Should voting be limited to those who pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits?

Question

Proposal: Should only those citizens who pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits per permitted to vote? [One vote per person only]

Thoughts:

We would need radical tax simplification [eliminate most taxes so that only one or two remain].

We would also need benefit tracing to individuals, plus the benefits received by children and other dependents [immigrant family members, for example].

The taxes and benefits of businesses would need to be allocated [possibly based on percentage ownership for the time owned].

This would permit an annual accounting for each individual of her/his benefits received and taxes paid, after which his eligibility to vote for the next year could be calculated.

The concept could be applied at all levels of government, or at separate levels if all levels eliminated subsidies of programs run by other levels [Federal help for schools, for example]

Politicians would then have less reason to pork for voters.

Answer 1

It might be a right Idea.. but at a wrong way of looking at it. Id be much more inclined to agree with Robert A Heinlein's Voting therory as put forth in his book "Starship Troopers" That the ONLY way to earn a sayso in how the government is run, (vote or run for public office) is to have actually served successfully in the protection OF that government. Then you KNOW that the people who are voting or running for an office actually were willing to put their lives on the line in its defense. Instead of just being another loud mouth who wants things his or her way and dont mind making everyone else suffer.

Answer 2

There are some merits to your suggestion. What you are essentially suggesting is limiting full citizenship to those who in some way support their nation. It needs some fine tuning. If a person receives a large government benefit one year due to their occupation or something it shouldn't cost them their vote. For instance if a farmer receives a large subsidy they should still be a full citizen. The same with medical care. If a persons child or family member is receiving subsidized medical care they should not be punished for it especially if they normally pay more in taxes.
Land owners should always have a vote and soldiers should certainly have a vote since government policy directly affects their lives and their lives are spent in national service.
These are some points to consider.

Answer 3

So you're saying that I shouldn't be allowed to vote, as I'm legally claiming benefits I'm entitled to, because I'm disabled?

I know this may seem hard to believe to such a narrow-minded opinion, but believe it or not, I never asked to be disabled, and I dare say more other people didn't either.

It is every person's human right to vote, and the fact that a country cares so much about their disabled peole that they are helping them financially because they're unable to work shows that the government is working efficiently to prevent the snobbery divide growing bigger.

Whether a person is disabled or not is irrelevant to their right to vote.

Answer 4

No! First of all, it would be unconstitutional. Second of all, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to keep track of how much tax each person paid versus any government benefits they received.

And what would determine the deifinition of "benefits"? Would the fact that most children go to public schools (which gets some funding from the federal government as well as state) be counted as their families receiving govenment benefits?

Answer 5

i personally like what you propose only i prefer the concept of actually testing people on the measures in the ballot to see if they truly understand what they are voting for....

the only problem with what you propose is the poor and disinfranchised already vote at a drastically reduced rate anyway that their vote is less likely heard ....

what we hear now days is lies and misinformation bought by special interests..........what needs to be done is no more campaign money for individual people....campaign money can be donated to a superfund to be divided amongst the candidates and whoever gets the message out the most effective deserves the votes they get........

Answer 6

What I would like to have is the ability for myself to allocate my taxes to various government programs during tax filing.

For example, if I want 50% go towards infrastructure improvements and the other 50% to pay down the national debt, I should be able to specify that. It's my money afterall.

Answer 7

Well, economically it is viable that those who contribute more to the scociety gains more weight in terms of their voting rights.

However, ask yourself this question. What comprises of a society? Is it the humans who created civilisation or the money that creates civilisation. Economic growth doesn't complete a society. Always good to have a equilibrium in terms of everything. Well, that's life anyway.

Answer 8

First lets do away with the Constitution.
Then simplify.
Only those with jobs, cars, homes, kids and green noses have voting rights.
Easy no.

Answer 9

Are we talking all elections for all public offices or just federal?

No. I think that'd be a form of gerrymandering by social status. Politics isn't a class.

Answer 10

Gee, what effects would this have? Those who pay more in taxes would lower taxes. This would reduce the tax base to the point that those who need benefits couldn't get them.

This would destroy one of the whole points of a central government (taxes and transfers).