Advertisement
by Angleter » Fri May 27, 2011 6:55 am
by Sibirsky » Fri May 27, 2011 6:58 am
Syvorji wrote:Sibirsky wrote: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?
by The Emmerian Unions » Fri May 27, 2011 7:04 am
Sibirsky wrote:Syvorji wrote:
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.
Ifreann wrote:"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."
by Sibirsky » Fri May 27, 2011 7:06 am
The Emmerian Unions wrote:Sibirsky wrote: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.
by Ifreann » Fri May 27, 2011 7:06 am
Angleter wrote:Bring back the three-class franchise is what I say. The higher rate you pay, the more important vote.
Not actually serious.
by Shadow25 » Fri May 27, 2011 7:07 am
Syvorji wrote: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?
by Sibirsky » Fri May 27, 2011 7:09 am
France Deux wrote:Syvorji wrote: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.
by Tekania » Fri May 27, 2011 7:11 am
Syvorji wrote: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?
by The Emmerian Unions » Fri May 27, 2011 7:13 am
Ifreann wrote:"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."
Ifreann wrote:"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."
by Ifreann » Fri May 27, 2011 7:15 am
The Emmerian Unions wrote:Ifreann wrote:"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.
by Syvorji » Fri May 27, 2011 7:16 am
Tekania wrote:Syvorji wrote: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.
by Mature Related » Fri May 27, 2011 7:18 am
Angleter wrote:Bring back the three-class franchise is what I say. The higher rate you pay, the more important vote.
Not actually serious.
by The Cat-Tribe » Fri May 27, 2011 7:18 am
Syvorji wrote: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?
by Risottia » Fri May 27, 2011 7:20 am
Syvorji wrote: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?
by Syvorji » Fri May 27, 2011 7:23 am
Risottia wrote:Syvorji wrote: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.
by Malgrave » Fri May 27, 2011 7:25 am
Frenequesta wrote:Well-dressed mad scientists with an edge.
by Angleter » Fri May 27, 2011 7:28 am
by Angleter » Fri May 27, 2011 7:28 am
Risottia wrote: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.
by New Manvir » Fri May 27, 2011 7:34 am
by Dyakovo » Fri May 27, 2011 7:36 am
New Manvir wrote: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?
by Risottia » Fri May 27, 2011 7:49 am
New Manvir wrote:I thought Eternal Leader Kim Il-Sung and the Glorious Juche Revolution didn't approve of decadent bourgeois customs such as elections,
by Big Jim P » Fri May 27, 2011 7:50 am
The Emmerian Unions wrote:Syvorji wrote: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.
by RobCo Industries » Fri May 27, 2011 7:50 am
Theodore Roosevelt wrote:"There is nothing to fear,
but running out of beer."
by ZombieRothbard » Fri May 27, 2011 7:54 am
Syvorji wrote:Sibirsky wrote: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.
by New Manvir » Fri May 27, 2011 8:24 am
Risottia wrote:New Manvir wrote: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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 0rganization, Ancientania, Elwher, Google [Bot], Infected Mushroom, Jibjibistan, The Archregimancy, The Holy Therns, Tungstan
Advertisement