Income tax is a poll tax

[bfdd]

Whatever you want to call it, it's Constitutional, as is the income tax, so you'll need a Constitutional amendment to change it. BTW voting rights aren't the only rights that felons waive either. They pretty much waive the majority of them once convicted.

BTW, just like you aren't forced to, you know, buy things, you also aren't forced to earn income either, and certainly not at a taxable level. Hence, according to your logic, income tax isn't a "poll tax."

This thread delivers on the fail.

Except you're still supposed to file taxes even if you don't earn income, there's a special exception in the law that allows you not to. Basically creating a special "exception" from the poll tax. I already went over that.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

But I already showed how a sales tax doesn't fit the same argument. You don't have to buy anything and not everything you buy is subject to a sales tax.

First, from a practical standpoint, not paying sales tax is impossible.

Second, even if it you find one example of a tax that can be avoided, that doesn't change the fact that every tax you do pay can be viewed as a "poll tax" just as easily as income tax can.

Third, if you can avoid paying sales tax, you can avoid paying income tax far more easily.

The only way to not be subject to income tax is to leave AND give up your citizenship.

Uh, no, the normal way to not be subject to income tax is to have low income. Millions do it every year. They can still vote.

In the end, this entire discussion is just mental masturbation. Income tax is not a poll tax.

 

[bfdd]

First, from a practical standpoint, not paying sales tax is impossible.

Second, even if it you find one example of a tax that can be avoided, that doesn't change the fact that every tax you do pay can be viewed as a "poll tax" just as easily as income tax can.

Third, if you can avoid paying sales tax, you can avoid paying income tax far more easily.



Uh, no, the normal way to not be subject to income tax is to have low income. Millions do it every year. They can still vote.

One does not pay sales tax on uncooked goods in California. it's quite easy to avoid paying sales tax, people do it every day. in fact you have the second hand market as well. tax was paid, but not by the individual. avoiding the sales tax in those means doesn't make one a felon either, you can't avoid income tax any way without being a felon. those you are saying who get away without paying it do so by exploiting loop holes or having exceptions carved out in legislation for them. exceptions i've drawn a similarity too with previous poll tax laws that have been shut down, like grandfathering in voters who don't have to pay poll taxes because their daddy or grand daddy didn't have to.

 

[woolfe9999]

Except you're still supposed to file taxes even if you don't earn income, there's a special exception in the law that allows you not to. Basically creating a special "exception" from the poll tax. I already went over that.

It doesn't matter if you have to "file" it. It isn't a "tax" if you don't have to pay. Hence, if it isn't any kind of tax, it isn't a "poll tax."

 

[bfdd]

It doesn't matter if you have to "file" it. It isn't a "tax" if you don't have to pay. Hence, if it isn't any kind of tax, it isn't a "poll tax."

They do have to file/pay, except there's an exception. Same as how old poll tax laws would work "since your grand daddy didn't have to pay a poll tax before we put a poll tax in, you don't have to. anyone else whos grand daddy didn't pay a poll tax, you still have to." same thing. arbitrary lines drawn in the sand on who the poll tax applies to and who it doesn't.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

THis thread should be titled:

Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

One does not pay sales tax on uncooked goods in California.

Cool. Does the computer you're using right now count? I'm sure it's uncooked.

you can't avoid income tax any way without being a felon.

Uh, if you earn less than $X you pay no income tax, as already mentioned.

exceptions i've drawn a similarity too with previous poll tax laws that have been shut down, like grandfathering in voters who don't have to pay poll taxes because their daddy or grand daddy didn't have to.

Really neither here nor there.

A poll tax is a payment for the right to vote. Income tax is not a poll tax because it is not tied to the right to vote.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just another way to backdoor support for the vote suppression tactics of the Voter Fraud bamboozle- a variant of the "they're just as bad" routine.

It shows just how desperate proponents are to maintain the faith, find "reasons" to believe what they already believe. They don't even understand that they reveal their own authoritarian bent in the process.

 

[nehalem256]

Uh, if you earn less than $X you pay no income tax, as already mentioned.

So its a Pool Tax on "rich" people. Does that make it okay?

 

[jackstar7]

So its a Pool Tax on "rich" people. Does that make it okay?

Magic.

Pure. Perfect. Magic.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So its a Pool Tax on "rich" people.

No, it's not.

But this thread certainly feels like a brain cell tax...

 

[werepossum]

Not only does the OP employ failed logic, he uses failed facts-

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

It's one of those "States Rights!" things where very few (usually very conservative) states permanently ban tax evasion felons from voting.

One thing's for sure, though, when it comes to Righties- Knowledge is the enemy of Faith, so even the most trivial Google is unnecessary prior to shooting off their mouths.

Well of course liberal states don't prevent felons from voting. Who votes more solidly Democrat than felons?

