(10-23-2018 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 10:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:56 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

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

LOL. So people that don't work (for a variety of reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate) or people that use tax law to their advantage shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sounds like a policy that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to oppose.

Most probably would oppose it. I said *I've* always thought that the skin in the game thingy wouldnt be so bad. But that is kind of the startup guy in me talking.... maybe even to cover the past tense, if you 'put' skin in the game more than x times.... covers the retirees and such.

Hate to tell you that people with actual skin in the game tend to make the best decisions and tend not to 'sit on the sidelines, and collect or game the system'. There is a *real* reason why seed funds and equity funds pretty much require the 'top tier' to have skin in the game, and why options for those enterprises are structured that way as well.

And I can see precisely why both the left *and* the right wouldnt like this, to be frank.

So are we talking just federal income tax?

What about state or local sales tax?

Property tax? Would renters not be able to include property tax because they don't actually pay it, but their rental payment covers what the landlord owes?

Is there really a single person in the US that pays no taxes at all?

If the office is Federal office, then the restriction should be to Federal income tax.

The franchise for State office should be at the discretion of the state if they want to adhere to the Fed paradigm. Or implement their own 'skin in the game' thingy. Or not. Why not? California has already shitcanned the paradigm of actual citizenship for state elections, really no different than that.

That was *implied*, no? (to quote you from yesterday, eh?)