Compulsory Voting

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Compulsory Voting

Post by andyb » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:57 am

I have thought about this before when I read in the news about thy typically dismal turnout at the polls, and have recently been reminded by my lazy housemate who simply cant be bothered to spend 10 minutes casting his vote. Although this is a "right" for many of us, millions of people around the world dont even get the chance even though they deperately want to.

Here are some of the already outlined points on the subject, including countries where it is a requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

I see no reason why in the UK this should not be introduced, unlike in the past, a reliable postal vote could easily be implemented for those who would rather walk to a post box than the polling station. I would certainly like to avoid having any kind of enforcement, but I cant see a way round that.

I would add the "none of the above" option, for those who cant or wont decide, but that is not the same level of apathy as those who DO want to vote, but are currently sleeping on the sofa with a cat lying on them and doesnt want to move. Given that postal voting has been in use for a few years in the UK, there should be no reason for apathy on this level, but why do some of you ask would I then add the "none of the above box", simply put:

A Child has to go to school, it is compulsory, but a child does not have to learn. Likewise, I believe a person should have to vote, but can chose not to do so, by ticking that box. But as it is below many other viable options I believe the voting level will end up at 95+% vs the usual 60% - 75% of the last 30 years (and even lower percentages for local elections, often 30% - 40%).

Feel free to add your opinions and comments, and suggest a sensible but nominal enforcement, I dont want people to end up in prison for example, but I do want every eligable person to vote, and I cant see another way past peoples apathy.


Andy

Mr Evil
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:12 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Mr Evil » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:26 pm

I think the strongest reason against compulsory voting is that those who don't vote because they are too lazy are also going to be too lazy to acquire the information required to vote rationally. They will at best vote randomly, and at worst vote in some arbitrary but non-random way, like voting for whoever has the most recognizable name.

A "none of the above" option is definitely a good idea though, and should by itself lead to more people voting.

However, if we were to have voting reform, then it would be far more important to switch to some form of proportional representation, so we actually get the government we voted for, instead of labour getting far more seats than votes.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:28 pm

I like it!
8)
How about a 60% tax bracket for all legal citizens that dont vote.
Those that vote every year pay half that, or even less.

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:16 pm

However, if we were to have voting reform, then it would be far more important to switch to some form of proportional representation, so we actually get the government we voted for, instead of labour getting far more seats than votes.
Sorry, but I dont follow, as far as I understand each vote is grouped by areas, so one area will be Labour and its neighbouring area Conservative. Are you suggesting that the areas are ignored and the MPs divided up by the total percentage of votes rather than by area.?


Andy
Last edited by andyb on Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mentawl
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:29 pm
Location: Glasgow, UK

Post by mentawl » Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:21 pm

If there was a candidate genuinely worth voting for in the UK political system, I'd be down the voting booth in a second.

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:06 pm

If there was a candidate genuinely worth voting for in the UK political system, I'd be down the voting booth in a second.
A valid point, but one that is ultimately pointless when others are voting for the one that you would LEAST like in power, while you dont vote AGAINST the one you would least like in power. It has been said that "my enemys enemy is my friend", and that is how some coalitions are built.

I am sure that you would make a choice if you were given 4 options, and a "none of the above", you would not chose the last one, you would chose the one that you think is the least bad - pretty much how I chose my antivirus program, what is going to give me the least amount of grief and problems, whilst still fulfilling its purpose.


Andy

Mr Evil
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:12 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Mr Evil » Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:25 pm

andyb wrote:Sorry, but I dont follow, as far as I understand each vote is grouped by areas, so one area will be Labour and its neighbouring area Conservative. Are you suggesting that the areas are ignored and the MPs divided up by the total percentage of votes rather than by area.?


Andy
There are a number of different ways of implementing proportional representation, it doesn't necessarily mean ignoring areas completely. I don't know which way would be best, but they are all better than the current situation of e.g. Labour getting 60% of the seats despite only getting 40% of the votes. Smaller parties would see the most benefit, which could well encourage more people to vote because voting for a smaller party would be less of a wasted vote.

bonestonne
Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: Northern New Jersey
Contact:

Post by bonestonne » Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:44 pm

in general, i'm all for voting, but I haven't gotten anything back from the state after applying to vote back in october? I think i sent the stuff in early october, still haven't gotten squat back.

