Piece about Social Security benefits

[dochawk]

As long as one is presently a “taker” then the state suspends voting rights.

The actual basis and origin of western representative government comes from taxation, specifically the british House of Commons.

Commons eventually took a position of “redress before revenue” (or something similar), in which they would not consider voting new revenues to the king until he had agreed to the legislation they wished. Only a very small portion of commoners paid enough tax to be able to vote. At the turn of the 20th century, it was about 5%.

Over time, this turned into the legislature taking the leading role.

In the US, many states lowered the taxation requirement for voting, some getting all the way to zero.

So insurance such as flood insurance run by the government is not a liberal idea?

Actually, those are welfare. The fed provides that insurance where the premiums don’t cover the actual risk . . .

hawk

 

[ProVobis]

The fed provides that insurance where the premiums don’t cover the actual risk . . .

Would it make a difference if it were shown that it would lead to a government surplus (CBO score, etc.)?

 

[o_mlly]

You make two or three arguments above, all false. One, Social Security is not a guarantee or a right as decided by the Supreme Court in Flemming v. Nestor. Second, the Church as already shown does not teach that voting is an absolute human right. Third proposed voting restriction upon those who are presently “takers” does not ipso facto end their welfare payments. To believe so is to have little faith in the already proven charitable impulses of the electorate. Such a voting restriction does immediately end the perverse incentive of those politicians who wish to maintain and increase a “needy” class, a class of serfs, to hold onto their political power.

 

[o_mlly]

Show me exactly where a voting restriction takes away social security. It does not!

I have already provided references to address the legal points: SS is not a right, the right to vote has never been and still is not an absolute right. So much for the legal arguments that voting rights ought not be restricted. It is patently not illegal to restrict the voting franchise.

On the moral argument – the duty of the state to care for the poor – as already posted the restriction of the voting right does not end welfare but only the evil incentive of politicians who promote a structurally dependent class to sustain political power. Therefore, it is not immoral to restrict the voting franchise to that end. If an act is both moral and legal with good intention then it is a just act.

Your difficulty is you wish to kill this idea in the womb fearful that your lack of faith in the already demonstrated charitable impulses of the electorate will result in them stepping over the poor at every street corner. You are wrong. But to attempt to justify your lack of trust you attempt to invent in our founding documents – both legal and moral – rights that do not exist.

 

[DENNYINMI]

To believe so is to have little faith in the already proven charitable impulses of the electorate. Such a voting restriction does immediately end the perverse incentive of those politicians who wish to maintain and increase a “needy” class, a class of serfs, to hold onto their political power.

I would like to request clarification from you.

Are you suggesting that those who may be not as prosperous shall we say (the marginalized) and perhaps are utilizing social services NOT be entitled to vote?

IF so (I mention this before your clarification if you would be so kind) in order not to re-visit the idea that the ultimate conclusion would be voters allowed this privilege due to their economical status~

I would view that summation as a grave error. A preferential option per se’ for those that can buy a vote.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you suggesting that those who may be not as prosperous shall we say (the marginalized) and perhaps are utilizing social services NOT be entitled to vote?

The notion is that those who are presently “takers” (a transient situation) have voting rights restricted in order to, just as you put it so well, stop perpetuating a system where there exists a …

preferential option per se’ for those that can buy a vote …

using the money of others.

 

[pnewton]

Our country was found because of the injustice of taxation without representation. I do not think the idea that we might one day have representation without taxation would have even been imaginable. It was a liberal Democrat who put this in terms I see as best describing the dilemna we face. "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country .” The idea that someone can properly understand what is best for a country to whom he owes no responsibility and contributes nothing is absurd.

Denying votes is not an answer though, but having a zero tax rate at any level is not the answer to poverty either. People that pay nothing, that give nothing, are not capable of making good decisions for the common good. I will not say they should not vote. I am saying they make ignorant voters, in the same sense I would be an ignorant voter in Canada, or the UK.

 

[DENNYINMI]

I find this disturbing and problematic on so many levels. For one, this idea of your scenario sets up a dubious voting system in reverse. Secondly, all “takers” can not be dwindled down to the lack of monetary prosperity of the poor (this assumes those in need are "takers), “takers” can be in the form of those that exploit labor. Thirdly, it presupposes that virtue, true worth, and the ability to make a decision based on informed conscience is limited to ones prosperity. Quite a slippery slope you’ve proposed. Taking away voting rights on your premise could lead to total disenfranchisement of those already marginalized. Fortunately, I doubt this would ever see the light of day in our courts. Thank you for your clarification.

 

[o_mlly]

For one, this idea of your scenario sets up a dubious voting system in reverse.

What does “voting system in reverse” mean?

