Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grim Portent]

Having "taxpayers" be the ones that can vote is objectively terrible.

The better ideal is the one that most people think of, which is "citizens of the nation, of the age of majority, should be the ones privileged to vote."

Basically, if you are being asked to be subject to the rules, and you commit to be a citizen (not just a tourist or resident alien), then you can vote.

By taxpayers, I mean anyone who can be eligible to pay taxes if their income is high enough.

Here in the UK, you can start paying taxes at 16 if you earn enough. In Scotland you get your vote at 16 for that reason, in the rest of the UK you have to be 18.

Citizenship is not strictly required, as you can vote if you're from the Republic of Ireland, or parts of the Commonwealth, which is a legacy from the empire.


I generally feel resident aliens should be able to vote after a certain period of time, even if they aren't citizens, but British law has it so being born in the UK doesn't automatically make you a UK citizen which does colour my opinions on that. Two of my cousins weren't born citizens despite their dad being a citizen and them being born here. Can't remember exactly why.

My general sentiment is that if you can tax someone, that someone should get a say in how those taxes are spent. Fundamental principle. Disenfranchising immigrants because you don't trust them until they pass a stupid test* seems counterproductive to me. Residents in the country are bound by all the same laws as I am, pay more or less all the same taxes I do, if not more depending on their home country's laws, and some of them have lived in my country longer than I have been alive. That they can technically leave and go somewhere else isn't something I consider worth worrying about, and they aren't going to have any kind of distorting effect on our politics that local people don't already do.

*I know the UK citizenship test is incredibly stupid. I wouldn't pass the damn thing and I was born and lived most of my life here. It asks about sports teams for fucks sake.


EDIT: Thought of a comparison point relating to history.

Back before WWI, the women's suffrage movement here had a militant wing. They did stuff like slash paintings, chain themselves to stuff, do hunger strikes, chase a young Winston Churchill with a bullwhip. Thing is, they didn't have the vote, so as far as I'm concerned they could have killed and cannibalised the prime minister of the time and it would have been a perfectly acceptable form of protest. If an adult is bound by laws but doesn't get a say in them, they have the right to break those laws, any and all of those laws, until the franchise is extended to them.

I apply this line of thought to women of the past, I apply it to racial minorities who were denied the vote in various countries, and I see no reason not to apply it to foreign nationals who are long term residents now. If you're here for the long term, you should get a say.

[McTraveller]

So long as you make it individual taxpayers, not corporate taxpayers, maybe. Also you have to make sure you don't count people that end up with negative tax liability as not being a taxpayer.  Basically the complexity of dealing with "who is a taxpayer" is what makes it terrible.  If you were a taxpayer, but then have no job, are you still a taxpayer for voting purposes?

Verifying "who is a citizen" is a much simpler criteria (even though nations are really good at making that more complex than it could be).

I do agree that the hoops one has to jump through to be a naturalized citizen are kind of arbitrary and capricious though. I mean often times the people going through that process are more pleasant and informed about our country than people merely "born here".

[Grim Portent]

So long as you make it individual taxpayers, not corporate taxpayers, maybe. Also you have to make sure you don't count people that end up with negative tax liability as not being a taxpayer.  Basically the complexity of dealing with "who is a taxpayer" is what makes it terrible.  If you were a taxpayer, but then have no job, are you still a taxpayer for voting purposes?

Verifying "who is a citizen" is a much simpler criteria (even though nations are really good at making that more complex than it could be).

I do agree that the hoops one has to jump through to be a naturalized citizen are kind of arbitrary and capricious though. I mean often times the people going through that process are more pleasant and informed about our country than people merely "born here".

Why would you assume 'taxpayers' includes corporations? Corporations aren't people, of course they shouldn't be able to vote.

The actual point isn't that 'taxpayers' vote anyway, it's anyone who is legally the age at which all taxes* can be applied if eligible should be able to vote. Doesn't matter if they never pay a cent in taxes due to being low income, once you hit the legal age that any

*To clarify this point. Minors in the UK can pay most of the taxes that adults do, like income tax, if they somehow earn enough to do so. Mostly to stop parents hiding money via their kids. There are a few things, like NIC, our version of social security taxes, that only kick in at 16 and over a certain income. Because this is a type of tax that 16/17 year olds can pay, I think they should get the vote or they should be exempted from these payments.

I'm not familiar with the US tax system, so I don't know if there are any taxes that apply only to people above a certain age but which don't align with the voting age, but in the absence of such a thing the age of majority is a decent enough benchmark.

[McTraveller]

In the US you get to pay taxes even if you can't vote. You don't even have to make that much money. I think one summer I worked at a job making like $6/hour, maybe worked 150 hours the entire summer. So I got to pay federal income tax, FICA tax, and state income tax. I had to file my IRS forms to get the income tax portion back as a refund; FICA is non-refundable unless you happen to change jobs during a year and have a salary higher than the withholding limit (rare; I think it's pushing $170k/year now?), because you can have too much FICA withheld in that specific circumstance.

I guess theoretically I might get some of the SSI back assuming social security isn't defunct by the time I hit retirement age in 21 years (assuming they don't increase the age).

Treating corporations as a voting entity would be even worse than the nonsense we already have today with the ability of corporations to lobby. Can you imagine if corporations got actual votes? You'd have people creating thousands of corporations for the sole purpose of voting.  No thanks.  And don't say "oh there'd be rules against that" because they wouldn't work; any rule that would work to prevent abuse would make it harder for people to create legitimate businesses.

