Voter Criteria

[rickman]

My latest info is, a 53 yr old male that spent 3 years living free on
someones junk boat, collecting foods stamps. After 3 years of fighting
the SS system he finally got on disability, but could not collect
through SS because he had not worked enough in his life to earn the
credits needed. So they did it with SSI. The same week he won his claim
he got a job on a shrimp boat, somehow that fell though and he ended up
on a fishing boat one of the most dangerous professions. These boats go
to sea for 2 to 3 weeks, must be hard on his disabled back.

I may be mistaken, I thought SSI was for those who didn't pay much into
the system.

Oh, I looked it up and SSI *is* about need. You have to be over 65,
blind or disabled... *and* be financially challenged (my term) which you
wouldn't be if you had paid enough into the SS system.

Why is the financial need issue relevant? Why do these people lose the
right to vote?

 

[rickman]

Since my healthcare topic seems to have run its course.

I think we need a new rule for voting.
If you don't pay any federal income taxes, you can't vote.
If you have no skin in the game, you can't vote.
If you don't pay any federal income taxes and you vote,
all you can do is transfer my labor into dollars in your pocket.

Mikek

PS. SS taxes are not federal income taxes, it's a forced payment into
your retirement fund. Even if you call it payroll taxes.

Why not just require a poll tax? Make it large enough so that most
people who don't really care can't vote. Make it hurt enough that only
those who are truly committed vote. While we are at it, let's institute
a test so that those who are not aware of the issues of the day (and
past) can't vote. We don't want uninformed voters deciding the fate of
our country do we?

 

[rickman]

I have always felt that prospective voters should be required to pass an intelligence test at least every 4 years.

No further comment.

Can we do the same of anyone running for an elected office... *and* for
those who are allowed to express an opinion in a public place!

 

[rickman]

You could find the reasoning educational.

I'm aware of what has preceded us. But I like the argument and if "we"
could have just 40 years, maybe we could get back closer to where we
started, and save the country.

Save the country what, forty Shillings?

In 2012 tax revenue collected was 2.435 Trillion and entitlement
spending was 2.053 Trillion, that's 84% of tax revenue. Sorry I was a
little off, back when I constructed my total for entitlements I think
included military retirement costs, the numbers on this page don't.
Also note: Defense spending is 27.4% of tax revenue.

So this includes retirement pay to those who have paid into social
security? How about the government worker's retirement? Or was that
combined into SS some years back? My dad worked for the railroad and
never paid a penny into SS, the railroad retirement preceded and
outstripped SS and was allowed to usurp it for those entitled to it. So
he was never counted in your entitlements number.

I'm very glad I'm not you. I would hate to be as miserable as you seem.

 

[Robert Baer]

Hmm... That's what the Obama administration calls them.

But you're probably right, all the people receiving them, really aren't
entitled.
Mikek

Look at the CFRs; there are various sections that describe, limit and
allow specific actions - TITLE xxx etc.
Government promulgations in writing; if TITLE sss covers your
situation,you are enTITLEd.
Spekka deah Engrish?

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Since my healthcare topic seems to have run its course.

I think we need a new rule for voting.
If you don't pay any federal income taxes, you can't vote.
If you have no skin in the game, you can't vote.
If you don't pay any federal income taxes and you vote,
all you can do is transfer my labor into dollars in your pocket.

Mikek

PS. SS taxes are not federal income taxes, it's a forced payment into
your retirement fund. Even if you call it payroll taxes.

-there is no fund, and never was
-since1968 it's part of the general treasury, so it's like any tax
-it's a graduated tax, so it must be a tax
-FDR told the supreme court it was a tax

Instead of paying tax to qualify for voting, receiving benefits should
disqualify.

 

[cameo]

I stirred the pot and look what came out! Very nice! LOL
Mikek

Why? This country started out with the battle cry: No taxation without
representation, so the opposite sounds just as ligit to me.

 

[Charlie E.]

Oh, I looked it up and SSI *is* about need. You have to be over 65,
blind or disabled... *and* be financially challenged (my term) which you
wouldn't be if you had paid enough into the SS system.

Why is the financial need issue relevant? Why do these people lose the
right to vote?

There are different disability benefits in Social Security. My wife
has been on SSDI for a long time now due to her vision, but she would
never qualify for SSI. That requires you to have NO assets, no
savings, no stocks, no nothing. If is also why so many try to game
the system to get on it, as you don't have to have any earned credits.
My wife worked many years (usually at low paying jobs) to earn her
credits.

Suplemental Security (SSI) is a very strange beasty...

 

[Charlie E.]

So this includes retirement pay to those who have paid into social
security? How about the government worker's retirement? Or was that
combined into SS some years back? My dad worked for the railroad and
never paid a penny into SS, the railroad retirement preceded and
outstripped SS and was allowed to usurp it for those entitled to it. So
he was never counted in your entitlements number.

I'm very glad I'm not you. I would hate to be as miserable as you seem.

For a while I worked at UCSB, and was in CALPERS. Because of this, I
was not in Social Security. I still have all them money in an IRA. My
wife's father is retired railroad, so has no Social Security for the
same reason, but my wife's mother is on SS.

Unfortunately, in this country, you have to do something pretty
serious to be denied the right to vote, and now the congress critters
are trying to expand the right of citizenship as well!