Secondly, all “takers” can not be dwindled down to the lack of monetary prosperity of the poor (this assumes those in need are "takers), “takers” can be in the form of those that exploit labor.

I’m also lost in what you are trying to say above. Please restate.

Thirdly, it presupposes that virtue, true worth, and the ability to make a decision based on informed conscience is limited to ones prosperity.

That’s outrageous. That very point, a negative correlation between prosperity and virtue, is not mine but the other interlocutor who does not trust the electorate to be their brother’s keeper. Shame on such rash judgements.

 

[DENNYINMI]

That’s outrageous. That very point, a negative correlation between prosperity and virtue, is not mine but the other interlocutor who does not trust the electorate to be their brother’s keeper. Shame on such rash judgements.

There is no rash judgement in an outright belief that those that lack prosperity by monetary means do not necessarily lack the means of intelligence in the voting booth. Dismissing the voting rights of those you refer to as “takers” is preposterous.

You clarified yourself well. Good day

 

[ProVobis]

It was a liberal Democrat

It’s ironic that this liberal Democrat appointed one of the two Justices who dissented from RvW and wrote an Executive Order preserving silver in our currency.

 

[pnewton]

It may be ironic, but he was literally the Liberal Party’s nomination for president, a position he said he was proud of. Also, he ran against Barry Goldwater. Labels can be finicky.

 

[ProVobis]

I thought you had been referring to JFK. LBJ was the one who ran against Goldwater but here you had a hawk who escalated the Vietnam War.

 

[pnewton]

I am sorry. I was slipping two thoughts in my head at once. I was thinking of labels and how the whole Democrat/ Republican reversal happened. 1960-1964 The South flip-flopped, with a Republican winning several states for the first time ever.

I do not know how often before Kennedy a president had ran on two tickets (Democrat and Liberal).

 

[Pattylt]

This has been interesting discussion. Could you clarify who exactly you mean when you classify givers and takers. It seems most people are both. The working poor do pay taxes but due to IRS rules often get most/all/ or more back. The very wealthy may or may not owe taxes due to the IRS as well and get enormous business exemptions. Do you place the dividing line at the point where they paid more than received vs paid less than received? If someone paid one cent more than they received would they then be classified as a giver vs one cent less? Thanks for any clarification you can give me.

 

[o_mlly]

There is no rash judgement in an outright belief that those that lack prosperity by monetary means do not necessarily lack the means of intelligence in the voting booth

My presumption is that all people, rich or poor, will act rationally. Your presumptions are something else; I’ve asked you to clarify.

If you think that our present political system can work out of the impending financial collapse without eventual draconian cutbacks in welfare transfers then make the case. I do not believe we can. Simply read the political slogans of those running for election on both sides – no politician who wants to keep or get a job runs on a campaign slogan, “Elect me, I will give you less “free” stuff.”

If you do agree then tell me your proposed solution. If you do not agree then good day to you.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I honestly just assume that SS won’t be a thing when I retire, and am planning accordingly. Even if it does still exist, it’ll be a pittance compared to average living expenses.

I personally think it’s a bad system that has caused many people to stop thinking about their retirement, or to stop saving for retirement. That’s not to say that it didn’t serve a purpose, I just think we should work to phase it out in favor of personal responsibility. To accompany this, financial literacy classes should be mandatory starting in elementary school.

 

[o_mlly]

This has been interesting discussion. Could you clarify who exactly you mean when you classify givers and takers. It seems most people are both. The working poor do pay taxes but due to IRS rules often get most/all/ or more back. The very wealthy may or may not owe taxes due to the IRS as well and get enormous business exemptions. Do you place the dividing line at the point where they paid more than received vs paid less than received? If someone paid one cent more than they received would they then be classified as a giver vs one cent less? Thanks for any clarification you can give me.

The devil is always in the details. Agreeing to the principle before negotiating the details is always prudent. Do you agree with the principle?

 

[Pattylt]

I can’t agree or disagree until I see how the givers and takers are being defined! I’m trying to understand how limiting voters that DO pay taxes even though on April 15th they get it all back. They still pay taxes on purchases and some pay property tax, etc. How would this not be taxation without representation? How would someone that is extremely wealthy but winds up paying little to no income tax be classified? While there are some people that I would prefer not to vote, I’m very leery of limiting anyone’s legal right to vote. I’d rather see a process to educate voters than remove them from the polls. I understand your issue with voters that only look at what they can get from the system, I think that’s true of almost all voters, rich or poor. A concern for the poor trying to get more benefits can also be balanced against the rich trying to get more exclusions from a tax burden? That’s why I’d like to hear how you are defining givers and takers. Thanks!

 

[TheOldColonel]

This is essentially the situation as I understand it.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)