burzerker wrote:Money is a factor in almost every government action. If it was my world it would be more like the founders of the US had it, only "land owners" could vote, in todays world it would mean tax payers. Everyone is free to speak how they want things wheter they can vote or not, but it should be up to the people that have "skin in the game" to make the final decision. Anyone can speak their mind on
ers, but we should not be subject to what people think who don't contribute by virtue of their voting for someone that is there to take from those of us who do contribute. I don't mind paying taxes, but when it is wasted on useless plans to "help" some group it irritates me. When the "takers" of society get the majority of the vote all they do is vote themselves a raise which comes off of the hard work of the producers.
So in your perfect world everyone would still get to vote, basically? People who pay income tax, people on unemployment (unemployment counts as income and is taxed as such), anyone collecting disability benefits (it can be subjected to income tax), anyone collecting social security (depending on the amount and if its filed as individual or joint it can be subject to income tax) and anyone of voting age who holds a job (income tax) could vote . In your world only two groups wouldn't be able to vote unnaturalized immigrants and people on welfare. Unnaturalized immigrants can't vote anyway because they aren't citizens of the United States. Your point is moot, the only people that wouldn't qualify are those on welfare. 4,375,022(2010 average number of recipients of TAFN) X 4 (average sized family)=17,500,088/308,745,538(U.S pop. 2010)= 5.7%. Even at 8 times the average number of recipients it still doesn't even equal 12% of the population. $78.1 billion in TANF (2008), $700 billion in business bailouts (2008).
So where is this "mass of voting 'takers'' you keep talking about?