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

I've always opined that government employees should not be able to

vote on any ballot that would affect their employment status or

income. For instance, teachers should not be able to vote on local

bond issues.

So thne you shouldn't be able to vote on anything that might affect your tax
since that would indirectly affect your income?

that is why direct democracy seldom works, every wants to pay less and
get or be paid more


-Lasse

 

[Jasen Betts]

I've always opined that government employees should not be able to
vote on any ballot that would affect their employment status or
income. For instance, teachers should not be able to vote on local
bond issues.

So you're sayoing those who pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote
where the vote could change the taxation?

 

[Jasen Betts]

Nor should anyone who is not a propery tax payer vote on issues which effect
property taxes, like school bonds.
Nor should city folk vote on issues which only effect rural areas.
Art

Nor should anyone who is not a renter vote on issues which effect
rental prices like zoning or property taxes.


Everything effrects everyone.

 

[petrus bitbyter]

So you're sayoing those who pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote
where the vote could change the taxation?

Tell me who is *not* paying taxes these days? You can't even buy a potato
without paying VAT.

petrus biybyter

 

[Jasen Betts]

Tell me who is *not* paying taxes these days? You can't even buy a potato
without paying VAT.

Well yeah, that pretty much limits the eligible voters to only the prison
population, I was just applying "reductio ad absurdum" to this recent plague
of "X should not vote" arguments.

 

[josephkk]

Nor should anyone who is not a renter vote on issues which effect rental
prices like zoning or property taxes.


Everything effrects everyone.

I think i have a better idea. Instead of limiting voters, double the
vote weights of those most like to be adversely impacted.

?-)

 

[[email protected]]

"Oh maybe, about 50% don't pay taxes and about 50% do.
Mikek "

You are too optimistic. Only about a third file taxes according to usdebtclock, easily findable online. Their page however does not state whether thatmany people actually PAY income tax. With the state of the crappy jobs these days, which will get worse as everyone who is not a primadonna gets cut to below 29 hours a week to avoid mandatory healthcare costs, alot of people barely make fifteen grand a year or so. At that rate even a single personpays so little in fed tax it is not even a drop in the bucket.

While not getting into why I don't know for sure I think minimum wage is around sixteen grand at full time no ? Rake off about seven grand of that andpay around 14 % on what's left which is about $1,350. Now there is a possibility of an EIC payment which might give you back half of that. That whopping $700 covers about a toilet seat for the government. If you have a qualifying person live with you and can claim head of household you will pay noting. Have a kid and you will get back more than they deducted and also likely get foodstamps and free medical at least for the kid. So just how many of that about 115 million filers actually PAY ?

Now for the math heads, officially the US debt is what, $15 tril for a round figure. This of course does not include a whole lots of things they are committed to but just haven't had to cut the check for yet. Estimates of that go up to $100 tril but it is very hard to be sure. Suffice it to say thatwe are paying interest on the $15 trill as a round figure. Let's say it's one percent per annum which is easy, $150 bill. Now take for round figures actually 150 million filing taxes instead of 115, and that's a grand apieceper year which is only interest. Logically, is that system sustainable ?

That interest is going to go up if the debt does not go down as it is already way too high in relation to the GDP. Anyone notice what happened to Greece ? People are taking their own kids to orphanages becasue they can't afford to feed them. Think it's bad here ? Give it a few more years, and neither party has any intention of stopping this fall into the financial abuyss. The only solution apparently is military might so we can exploit others. That obviously means more wars and less people to pay for them, and the spoils of war are not shared with the People anymore just like the proceeds fromnatural resources, unlike some places. In Norway for example the taxes arekept very low for what they get because of their oil revenues. In another country you get mail from the electric company containing not a bill, but acheck. We don't get that unless to are an Alaskan resident and that was the state of Alaska that made that happen. The feds would never be so generous. In fact they'll just take your land if something useful is found on it. With a good lawyer you MIGHT get a little bit of it, but one of those new people called corporations will get the lion's share of all proceeds.

Now SS is not a tax ? Well that's the theory. I will admit that in the beginning it was probably not intended to be a Ponzi scheme but now, due to devaluation of the currency (inflation for those who choose to see it that way) it does and must operate like a Ponzi scheme, except fo one minor problem.. Because of the dollar falling the system needs to adjust. There are only so many factors to adjust, one is the rates paid by current workers, one isthe amounts paid out to recipients and the last is of course the relative numbers of the two sets of people.

The problem is that payees are not dying soon enough and the payors are notearning enough, whether that's considered individually or collectively is of no import.

So I will agree that SS was not intended to be a tax, it pretty much amuonts to one now. That is sixteen percent of every penny you make on the books,no deductions for having a crop of kids or a high rate mortgage on your ivory tower, right off the top. Though they don't want you to know it, you can opt out. Years ago all you had to do was request the forms, now it is a bit harder and you will have to make some noise. And yes I am fully aware that the SS website states that participation is mandatory, but that is a bare faced lie, period. The government lie ? Say it ain't so........

Don't get me wrong, if you consider everything, opting out of SS is not a wise move for most people. If you work for wages just pay it and the taxes, I mean cheat as much as possible of course, but to fight them over this shit is not worth it usually. I mean it, if you know how to workk the system, stay in it. No health insurance and need a triple byopass or some new kneesjust tell them you hear voices and they will pay everything. So what you can't carry a gun anymore, it's better than not being able to carry anythingat all.