[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?