I'm not saying anything about not allowing all citizens to vote - I'm just saying that for the case of the Senate, perhaps only tax payors should vote.
Being a tax payor means that you are doing something for the economy - you're earning money at some level. Whether it's flipping hamburgers, farming, programming, or living off of interest from a trust fund or a life's savings - you're doing something that has benefitted the economy.
If you're not paying taxes, you're not. You're either cheating and not reporting income, your net taxes are less than 0 because of the earned income credit or various government programs, or you're just plain not working.
There's nothing wrong with either case. It's just that right now, no one is looking out for the tax payors. The Senate was originally meant to be an "upper house" where landowners (the equivalent of todays taxpayers) were represented - that's why the legislatures appointed them.
Base it on taxes paid, not in net worth. There is a difference. Many people with personal fortunes have them structured in such a way that they pay almost no taxes (maybe none?), where as the guy working at McDonalds is paying into FICA - and as long as they aren't getting the maximum earned income credit, they'd be a net payor instead of a net taker of taxes.
As I said in the post, if you're doing almost any kind of job, you're paying taxes. They might be FICA (Social Security and Medicare), but you're paying them.
You are missing the point. The fact that the executive branch chooses the legislative branch is all but irrelevant in a House of Lords style system because the members serve for life. In order for the executive branch to stack the house with people who side with them on judicial appointments, the same executive would have to be elected many times in a row - something that is highly unlikely to happen.
Instead of appointing Senators, how about only allowing taxpayors to elect them. If the net of what you pay vs what you receive from the federal government is negative, you don't get to vote. Include minors - anyone with a part time job pays FICA and that's a tax. Otherwise have at it. Heck, you could even prorate the number of votes based upon the amount that you've paid in taxes (1-10,000 = 1 vote, 10,001 - 1,000,000 = 2 votes, more than 1M = 3 votes) and not screw stuff up too much.
Taxpayors have lost their representation in the federal government. Doing something like this would hopefully bring that balance back.
It provides some protection for smaller states. Because the votes in the electoral college are determined by the number of representatives + senators, each state has at least 3 votes. States like North Dakota (with only 1 representative) have a slightly higher per capita say in the election of the President than a state like California (with something like 4000 representatives - the 2 "bonus" votes don't really matter).
The electoral college - and particularly its all or nothing stakes - forces the candidates to campaign in (and presumably care about) those midwest and western states with smaller populations.
I'm not sure that it helps our representative republic to have our leadership selected by a lot of people who get their news from MTV or the 700 club and couldn't be bothered to go through the hassle of even registering to vote.
If they don't have enough of a stake in the election to even do that, then why make it easier?
How do you define resources - is it time, money, or a sense of civic duty? To some with very busy schedules, it might be more difficult (or impossible) to stop at the courthouse than it would for someone who only works part time. If it costs $5 to vote, that may limit voting by those on fixed income.
Would having the potential voter fill out a form once and then send them out a confirmation that must be returned disenfanchise anyone? And if it does, should they be voting anyway? The difference in the last Presidential election was around 500 votes in one state - would you want someone who couldn't care enough to do one or two extra steps in a registration process to make the difference in a vote that close?
Like I said, it probably isn't a popular opinion - but it's mine - and it doesn't have to be yours.
This probably isn't a popular opinion here, but it wouldn't hurt to make it more difficult to register and to vote. If it is more difficult, people who are more affected or more motivated to vote will do so. Those who need to be bribe to register or vote, won't.
That is actually how it works - you're voting for the electoral college in the presidential race and they are the ones who, ultimately, elect the president - unless there is a tie.
In that case the house of representatives elects the president. If you think 2000 was a circus - wait until that actually happens.
If anything Karma changes should be eliminated due to politically motivated moderation in this section. Some serious damage could occur to someone's account that is diametrically opposed to the rest of the Slashdot mentality.
So my excellent karma shouldn't be harmed when I start talking about how we need more cannabalism here in the states and that we should make jay walking and cigar smoking capital offenses while decriminalizing meth?
I'd bet Quicken would love to be able to say that "...our product is soooo good, Money stole some of our source code!
As an aside, I think that Quicken is (and has been) largely mature for quite some time. They're now resorting to changing their import specifications from the "QFX" (I think) format to a live connect format - that costs financial institutions to use.
I think that kind of stunt will put them into second place behind Money.
Would be nice to be able to play with a Windows version of GnuCash - to see how it stacks up.
Good God! Do you know what you're asking for? They can't give a source because Rupert Murdoch and Rumsfield will be at their door 2 seconds after it is cited!
Right. In that case, the cards would still legally fall under 18 USC 47 s. 1029 (as an access device that can be used to obtain goods/services) with regards to the crime being fraud, but probably not with regard to to consumers getting refunds. But I'm not a lawyer, and WallyWorld has plenty of 'em. =)
And they're still not under the banking regulations (Reg E, and maybe some others?) that apply to normal debit and credit cards.