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:53 am

Compulsory voting brings out the worst in democracy, which is the devolution to mob rule. No longer do policies get made for the greater good, they are simply whatever the mob wants. Global warming is a hot button issue for most members of this board and you can kiss any kind of green policies goodbye when the mob gets to vote for cheaper electricity by removing pollution caps and unrestricted coal usage and anything else that would help the mob in the short term.

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:01 am

With respect AZ I believe you are confusing compulsory voting with direct Democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy


Andy

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:39 am

Hi,

I think the problems with the democracy here in the USA, is that money drives the campaigns. That and money controls the media, which until we got the Internet, was the only way to have the citizens be up to speed on the issues.

If we had public-funded campaigns and free access to the media for all legitimate candidates, then I'm confident that voters would be a lot less apathetic and much more active.

As it is now, anybody who has a lot of money (mainly big corporations) not only control who gets elected, they drive the legislation, and they drive the ways that government works, and they basically insure that they are the beneficiaries!

Sad, but true, IMO.

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:52 pm

I think the problems with the democracy here in the USA, is that money drives the campaigns. That and money controls the media, which until we got the Internet, was the only way to have the citizens be up to speed on the issues.
That has been a major problem in the US for decades, but that is really down to legislation on whats is and is not allowed. The rules you have there are very lax compared to ours. But that still does not answer my question, do you think that we (people in the free, voting world, not to be confused with nasty places where you get killed if you vote for the wrong person) would be better off or not if voting was compulsory.?
As it is now, anybody who has a lot of money (mainly big corporations) not only control who gets elected, they drive the legislation, and they drive the ways that government works, and they basically insure that they are the beneficiaries!
Again this is something that the people of the UK look at, and say no way, that is disgusting behavour that is not much less moral than pointing the gun at voters.

Again, that simply has nothing to do with the question at hand, but if I am not mistaken would have dramatically changed the landscape of US politics in the recent past, such as G.W "ar$ehole" Bush not getting into power because the votes would have been counted a different way. (Which I finally understood by the 2004 election, but it still dismays and confuses everyone around me).


Andy

mentawl
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:29 pm
Location: Glasgow, UK

Post by mentawl » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:53 pm

andyb wrote:
If there was a candidate genuinely worth voting for in the UK political system, I'd be down the voting booth in a second.
A valid point, but one that is ultimately pointless when others are voting for the one that you would LEAST like in power, while you dont vote AGAINST the one you would least like in power. It has been said that "my enemys enemy is my friend", and that is how some coalitions are built.

I am sure that you would make a choice if you were given 4 options, and a "none of the above", you would not chose the last one, you would chose the one that you think is the least bad - pretty much how I chose my antivirus program, what is going to give me the least amount of grief and problems, whilst still fulfilling its purpose.


Andy
Which is part of why I generally don't vote - I won't give even tacit approval to some political party without being entirely behind them, and I certainly won't vote for a lesser evil just to avoid a greater evil.

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:56 pm

andyb wrote:With respect AZ I believe you are confusing compulsory voting with direct Democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy


Andy
No, I've not confused anything. When people who don't even care enough about their country to show up and vote at all are forced into something, the results will be very predictable - they'll vote for leaders and propositions (here in the USA we have the ability to vote for specific laws in most states) that benefit themselves personally. At that point it's just whatever group has the most people will vote for representatives and policies that benefit themselves, regardless of the impact on others. Do you REALLY want the laziest of all citizens (the ones who don't even show up to vote normally) to suddenly have a voice? If so, why? Why do you want the opinion of someone who does not care about you or your country at all to vote?

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:48 pm

Which is part of why I generally don't vote - I won't give even tacit approval to some political party without being entirely behind them, and I certainly won't vote for a lesser evil just to avoid a greater evil.
If that is the way you feel, then there is no more discussion, I cant and I wont push you.

The only reason why I created this post was because of a local election. In a very real way, local elections are actually more important than nationals, but fewer people bother to vote in them, why I dont know.

In my area the candidates were voting very hard (if you mean by leaflet spamming), one came out ahead - it does not matter who, simply because I dont care who the party is. I simply voted for the party that promises NOT to screw up my parking, and cost me for doing so. Whether that party gets any further in national elections because of me, I simply dont care, I would have saved £75 per year, and I doubt anything else would have changed.

