Piece about Social Security benefits

[o_mlly]

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.

Clearly, those people who are refunded all withholding paid no taxes.

They still pay taxes on purchases and some pay property tax, etc.

Were sales tax or property tax payments made with welfare transfers? If so, then they paid no taxes.

How would this not be taxation without representation?

That is the point. It is not novel in this country to limit the privilege of voting. See The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States By Alexander Keyssar.

How would someone that is extremely wealthy but winds up paying little to no income tax be classified?

Did that someone receive welfare payments? If so then no vote.

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.

The restriction to voting cannot be based on the usual non-discriminatory categories – race, religion, national origin, etc. But limiting the privilege to vote based on one’s dependency on government welfare payments (and their rational but unwise choice to extend their dependency) seems reasonable and just.

I will put to you the same question as the to other interlocutor. Do you believe our political system will work out of the financial disaster without draconian welfare cuts which few will be less prepared for then as opposed to doing something now? If so what do you propose?

 

[o_mlly]

That is a simplistic and contextual misinterpretation of Rerum Novarum. The Pope in paragraph 4 warns against just such simplicity:

The discussion is not easy, nor is it void of danger. It is no easy matter to define the relative rights and mutual duties of the rich and of the poor, of capital and of labor. And the danger lies in this, that crafty agitators are intent on making use of these differences of opinion to pervert men’s judgments and to stir up the people to revolt.

The poor in Rerum Novarum are not the unemployed but the working class whose working conditions are abominable, whose pay is unjust and oppression by the owners of capital is evil. The government ought to and has addressed these workplace injustices.

 

[Pattylt]

O_mlly, to be clear, you are advocating denying the vote solely on welfare recipients? You are not basing it on anyone else that may receive more in government benefits than they pay in via tax breaks for their business or inherited wealth? I’m asking because of this statement: “But limiting the privilege to vote based on one’s dependency on government welfare payments (and their rational but unwise choice to extend their dependency) seems reasonable and just.“

I do have a bit of a problem that the vast majority of those fitting this description are single mothers not to mention minorities and the handicapped. In general principle I have a problem with able bodied men and women collecting assistance that are capable of working but would rather do drugs and watch TV all day but these are a minority of welfare’s recipients. I’d rather see efforts put in to help these people get sober and learn a skill. In other words, have welfare work better and do what it was designed to do…give a helping hand to those that truly need it. That way, the takers would be a temporary step in turning them into givers. Stopping their vote doesn’t really accomplish that and could harm what I desire it to really be as the givers in your definition would most likely just take away or reduce the help they need. I want to reduce the number of people that need welfare, not the amount they get.

If the receivers are not voting what laws or benefits do you see changing? What is the goal of removing them from the voter pool?

 

[o_mlly]

I do have a bit of a problem that the vast majority of those fitting this description are single mothers not to mention minorities and the handicapped.

Why would we stop helping the needy? I am only suggesting that we take away their vote, not their benefits, in order to reduce (or eliminate) the perverse politicians who prey on them. If you do not believe that there are perverse politicians who do so then we disagree on the problem.

 

[Pattylt]

I understand that you are only talking about their vote. I just don’t like the idea of their vote being taken away when they are in a situation they didn’t create or cannot correct. You are taking away a privilege from a class of people in order to prevent politicians from taking advantage of them. Can we prevent the politicians from using people without punishing the voters? I agree that politicians do this (on both sides) but I am unsure how sever the problem is and what’s the best way to fix it.

Thanks for discussing this with me. I really appreciate it and your feedback.

 

[dochawk]

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

If that were the case, no-one would be buying it, but instead buying private insurance!

The reason for those fed programs is not that the insurance companies won’t insure, but rather that they insist on collecting enough premiums to pay for the actuarially expected losses. As people “can’t afford” to pay those, the fed steps in and the taxpayers at large covers the cost of their choice of where to live.

hawk

 

[stinkcat_14]

The biggest problem with social security is that that it takes from people who work and gives to those who won’t work. Many of them are able bodied, but would rather collect the dole.

 

[TULIPed]

Are you advocating taking the vote away from anyone receiving a government entitlement? Said another way, how do you define “welfare”. Which budget line item in the federal budget are you referring to?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Are you advocating taking the vote away from anyone receiving a government entitlement? Said another way, how do you define “welfare”. Which budget line item in the federal budget are you referring to?

I would argue that any redistribution scheme is welfare. So if you are a farmer and receive crop supports, you shouldn’t have the right to vote. If you buy federal flood insurance, you shouldn’t have the right to vote. If you receive medicare, you shouldn’t have the right to vote.

 

[TULIPed]

Don’t forget about social security and veterans benefits. Those pesky entitlements always slip through the cracks.

Fair enough, I respect your consistency of conviction.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Social Security I would agree with you. Veterans benefits one can argue that those could be earned benefits. Since most veterans had some level of sacrifice, particularly in the days of the draft. Now, what veterans benefits ought to be is something that people can certainly debate.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you advocating taking the vote away from anyone receiving a government entitlement? Said another way, how do you define “welfare”. Which budget line item in the federal budget are you referring to?

No, I’m proposing taking away the vote from those who are presently net beneficiaries of government transfer payments. For instance, the retired taxpayer who is a Medicare and Social Security beneficiary but pays more in income tax than the worth of the combined benefit still votes.

The objective being to end the perverse incentive that some politicians use to get or remain in power: “If elected, I will get you more ‘free’ stuff.” The retired person above would not be moved to vote for someone on that pledge. The target of this proposal are those persons who are structurally and generationally on the government dole which, because I believe is not good for them or society, a morally justifiable notion.

 

[Convert3]

Take away any citizen’s right to vote and you’re heading down the road to tyranny. I didn’t serve my country so a few select people can choose who may vote. There is no right in our country more precious than voting. I can’t believe some of the things said on this thread.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Take away any citizen’s right to vote and you’re heading down the road to tyranny. I didn’t serve my country so a few select people can choose who may vote. There is no right in our country more precious than voting. I can’t believe some of the things said on this thread.

Which select few are choosing who can vote?

 

[Convert3]

Your argument is saying those who receive government benefits shouldn’t have the right to vote. That would have to be made law and Congress would determine who gets to vote or not. It’s bad enough they tax us, but then having 535 people choose who they want to vote? A very slippery slope. The Constitution gives us all the right to vote and is very difficult to change for a reason.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Your argument is saying those who receive government benefits shouldn’t have the right to vote. That would have to be made law and Congress would determine who gets to vote or not. It’s bad enough they tax us, but then having 535 people choose who they want to vote? A very slippery slope. The Constitution gives us all the right to vote and is very difficult to change for a reason.

It is very dangerous to have give welfare recipients the right to vote themselves government benefits from the government. Medicare and Social Security are bankrupting our society. If they want to vote, get off the dole, it is that simple.

 

[Convert3]

Taking away a right to vote is not the answer. The Constitution is a remarkable document, with one major flaw. It didn’t implement term limits. That would have eliminated the ability to “buy” votes. But your method opens a Pandora’s Box.

 

[TULIPed]

So people who paid into Social Security and Medicare all their lives - because they were required to by law - don’t get to vote if they receive benefits?

 

[ProVobis]

I believe the solution provided by libertarians is to pay off those who have paid into the system a lump sum and then discontinue the payroll tax.

I don’t think the Democrats or Republicans would ever reduce the payroll tax much less discontinue it altogether.

 

[pdl40]

I am retiring at 62. My wife and I put too much in already.