Sactoking already made a very cogent post explaining the error in logic, so I'll just agree. A trust fund baby or welfare queen can not pay a dime in income taxes and remain a voter.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well of course liberal states don't prevent felons from voting. Who votes more solidly Democrat than felons?

Sactoking already made a very cogent post explaining the error in logic, so I'll just agree. A trust fund baby or welfare queen can not pay a dime in income taxes and remain a voter.

Didn't even click the link, did you? It figures.

 

[werepossum]

Didn't even click the link, did you? It figures.

As you said, the more conservative states are more harsh toward felons and the less conservative states are less harsh toward felons. There are some notable exceptions, Utah being one, but the two most liberal states, Vermont and Maine, don't even restrict voting rights while incarcerated.

Were you under the impression that you had discovered some new information? 'Cause it's pretty well known. That's why when a Vermont judge decides three months' probation is a reasonable sentence for raping a prepubescent girl over a hundred times, people are outraged - but not surprised.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Ya mean like when Texas executes innocents or mentally "challenged" folk?

That kind of harsh?

Thats a funny causality game you are playing there.

Its well known the lower on the economic scale you are, the less likely you are to be a right-winger.

Also, most felons come from a certain economic class. Ergo the way they vote.

But thats not causality, either way ;p

 

[Jhhnn]

As you said, the more conservative states are more harsh toward felons and the less conservative states are less harsh toward felons. There are some notable exceptions, Utah being one, but the two most liberal states, Vermont and Maine, don't even restrict voting rights while incarcerated.

Were you under the impression that you had discovered some new information? 'Cause it's pretty well known. That's why when a Vermont judge decides three months' probation is a reasonable sentence for raping a prepubescent girl over a hundred times, people are outraged - but not surprised.

Faith conquers all, huh? One needs to read the qualifiers at the bottom of the page to understand that even in states where voting rights can be denied to ex-offenders that there are usually qualifiers that mean income tax evaders aren't denied.

That was the OP's original point of contention, was it not?

Your reference to a supposed single case in Vermont is unsubstantiated & an attempted tar-brush attack, a symptom of desperation. Equally egregious examples of overly harsh sentencing abound, I'm sure, particularly in more "conservative" parts of the country. Like this-

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/22/national/22kansas.html

17 years for performing fellatio on an underage boy... Some Values, huh?

I could cover the page & several more with such examples which serve the purpose of supporting the increasingly privatized prison industry & shaping the electorate to better serve the interests of conservative authoritarian ideologues...

 

[Rainsford]

There's nothing inherently voting related about the income tax. Certainly not paying it can, in some situations, result in being unable to vote. But that has less to do with the laws covering the income tax itself and more to do with generic laws about consequences for being a criminal. If anything was unconstitutional in this situation, it would seem to be those laws, not income tax itself.

 

[Jhhnn]

There's nothing inherently voting related about the income tax. Certainly not paying it can, in some situations, result in being unable to vote. But that has less to do with the laws covering the income tax itself and more to do with generic laws about consequences for being a criminal. If anything was unconstitutional in this situation, it would seem to be those laws, not income tax itself.

Of course. That and a lot of other injustice has everything to do with one of the great anachronisms of modern America- "States' Rights", which was the basis for Jim Crow & similar for nearly 100 years.

Modern "Conservatives" are trying to rehab ol' Jim's image, resurrect his "Values", along with those of the benevolent KKK & Joe McCarthy, too...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That's why when a Vermont judge decides three months' probation is a reasonable sentence for raping a prepubescent girl over a hundred times, people are outraged - but not surprised.

Among other things, you don't seem to know much about how Vermont ticks, by labeling it flatly as a "liberal" state.

And saying that people were "not surprised" by that isolated incident is nothing more than an idiotic slur. It appears I've given you too much credit in the past.

 

[cybrsage]

Of course. That and a lot of other injustice has everything to do with one of the great anachronisms of modern America- "States' Rights", which was the basis for Jim Crow & similar for nearly 100 years.

Modern "Conservatives" are trying to rehab ol' Jim's image, resurrect his "Values", along with those of the benevolent KKK & Joe McCarthy, too...

The dems actually had a very high ranking KKK member as one of their most powerful people.

 

[werepossum]

Faith conquers all, huh? One needs to read the qualifiers at the bottom of the page to understand that even in states where voting rights can be denied to ex-offenders that there are usually qualifiers that mean income tax evaders aren't denied.

That was the OP's original point of contention, was it not?

Your reference to a supposed single case in Vermont is unsubstantiated & an attempted tar-brush attack, a symptom of desperation. Equally egregious examples of overly harsh sentencing abound, I'm sure, particularly in more "conservative" parts of the country. Like this-

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/22/national/22kansas.html

17 years for performing fellatio on an underage boy... Some Values, huh?

I could cover the page & several more with such examples which serve the purpose of supporting the increasingly privatized prison industry & shaping the electorate to better serve the interests of conservative authoritarian ideologues...