That is why people SHOULD vote, not just because one bunch of arseholes is trying to get into power, but because WE should care about what politicians ARE doing on our streets with our concent (we voted them in, or did we vote them in by not voting against them, did you even know what they were planning, I doubt you did, I didnt until U got a letter asking me about thenew proposals for parking, phuqers). Modern politics are ignored at the low levels, but they affect everyone, and most people dont even reaslise until it is to late.


Andy

spookmineer
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:02 pm

Post by spookmineer » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:07 pm

Isn't voting a right...? Somehow, compulsory voting in a free democracy just sounds weird.

Compulsory voting makes sense if all voters get at least a 1 day course where all the different party programs are layed out, objectively.

This alone will make it very difficult. Before you know it, all sorts of debate starts and the different programs won't get fully explored.

I would be squarely against compulsory voting if everyone is just forced to a polling booth without being informed.
So with the one, comes the other. Compulsory means making sure all voters have to be informed.

Politicians represent their voters. They do not represent some random group of people who just happened to mark a red dot next to the politicians' name.

Media is very selective, in that it only highlights so called hot issues. They put emphasis on a few aspects on which parties differ, but they don't inform the public of the overall view.
Ofcourse you can ask for a program, but most people don't.

I'd prefer people to only vote if they follow politics regularly, heard the pros and cons on certain issues, and made up their minds on where they stand on most of these issues.
I'd rather not that half- or non-informed people were forced to vote. They might even vote because of a single one-liner some politician made.

If people are too lazy to vote they might also be too lazy to follow politics at all (I'm with Mr Evil on this).
In short, I'd rather have 40% of the people would vote on the basis of good information, than 99% of the people voting simply because they have to, no matter how well (or poorly) informed they are.

What if the party you voted for to save £75 wants to raise housing taxes, maybe to £100? Just focusing on one aspect of a party program doesn't mean you made the best choice for yourself.
It also helps if they told people what is going to happen to that £75, it may be appealing enough to make voters think differently. Whatever their budget need, the money has to come from somewhere - if not by £75 on parking, then perhaps a smaller group which you belong to, meaning you end up paying even more. They usually don't just stash the money just because they got it.

I don't know where the people in the UK stand on this, is there a large group which wants this to happen? Or is it just hypothetical?


People have the right to vote, or not to.
People have the right to a religion, or to not believe.
People have the right to free speech, or to just be silent listeners.

lm
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:14 am
Location: Finland

Re: Compulsory Voting

Post by lm » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:45 pm

andyb wrote:...a reliable postal vote could easily be implemented...
Sounds fun. I could fill in the slips for my gf, my grandparents, my lazy friends, even buy some from unknown people on ebay or something. At last I could make a difference with my vote!

Cov
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:37 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Cov » Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:14 pm

Hi, interesting topic.

I would like to focus on the non-voters for a moment please.

On September, 27th 2009, we had our last federal election.
The turn-out was only 70.8% (44.005.575) - the lowest number since 1949.

Image


The conservative party CDU has won the election with 33.8 % and have built a coalition with the liberal Pary FDP who got 14.6 %.
Together they hold 48.4 % and therefore the majority of all votes.

Matter of the fact is that nobody seems to be happy with that result except the wealthy, because CDU and FDP are typical representer of interest for rich people.

Please take the following facts into consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------

The wealth, especially the monetary wealth, is devided very unfair.
While the bottom 50% of all households in Germany held 3.8 % of all capital, did the upper 10 % own 46.8 % of all capital in 2003.

Compared with earlier statistics, there is a clear tendency of this injustice getting worse year by year.



How could it be possible, that a coalition of two parties is governing a whole country while only a small minority has a great advantage from it, to the disadvantage of the majority ?
To understand this, first I would like to re-calculate the results from the last election as follows:
If 100 % of all citizen had gone to the election, and presuming the (usual) non-voters would have understood the consequences for them by electing either CDU or FDP, the result would have been:

CDU = 23.93 % instead of 33.8 %
FDP = 10.34 % instead of 14.6 %

Coming to a total of 34.27 % instead of 48.4 %
Resulting in 65.73 % of all citizens being forced to agree to a government which they do not want.

How could that happen ?

