Something you have to pay for is not free.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I can only say that a poll tax will effectively take the political voice away from the poorest.

[Dyakovo]

no

it is important to have voting be as open and easy as possible. putting up artificial barriers skews the results and people lose faith in the fairness of the system.

Still, it would still be free and fair, since the money used in poll taxes goes straight to help end the deficit. When the deficit is gone, we then send the poll tax to raise funds for the programs.

You have a really odd definition of "free"...

[Sibirsky]

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

Okay, here is proof that you are wrong.

First, lets say the deficit was 1 trillion dollars. To help eradicate it, we increase taxes, or add a poll tax. Over time, the tax comes in, ergo eradicating said deficit, and then after a period of time (say, 4 years), there would be no more deficit.

Now, you know why your own statement ran away.

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.

[Syvorji]

Still, it would still be free and fair, since the money used in poll taxes goes straight to help end the deficit. When the deficit is gone, we then send the poll tax to raise funds for the programs.

You have a really odd definition of "free"...

I meant those elections, if the poll tax is used to end the deficit.

[Syvorji]

Okay, here is proof that you are wrong.

First, lets say the deficit was 1 trillion dollars. To help eradicate it, we increase taxes, or add a poll tax. Over time, the tax comes in, ergo eradicating said deficit, and then after a period of time (say, 4 years), there would be no more deficit.

Now, you know why your own statement ran away.

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.

[Ifreann]

You have a really odd definition of "free"...

I meant those elections, if the poll tax is used to end the deficit.

Elections you have to pay to participate in aren't free, no matter what the money is used for.

[Juristonia]

You have a really odd definition of "free"...

I meant those elections, if the poll tax is used to end the deficit.

Which still doesn't make them free since you have to pay to vote..
Which is beyond ridiculous. Elections should be as open and easy as possible.

[Syvorji]

Yes, but still, we do not any imperialist politicians wasting the poll tax on their new cars, right?

[Sibirsky]

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.

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.

[Syvorji]

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.

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?

[The Emmerian Unions]

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

Okay, here is proof that you are wrong.

First, lets say the deficit was 1 trillion dollars. To help eradicate it, we increase taxes, or add a poll tax. Over time, the tax comes in, ergo eradicating said deficit, and then after a period of time (say, 4 years), there would be no more deficit.

Now, you know why your own statement ran away.

Yeah no. Increasing taxes is the wrong way to go, as it stifles growth. I don't want more of my money taken away in ANY kind of tax. Hell, I would rather see all taxes be declared illegal. And having a poll tax will not make ANYONE want to vote. Also, the US Supreme Court declared in the case Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that poll taxes VIOLATE the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, therefore, your argument is slaughtered.

[Mektar]

In my opinion, no. That's what tariffs, income tax, sales tax, property tax and myriad other taxes are for. Anyway, a poll tax seems at least a little elitist to me, as if to disenfranchise the poor. That is not to say I want to take without contributing to America. If I knew of, say, a way I could volunteer for the infrastructure construction projects, I would gladly do so for free (yes, if you know how, this is an invitation to TG me). I just feel a poll tax isn't the right way to go about it.

[Aeronos]

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.

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.

Best example of that: Social Security. Was supposed to be assigned just for state pension and unemployment, with the surpluses intended to cope with the predicted higher spending later, but has instead been tapped to the point of deficit in order to fund bailouts and wars. To quote Milton Friedman, "nobody is more careless than when they're spending other people's money".

[Ashmoria]

no

it is important to have voting be as open and easy as possible. putting up artificial barriers skews the results and people lose faith in the fairness of the system.

Still, it would still be free and fair, since the money used in poll taxes goes straight to help end the deficit. When the deficit is gone, we then send the poll tax to raise funds for the programs.

if there is a poll tax, its not free.

[Ifreann]

Firstly, the more money that comes into the poll tax, it bypasses any politicians, greedy to spend it, to fix our deficit.

Until the deficit is gone.

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 per vote cast, $165,806,880 would have been generated in the '08 presidential election^[1]. The US debt is over $1,000,000,000,000(I believe). It would take over 6000 elections to eliminate the deficit, assuming it doesn't grow(which it will) and assuming that voter turnout remains roughly the same(which it won't).

[New Chalcedon]

Okay, here is proof that you are wrong.

First, lets say the deficit was 1 trillion dollars. To help eradicate it, we increase taxes, or add a poll tax. Over time, the tax comes in, ergo eradicating said deficit, and then after a period of time (say, 4 years), there would be no more deficit.

Now, you know why your own statement ran away.

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.

Not that it doesn't enough as is. You don't see the top 1% gaining an average 6% post-tax real income increase at the same time anyone not in the 1% is lucky to get 2% increases (and if you're not in the top fifth, you're looking at 1% - at best), without seriously helpful government policies.

But yeah, the poll tax is just a way to ensure that only the well-to-do vote.