[Ekaros]

I am not against idea of only net tax payers getting single vote. Say if you use government services or receive money such as grant that is counted against your total. If you own part of corporation that gets such support that is counted again. If you or your corporation gets tax deductions or relief those are counted as double.

Total everything up and if you are net payer you get to vote. If not no vote for you.

[corps_and_code]

We tried this already in America and have decided that disallowing entire groups of people from voting is bad for democracy.

What happens when the federal government passes new tax laws that prevent certain genders, racial groups, etc from having to pay income tax? Are they permanently disenfranchised? This would be a system that I think would rapidly move social progress backwards and concentrate power in the hands of a few groups.

[Ekaros]

Well you could have stronger constitutional protections. Say certain changes needing unanimous support from voters in referendum. Would lock in things, but would remove risks.

And USA already disallows voting based on age. And somehow lot of people find it acceptable. Surely voting should be right from birth?

[corps_and_code]

Alright, what about laws that only levy income taxes on people making $300k or more? That's eliminates millions of Americans without targeting any protected groups. There's no bulletproof method to allow only some people to vote that wouldn't be abused to disenfranchise others.

Also, surely you don't think a four year old should weigh in on who gets to represent them in Congress? We disallow voting on a minimum age, because children are still developing in all sorts of ways, there is no maximum age that takes away your right to vote when you reach it. You can't equate a minimum age to disenfranchisement.

[Ekaros]

That is why I said taxes. Not just income tax.

And really why should not 4 year old get to decide? How come you think it is right to discriminate against them based on their age? As you said there is no limit on those with limited mental faculties due to old age. So why have one for young age? Isn't it clearly an unacceptable form disenfranchisement? Or are you saying some forms of that are absolutely acceptable and even justified?

[Arubis]

To a first approximation this creates and enforces a permanent unvoiced underclass. Without any political representation, said underclass's differentiation from actual slavery would be pretty small.

[ajross]

Why are you not against this? A vote isn't a payment in exchange for taxes. It's the mechanism by which the government represents the will of the people. How do you arrange things such that the government acts in the interests of people if it doesn't need to chase their vote? Or are you actually saying that poor people don't deserve a government that acts in their interest?

Even skipping the moral argument, there's a game theory trap here: let's say you run a government and your political enemies are on the poor side and fall into the "no vote" trap more often than your supporters. Obviously the solution to maximizing your share of the vote is to make them even poorer.

[Ekaros]

Vote is mechanism to decide who gets to distribute those taxes. It seems reasonable that those who contribute get to decide. If they decide to give support fine. If not well...

Then again I suppose it would be fine too if voters decided to socialise absolutely everything including bodies of other voters. After all that would be democracy. And they chose that no protections are needed and everything is common now.

[AnimalMuppet]

It's not only deciding who gets to distribute those taxes. It's who gets to decide, for example, whether we go to war, and whether you have to serve in the military and get shot at.

[ajross]

You're still misunderstanding what a "vote" is in your laser focus on "taxes". Take "taxes" out of the mix. What's the point of voting at all, in your view? Why bother with it as a concept vs. whatever governmental form you prefer? It's so that the government does what the people want instead of what the leaders want, right?

So why does that principle change when some people are poor or when the tax structure is progressive?