1. People who went to the election and did not know about the consequences of their vote because of a lack of political education.
2. People who went to the election and believed the lies of CDU / FDP, which they poured over the population in a brainwashing kind of way during an aggressive canvassing with the help of the biased, public media.
3. Non-voters have unintended helped CDU / FDP into winning the elcetion.

So, if you happen to see any of the ruthless, arrogant politicians in charge of our country, then please bear in mind that the majority of us do not agree at all to be represented by them.

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:27 am

What if the party you voted for to save £75 wants to raise housing taxes, maybe to £100? Just focusing on one aspect of a party program doesn't mean you made the best choice for yourself.
Very true, but this is a very local issue (and vote), they have no direct jurisdiction on such matters, so I voted for the bunch that seem to care about me, and what I want (dont want) vs the others who seem less interested.
It also helps if they told people what is going to happen to that £75, it may be appealing enough to make voters think differently. Whatever their budget need, the money has to come from somewhere - if not by £75 on parking, then perhaps a smaller group which you belong to, meaning you end up paying even more. They usually don't just stash the money just because they got it.
The money is simply going to someone to walk round the streets and ticket peoples cars if they are not allowed there, so from my perspective, it is costing me £75 and doing me a worthless service (as its not needed at all), so I am simply £75 out of pocket, for no reason at all.
1. People who went to the election and did not know about the consequences of their vote because of a lack of political education.
2. People who went to the election and believed the lies of CDU / FDP, which they poured over the population in a brainwashing kind of way during an aggressive canvassing with the help of the biased, public media.
3. Non-voters have unintended helped CDU / FDP into winning the elcetion.
I think you pretty much have it there.

Most people dont understand politics, most people dont want to, its considered boring, or the one I hear a lot, "it doesnt matter, I am going to get screwed anyway". That point is probably true, but are you going to get screwed MORE because you didnt cast your vote - possibly.

People dont seem to understand just how much power and control our elected government has over us that we dont like because we didnt vote them in, if you are one of the people who cast your vot against the ruling party then you can say I didnt ask for this, but if you didnt bother to vote you simply dont have the right to complain about the government screwwing you. People complain about politics all fo the time, everyone has an opinion about something in the political world, I simply ask them who they voted for, and then tell them to keep quiet if they didnt vote at all. I do however have sympathy for those who voted for the party that are in charge and now regret that because they were misinformed or simply lied to. That person then has a few choices, do they learn to understand politics better, so they can make a better choice next time, do they simply vote next time for the opponent party to the one they voted for last time, or do they simply not bother.

Personally I have voted at every single opportunity I have had, and I aim to keep it that way. Whether I always make to right choice only time will tell, but how will anyone know if they dont bother.


Andy

qviri
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Post by qviri » Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:59 am

andyb wrote:Most people dont understand politics, most people dont want to, its considered boring, or the one I hear a lot, "it doesnt matter, I am going to get screwed anyway".
And this would be improved by compulsory voting how?

Most people don't learn about a country's budget and budgeting process even though they are required to pay taxes. What makes you think the cheaper and less time consuming requirement to vote would be any different?

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:30 pm

And this would be improved by compulsory voting how?
It would not, but people should learn more about many subjects, especially ones that affect so many, so much. It is a side question to the main one, and people understanding politics is neccessary for anyone who wants to vote, ut people vote blindly anyway, so what would be the difference.

A simple outline of each of the parties plans and proposals side by side would be a significant advancement on the current method of just giving the name of the candidate and the name of the party.
Most people don't learn about a country's budget and budgeting process even though they are required to pay taxes. What makes you think the cheaper and less time consuming requirement to vote would be any different?
I dont, but it would be nice to see it happen.

This is exactly the reason why I asked the original question, to get feedback, and peoples opinions that I would have overlooked otherwise.


Andy

spookmineer
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:02 pm

Post by spookmineer » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:56 pm

Over here, whenever national elections are up, a site comes up helping people decide what party to vote for.

By answering 25 questions on different issues, ranging from enviroment topics to immigrant policies etc, people get to see what party is closest to their answers and which party is farthest away, and all the other parties inbetween, by stating a percentage.

You can even enter how much weight you put on certain questions, and the result is recalculated.