[Grim Portent]

Treating corporations as a voting entity would be even worse than the nonsense we already have today with the ability of corporations to lobby. Can you imagine if corporations got actual votes? You'd have people creating thousands of corporations for the sole purpose of voting.  No thanks.  And don't say "oh there'd be rules against that" because they wouldn't work; any rule that would work to prevent abuse would make it harder for people to create legitimate businesses.

The rule would only need to be 'corporations cannot vote.'

They aren't people, they're things, legal objects. They only exist seperate from their owners so they can be involved in contracts directly. I don't know why you're getting hung up on them.

[Frumple]

In the US you get to pay taxes even if you can't vote. You don't even have to make that much money.

I think that's kinda' the point trying to be made? Gods know the US has a pithy saying on that one: "No taxation without representation", ha. Shame we fall so goddamn short of it.

We could definite stand to expand and solidify the franchise, stateside, in any case. I'm a pretty strong proponent of just making the damn thing absolute, fuck off with age requirements and citizenship's negotiable. If the folks operating under your laws having a say in those laws causes a problem, you've got a bigger issue than who's voting.

[McTraveller]

It was because of the line "taxpayers should get to vote" and I was pointing out that that there are many non-individuals that are legal taxpayers, and some people who aren't taxpayers, so it's a bad idea to use that as a criteria. Corps and other legal entities are not and have never been citizens, which is why I suggested that is a better criteria.  You don't have to clutter up the laws with new stuff like "oh now we need a law specifically excluding corps."

Basically, follow the principles of Least Astonishment and Minimum Complexity.


Post-preview edit: I'd maybe be in favor of putting the voting age to be between ages 24 and 60, up from 18 and put a cap on it, basically to ensure a formed frontal lobe and limit generational stagnation (it's not about mental acuity due to age, but about letting the next generation take over). I'd have to say no to non-citizens though, unless by voting you get all the obligations of a citizen; can you imagine the discussion about immigration if non-citizens could vote? Talk about a recipe for corruption, hate, and abuse. I can't imagine that going well, and you all know I try to be an optimist...

[hector13]

As an aside to the current goings on, Trump was chatting to some Evangelicals, and it’s gobsmacking:

A little earlier, Donald Trump spoke to evangelical Christians in Concord, North Carolina during his last event of the day.

Among the dozens of people in the crowd he singled out to mention was former Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson, who Trump said told him in 2016 that God had selected him as the next US president.

At one point some of the crowd chanted "Jesus" as Trump spoke.

Towards the end of his remarks, he spoke at length about the assassination attempt against him on 13 July in Butler, Pennsylvania, saying he felt as though he had been "knocked to the ground by a supernatural hand".

"I now recognise that it's been the hand of God leading me to where I am today," he said.

He also claimed, without evidence, that the FBI has been sending "spies" into Catholic churches. He claimed that Democrats consider Catholics to be "potential domestic terrorists".

Trump is using the final days of this campaign to try and appeal to religious Americans, including Catholics, evangelicals and Jews, in the final days of his campaign.

Such an inveterate liar, and they lapped it up.

Also, I know I’ve been baffled before by the interplay between American Catholics and Protestants and it not being full of friction, but would Evangelicals really be all that bothered about the FBI planting moles in the Catholic Church?

[Frumple]

Talk about a recipe for corruption, hate, and abuse. I can't imagine that going well, and you all know I try to be an optimist...

It's literally a thing in some local elections stateside. Far as I'm aware it's not caused any particular problem where it's been tried, for all the concerns about it (most consistent being worry over foreign businesses openly causing problems). Weirdly enough, long term residents get invested in their relevant area even if they're not explicit citizens, ha.

Do note that most residential (or otherwise, for that matter) non-citizens do have the obligations of a citizen on just about every level. Same tax burden, operating under the same legal system, dealing with the same infrastructure and communities, so on and so forth. They just don't have the same privileges or protections (anemic as hell as those can be even for citizens).

[Maximum Spin]

Also, I know I’ve been baffled before by the interplay between American Catholics and Protestants and it not being full of friction, but would Evangelicals really be all that bothered about the FBI planting moles in the Catholic Church?

To a huge degree, the Kennedy assassination ended tensions between Catholics and Protestants in America, and they now feel that they are all on the same side in some sense, for the most part. There are complications, of course, but sociologists apparently (as far as I've read) consider that the key watershed moment.

[Starver]

Trump was chatting to some Evangelicals, and it’s gobsmacking:

At one point some of the crowd chanted "Jesus" as Trump spoke.

...I also tend to want to do that, whenever I hear him speak. And I'm an agnostic atheistic apatheist!

[martinuzz]

You can't be both agnostic and atheist. Atheism is a belief, just like theism, you believe there is no god / are no gods.
Agnosticism is 'I don't know' (a gnossein in classical greek means not knowing)

[Frumple]

It's been a defined term since the early 1900s, longer than living memory. Agnosticism is entirely compatible with the belief there is no gods, at most it just means there's a sliver of doubt you still acknowledge. They're not exclusive belief statements in english, heh.

[Il Palazzo]

God, if I hear once again how atheism is a belief, I'll pop a vein.

[Micro102]

A = "prefix meaning "not, without," from Greek a-, an- "not" (the "alpha privative"), from PIE root *ne- "not" (source also of English un-)."

gnostic = relating to knowledge

theism =  belief in god

A-gnostic: Without knowledge

A-theist: Without belief in god.

A Gnostic Atheist would be someone who declares that they know that there isn't a god.