http://johntreed.com/norepresentationwi ... ation.html


Can somebody explain to me why this idea is fair or logical?

Maybe he wants to save 47% on elections?

It might be easier to suggest you read about the 24th Amendment to determine why his proposal is neither.

No


Anyone that pays any federal tax (gas tax, telecommunications tax, airline tax etc) has just as much 'skin in the game' as anyone who pays income tax. That doesn't even begin to cover state and local taxes that voters have a say in. What about those in low paying jobs like the military? Do they deserve a vote? Fuck the divisive right wing.

Ditto to Adrianinflorida (does this make me a Dittohead?).

When our forefathers were protesting taxation without representation, the taxation they were talking about is more like our sales tax and excise tax (which everybody pays) than like an income tax.

Plus, the 49.5% figure is based on a wildly misleading parsing of the numbers that is a favorite right-wing talking point.

Here's one of many debunking articles: http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/debu ... king-point

It makes clear that:

• Only about 10% of households pay no net federal taxes (some of those may still pay state and local taxes, and ALL of them pay sales tax and other tariffs, fees, tolls, and levies, some of which get rolled into the purchase price of items like gasoline and tobacco.
• The main reason is payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) which hit every earner.

But note how the screed you linked to goes from "pays no federal income tax" -- which is closer to being accurate, in strict terms -- but quickly pivots to "reduce the taxes of the nonpayers" and "If you pay no taxes...". It's a typical -- and actually quite evil -- game of bait-and-switch, since there is virtually nobody who "pays no taxes."

Would you buy an argument that went like this: "Rabid wolves are a terrible threat to life and limb. They should be exterminated. 65% of households have pet dogs. Kill all the dogs!" No, you would notice that he changed the subject. That's exactly how this argument works.

The susceptible right-leaning, middle-class voter who reads this is obviously aware that he pays Social Security and Medicare taxes out of his salary all year long. He is likely among the 75% who pay more in payroll taxes than they do in Federal income tax. So in his mind, he is being quite explicitly invited to compare his 'apple' (all taxes including FICA and Medi*) to an imaginary goose-egg.

What possible aim could this blatantly dishonest argument have, other than to gin up anger against an IMAGINARY group of AMERICANS who supposedly DON'T PARTICIPATE (and who we can generally recognize by the color of their skin, or sometimes by watching them use food stamps in the grocery)? Or to wave a distracting red cape away from noticing that the Federal government collects not a penny of the tens of billions of annual profit in some industries; or noticing that the same statistics methodically overstate the tax rates of the wealthy -- which are already among the lowest in history?

As Adrian said, Fuck the divisive right wing.

Don't you already have to be male, white, and a landowner, to vote (as the founders intended)???

Now I have to pay income tax, too? Pfft.

Neon, insisting that the white, male landowners pay taxes is class warfare, remember?

Interesting thread 2 days before the anniversary of Bloody Sunday (March 7, 1965). I believe John T. Reed should ask Congressman John Lewis (D-GA 5th) his opinion.

I would bet John T. Reed is interested in no opinions that disagree with his.

I remember the day I canceled my Wall Street Journal subscription. Peggy Noonan, bless her heart, had written an editorial page column about the "lucky duckies" who didn't have to pay income taxes.

I realized that Peggy was laboring under a handicap. Someone big has always been there to guarantee her income, and she's never had to make that effort to meet a payroll and provide an income for people who are counting on her, even when the business climate tanks.

I was a "lucky ducky" for almost four years after the twin disasters of the Internet bubble collapse and 9/11. I made a tough decision to continue my company, pay my staff, and live off my savings until the economy came back and brought better times, rather than cut it (and them) loose and take a job so someone else could worry about payroll. My company is still alive today, and my staff members who kept their paychecks still work here today.

The Wall Street Journal is not a cheap subscription, but I had a legacy with it. I was given a subscription when I went off to boarding school at 14, and had been reading it daily ever since. But that day, I decided that the $10 or so a month I was spending with them was worsening my quality of life, and if I really wanted to be insulted, there were lots of people who would do it for free. Thanks to Peggy, I made that sound financial decision and have not subscribed since. (And then Murdoch bought it and ruined the news reporting as well, removing any temptation to ever go back.)

Reed is full of shit, but that's just link bait for the sort of people he wants to attract to his "coaching" business.

I guess it would really piss off his kind to find out I (Living in the UK since march 2011) received an income tax refund For 2011 tax year, recently, spent every penny (pence?) in the UK, too. Some of it in Pakistani owned businesses. Oh yeah, and I still vote in US elections.

Gee, I guess I'm a "lucky-ducky" since I will pay no federal income tax this year.

Of course I also have to live on my long-term disability insurance that the company tries to take away every year.

Oh and I'm such a lucky-ducky that I am basically homebound.

Got news for the RWNJs: I'm registered to vote and setup to vote absentee.

Any time one the these people complain about certain low income people not paying any federal income tax, they should be asked if they would like to change places with them and try to get by with that level of income along with the other issues the low income folks have to deal with.

I mentioned Lewis because he was there (and beaten) that day.
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.s ... blood.html