The first time this site was up, it was startling how many people switched parties, because they thought they were voting for one thing, when in fact they weren't. Or people having voted for the same party for over 30 years and seeing how far away this party had drifted away from them.

It's a powerful tool and should be handled with great care, just because it will influence some people. The site was started by a national impartial institution, which took a long hard look at all the different party programs. The questions were made, based on how much of an issue they were at the time, and by how much the parties differed on these issues.

In some ways, this is a crude tool, but it's better than nothing when so many people do want to vote, but don't know the differences between parties because they didn't follow politics.

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:46 pm

If rich people somehow control all the votes, why do they have to pay all the taxes? Here in USA, we don't have that problem. The richest 1% have to pay 12% of all the money collected by the government, and the richest 10% pay out nearly HALF the money collected! source. We're so awesome that the bottom 50% of Americans only have to pay 3% of the taxes. That's democracy in action - the 50 majority made the other 50% pay all the taxes!

Mr Evil
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:12 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Mr Evil » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:19 pm

AZBrandon wrote:If rich people somehow control all the votes, why do they have to pay all the taxes? Here in USA, we don't have that problem. The richest 1% have to pay 12% of all the money collected by the government, and the richest 10% pay out nearly HALF the money collected! source. We're so awesome that the bottom 50% of Americans only have to pay 3% of the taxes. That's democracy in action - the 50 majority made the other 50% pay all the taxes!
The top 1% pay 12% of the taxes? That's a pitifully small amount considering they have 38% of the wealth. Similarly, it's not really fair that the top 10% pay less than half the tax when they have a massive 71% of the wealth.

kittle
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by kittle » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:28 pm

What would be interesting is if compulsory voting would have the following effect:


Canidate A: 15%
Canidate B: 16%
Canidate C: 15%
None of the above: 54%

results: Canidates A, B and C are told "thanks for trying, but the voters dont want any of you, try again next time"

I think there would be some interesting election results.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:18 pm

What does mandatory voting accomplish besides assuring that every idiot in the nation votes?

If people are truly qualified to vote they would be totally outraged at just about all current events. And yet, as a bumper sticker would say, "If you're not outraged you're not paying attention." That's a US citizen in a nutshell. They believe (not think) that those voted into office ends their responsibility to the process and then it's totally hands off.

And besides they're already loaded down with too many responsibilities to take such matters of country into account. They're too busy texting and driving to vote competently. It won't be long before they are watching movies on tiny screens and doing 80 down the Interstate.

And while other countries have religious leaders telling them how to vote we also have the NRA making their contribution (which unfortunately isn't limited to Darwanism). And let's not forget the zealots over at Faux.

We have a "none of the above" choice, it's called independent, and people routinely blow it off.

Stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils by voting for an evil. It's simply not sound logic, and never has been.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:57 pm

AZBrandon wrote:If rich people somehow control all the votes, why do they have to pay all the taxes? Here in USA, we don't have that problem. The richest 1% have to pay 12% of all the money collected by the government, and the richest 10% pay out nearly HALF the money collected! source. We're so awesome that the bottom 50% of Americans only have to pay 3% of the taxes. That's democracy in action - the 50 majority made the other 50% pay all the taxes!
I have no idea why people like you give a rat's tuckus about what the rich pay. To them you don't even qualify to be a proletariat.

I had a friend in the IRS a couple of decades ago, when Ronald Reagan had lowered tax rates. He did that, and he also started the AMT, the Alternate Minimum Tax, because 500 super rich people were not paying any taxes. One of those citizens ended up in the office of an IRS agent, my neighbor and friend, and this multi-millionaire had a fit because this was the first time he was going to have to fork over taxes, a paltry $5000. Please, without knowing the Tax Foundation's Agenda or who funds them then I may as well get my news from Fair and Balanced or a Rupert Murdoch rag.

But let's set aside forget the oversimplified math you presented here.
Answer this:

1. What percentage of earnings do you spend on food? Is it? 20%, 15%, 10% or more like Bill Gates, .000000001% counting the gourmet chefs salary? Go ahead, make your proclamation here.

2. Same question about living quarters.

3. What percentage of salary do you pay in health costs? 20%? 15% 10%? Which is it? And if you need a liver and were placed on a list would you be assured you would get one the same way a billionaire who donates a new wing to the hospital out of .0001% of his earnings would get one?