Read your own link. By my count, forty-seven states remove voting rights for ALL felony convictions for at least a period of time. Not exactly a blindingly successful refutation of the OP's point and I don't even buy into his point.

Among other things, you don't seem to know much about how Vermont ticks, by labeling it flatly as a "liberal" state.

And saying that people were "not surprised" by that isolated incident is nothing more than an idiotic slur. It appears I've given you too much credit in the past.

Vermont has the only openly socialist Senator in the country; he has a 92/100 Liberal Action Score versus 0/100 Conservative Action Score. It's other Senator, Leahy, was tied for first most liberal Senator in National Journal's 2010 voting record evaluation; he currently has a 69/100 Liberal Action Score versus 15/100 Conservative Action Score. (These are taken from Thatsmycongress.com but any of these tracking organizations should be in rough agreement.) The state allows felons to vote even while incarcerated - not even D.C. does that. It has the highest percentage of people describing their views as liberal of any state - only D.C. is higher - in Gallup's 2011 survey. It has had gay civil unions since 2000 and gay marriage since 2009. Wikipedia shows it as a heavily Blue State, Democrat by over 21 points, behind only Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and Hawaii. It's one Representative, Peter Welch, is a Democrat who consistently scores 100% or 'A' with most liberal groups. (Don't get me wrong, I generally like Welch as he's a common sense guy who scores an 'A' from the NRA, but he's liberal, 68/100 Liberal Action Score versus 9/100 Conservative Action Score.)

If Vermont is not a liberal state, the term has no meaning. You can be honest, I'm not using "liberal" as a slur, simply as a measure of policy beliefs.

As far as my "slur", it's beyond widely accepted that liberals are soft on crime and conservatives are hard on crime. That separation isn't even debatable, only the proper tact is debatable. Thus my statement that when Vermont, certainly one of our most liberal states and a good candidate for THE most liberal state, is extraordinarily soft on such a heinous felon, no one is really surprised. Outraged, yes. Surprised, no. It's what we expect from liberal states, just as you guys expect us conservative states to send an eighteen year old kid to prison for seventeen years for having sex with his fourteen year old boyfriend. We can argue over how hard we should be on criminals, but let's not pretend there isn't a great divide or that pointing it out is a slur on either side.

http://thatsmycongress.com/senate/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146348/Mississippi-Rates-Conservative-Rates-States.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/most-liberal-members-of-congress-20110226
http://thatsmycongress.com/house/

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If Vermont is not a liberal state, the term has no meaning.

It is a unique state because of the lack of any real urban centers. The state is easy to stereotype but not easy to understand. It's liberal in many ways, and not in others -- for example, we have the freest gun laws of pretty much any state in the nation. That's not consonant with the idea of Vermont being a left-wing paradise.

As far as my "slur", it's beyond widely accepted that liberals are soft on crime and conservatives are hard on crime.

I read your comment as an implication that this judge's sentence was accepted as par for the course around here. It was not. People WERE surprised, he was roundly criticized, the governor called on him to resign.

 

[werepossum]

It is a unique state because of the lack of any real urban centers. The state is easy to stereotype but not easy to understand. It's liberal in many ways, and not in others -- for example, we have the freest gun laws of pretty much any state in the nation. That's not consonant with the idea of Vermont being a left-wing paradise.



I read your comment as an implication that this judge's sentence was accepted as par for the course around here. It was not. People WERE surprised, he was roundly criticized, the governor called on him to resign.

Fair points both.

I'll just add that I live in Tennessee, a very, very easy state to understand. We're conservative - period. Right down the line. By our standards I'm a raging, tree-hugging liberal. So I probably tend to oversimplify other states.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Fair points both.

I appreciate that, thank you.

For my part, I'll admit being oversensitive on the subject of my adopted home state.

 

[Jhhnn]

Read your own link. By my count, forty-seven states remove voting rights for ALL felony convictions for at least a period of time. Not exactly a blindingly successful refutation of the OP's point and I don't even buy into his point.

Spin it! The norm is for felons to be denied the right to vote, *while they're actually incarcerated or on parole*. Once they've done their time completely, their rights are restored in all but a few regressive states.

As far as my "slur", it's beyond widely accepted that liberals are soft on crime and conservatives are hard on crime.

You still haven't provided any linkage wrt the Vermont sentencing you make so much of.

WTF does "hard on crime" mean, anyway? The tendency to convict non-violent offenders of felonies to reduce their employment opportunities after release? Cut prison rehab programs to the bone & take payoffs from privatized prison operators for simply warehousing inmates? Breaking the balls off of a few offenders in the vain hope that it'll deter others, spend enormous sums on mandatory minimums & executions in favor of cheaper & more effective alternatives?

One nice thing about your links, though- The red state welfare queen, Mississippi, is the most conservative state. That's just... Special, really Special indeed.

Conservatives- biting the hand that feeds them, and proud of it.