(10-23-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 04:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age.

Hoping you didn't mean to leave off 'citizenship' on your list of restrictions ('anything outside of age') to vote.

What's magic about age? Why is 18 better than 21 or 55 or 12? There are lots of 10 year olds who have a better grasp of issues than a lot of 25 year olds.

Of course, the minimum age is a feeble attempt to restrict voting to those who understand the matters to be voted on - economics, foreign affairs, etc. But when it comes to restricting the franchise to those who actually do understand, there is this loud wailing, mostly from the left.

I don't think it goes far enough, but I see no reason why natural born citizens should not take the one time test to be able to vote that naturalized citizens take. Show not only a little knowledge, but also a little desire. What's it take, 30 minutes and a rudimentary knowledge of our government not automatically conveyed by birth?

And as I said before, citizenship is not a barrier to voting in certain California communities and other places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_f...ted_States

What’s magic about age is it can’t be discriminated against. You’re either 18 and older, or not. And 18 is only magical because we, as a society, have said it is. It’s the age you’re legally an adult and can die for the country - along with drinking beer, I think you should also be able to vote if that’s the case.

That loud wailing from the left is because history has shown us that parties in power will often use whatever means necessary to disenfranchise certain peoples if possible. I know you’re older than me, so my guess is you still remember a time when such efforts (like poll taxes) were legal. I’m not sure how anyone could want to go back to a time when having a direct say in who governs is not afforded to all voting-age citizens.

I do think it would be great if every voter was informed on civics, I just don’t believe that it will result in anything else but voter disenfranchisement.

Watching the chicks in the pink vejayjay hats and tutus, the antifas, and the dudes carrying modernistic swastikas sure makes the idea, at least to me, at the very least worthy of discussion, perhaps even look pretty damn good.

Ive always thought, in addition to this, that one should show that they pay taxes. The old 'skin in the game' argument. Good enough for startups, should be good enough for governance. Goes both ways. If you make 10 bajillion dollars and depreciate and offset enough to zero that out or create a carryover loss -- sorry charlie.

disagree.

I would be satisfied with evidence that one complied with all the tax laws, even if it resulted in zero Federal Income Tax(FIT) being paid. I think audits by the IRS annually for decades would suffice.

The ones that bug me are the ones who give fake SSNs, claim multiple dependents that don't exist, and file no tax return.

Of course, we can return to the left's argument about illegals who pay no taxes(FIT). I am sure Trump has paid a sales tax sometime, just as they have. Therefore, they are all taxpayers.

Disclosing one's tax returns started as a voluntary gesture, now is seen by many as mandatory.

\personally, as a former business owner and as a former real estate owner, I am glad that losses and depreciation are deductible. Sometimes I have been in the top 1%, and other times in the bottom 50%(no FIT due). I was as good a citizen in the low income years as in the high ones.