4. How many days a year do you concern yourself with whether or not you can afford retirement? How many does the CEO of Exxon use up for that purpose?

I'll wait for some more of your math. That will give me a chance to laugh out loud for a very long time.

The super rich, the billionaires, have always had a major aversion to taxes. Do you recall the Luxury Tax of $10,000 dollars on boats over $200,000? Well the damn luxury boat business almost totally collapsed, and yet if that would have been a 5% increase in price sales would not have dropped at all, it all had to do with the name of the cost, not the cost itself.

But don't get me wrong, the overly zealous aversion to taxes is not limited to the super rich. A 20 year old middle class friend of mine with zero investments and little net worth was buying tax free bonds. I asked why, "I hate paying taxes." Well nobody likes it, but this is silly. So I said, "Actually you like paying taxes." This caused confusement and she repeated, "I hate paying taxes." So I said, "No actually next year you want to pay more taxes; you want to pay half a million dollars in taxes." "WHY WOULD I WANT THAT?" was the scream. "Cause think of how much you would have to earn and keep to pay out that much." A few months later miss half-ass logic was looking at stock finds.

Sure you can envy them if you want, but you have no reason to justify them to people who work at making ends meet.

Somehow I doubt I will ever be able to drop enough clues for your kind. Obama is a socialist, but his tax rates are lower than Reagans, which would make Reagan what? A communist? Go ahead and explain it all.
Last edited by aristide1 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thejamppa
Posts: 3142
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
Contact:

Post by thejamppa » Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:49 am

Compulsory voting would take away another freedom America was built on and after that European nations followed after fall of Monarch's. Every person has right to vote or not to vote. If people don't vote, maybe politicans should think how they could make people vote... other than forcing people do against their will. It might work in some places but in places where people believe in Consitution and have more guns than people in their houses and enough ammunition to last for platoon in fire fight... things might get... problematic.

Compulsory voting would fight very idea of democracy, but EU might like it, the Neo-CCCP they're building in Europe, it very well might work in there... Heck now I wish I would live in the state, be NRA member and have stock pile of ammo's and few good gun.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:13 pm

AZBrandon wrote:No, I've not confused anything. When people who don't even care enough about their country to show up and vote at all are forced into something, the results will be very predictable - they'll vote for leaders and propositions (here in the USA we have the ability to vote for specific laws in most states) that benefit themselves personally. At that point it's just whatever group has the most people will vote for representatives and policies that benefit themselves, regardless of the impact on others. Do you REALLY want the laziest of all citizens (the ones who don't even show up to vote normally) to suddenly have a voice? If so, why? Why do you want the opinion of someone who does not care about you or your country at all to vote?
You seem to have overlooked apathy. Years ago in Canada grafitti said, "If voting could change the system it would be outlawed." That's not ignorance talking. Now compare that to US grafitti that too often says, "Fok you". [sic]

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:19 pm

spookmineer wrote:People have the right to vote, or not to.
People have the right to a religion, or to not believe.
People have the right to free speech, or to just be silent listeners.
People also have the right to to remain ignorant and gullible, but that one hurts others.

Oh brother!

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Check out Figure 1 on this page, what a sham.

We see the number of returns on the top 1%, 2-5%, etc.

We then see their AGI, adjusted gross income. Hey tell you what, why don't you show us how much money they wrote off? How about the top 1% total GI versus their AGI. Go ahead AZ, see if you can get those numbers. These numbers don't even include how many people are in each reported bracket, which is why column 2 becomes worthless.

Now look at the last column - the average tax rate. The bottom 50% of the population paid less than 3%? The average salary is what? $16,000? Which is below poverty? The average taxes collected on the bottom 50% is $500 or less? Well perhaps that's true if you decided to count those that are not working, homeless, and even illegal. On $16,000 I would pay more than 3% in state tax, let alone federal, where does this statistical bullshit come from? Why don't they show how many people are in the top brackets? Their earnings? The sum of their write-offs? The answer is simple, it would completely contradict the statement they are trying to make.

If our tax rates were working honestly you would see a gradual decline in the right most column, instead it's AOTP. All Over The Place, and that doesn't include the average at the top.

Man I can't tell if this is Arthur Anderson math or Paris Hilton math.

Post Reply