Earlier in the thread, it was said that Walmart's gift cards are not issued by an outside vendor - they're issued by Walmart itself. I really don't think that they'd fall under the regulations that control normal debit cards.
I agree on your second point. Walmart is just about the Microsoft of retail and they've got to start being fairly careful how they tread lest they tick off some pointy headed beaureaucrat.
Debit cards are highly regulated - especially as to what the consumers' rights are with respect to fraud. Walmart is not (yet) a bank, and as such they don't fall under the same regulation that controls debit cards.
They would probably be well within their rights to tell the consumers to beat it - not that it would be a good business practice to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless the aim of the rocket is to throw something to make an impact.
Look back up earlier in the thread - that guy was advocating the lifetime appointment of senators - this is at least a bit better.
I'm also just saying that this should be confined to the US Senate - would have nothing to do with the house.
Those whose sole income comes from municipal bonds, federal savings bonds, or t-bills.
Those who can afford to structure their income
Small business people who have a bad year and have no income or a loss.
Those whose entire income is from disability or social security payments.
People who make less than $450 in self employment income (and nothing else)
Those who make less than $5000(?) in unearned income.
(in many years) Farmers whose net assistance is greater than what they've paid out in taxes.
Being a tax payor means that you are doing something for the economy - you're earning money at some level. Whether it's flipping hamburgers, farming, programming, or living off of interest from a trust fund or a life's savings - you're doing something that has benefitted the economy.
If you're not paying taxes, you're not. You're either cheating and not reporting income, your net taxes are less than 0 because of the earned income credit or various government programs, or you're just plain not working.
There's nothing wrong with either case. It's just that right now, no one is looking out for the tax payors. The Senate was originally meant to be an "upper house" where landowners (the equivalent of todays taxpayers) were represented - that's why the legislatures appointed them.
As I said in the post, if you're doing almost any kind of job, you're paying taxes. They might be FICA (Social Security and Medicare), but you're paying them.
Don't say that yet - we'll see if they take my suggestion and send me the money!
Instead of appointing Senators, how about only allowing taxpayors to elect them. If the net of what you pay vs what you receive from the federal government is negative, you don't get to vote. Include minors - anyone with a part time job pays FICA and that's a tax. Otherwise have at it. Heck, you could even prorate the number of votes based upon the amount that you've paid in taxes (1-10,000 = 1 vote, 10,001 - 1,000,000 = 2 votes, more than 1M = 3 votes) and not screw stuff up too much.
Taxpayors have lost their representation in the federal government. Doing something like this would hopefully bring that balance back.
Right after yours?
The electoral college - and particularly its all or nothing stakes - forces the candidates to campaign in (and presumably care about) those midwest and western states with smaller populations.
More specifically, they can just go ahead and send it to me.
If they don't have enough of a stake in the election to even do that, then why make it easier?
Would having the potential voter fill out a form once and then send them out a confirmation that must be returned disenfanchise anyone? And if it does, should they be voting anyway? The difference in the last Presidential election was around 500 votes in one state - would you want someone who couldn't care enough to do one or two extra steps in a registration process to make the difference in a vote that close?
Like I said, it probably isn't a popular opinion - but it's mine - and it doesn't have to be yours.
This probably isn't a popular opinion here, but it wouldn't hurt to make it more difficult to register and to vote. If it is more difficult, people who are more affected or more motivated to vote will do so. Those who need to be bribe to register or vote, won't.
The 6 people who live there know each other anyway - registering would serve no purpose.
In that case the house of representatives elects the president. If you think 2000 was a circus - wait until that actually happens.
So my excellent karma shouldn't be harmed when I start talking about how we need more cannabalism here in the states and that we should make jay walking and cigar smoking capital offenses while decriminalizing meth?
We've had DSL in town (and extended to the acreages outside of town) longer than some of the larger communities in the state.
As an aside, I think that Quicken is (and has been) largely mature for quite some time. They're now resorting to changing their import specifications from the "QFX" (I think) format to a live connect format - that costs financial institutions to use.
I think that kind of stunt will put them into second place behind Money.
Would be nice to be able to play with a Windows version of GnuCash - to see how it stacks up.
By God, they'll have a draft whether they like it or not - How else would Representative Rangle be able to spend more time on TV?
Good God! Do you know what you're asking for? They can't give a source because Rupert Murdoch and Rumsfield will be at their door 2 seconds after it is cited!
And they're still not under the banking regulations (Reg E, and maybe some others?) that apply to normal debit and credit cards.
I agree on your second point. Walmart is just about the Microsoft of retail and they've got to start being fairly careful how they tread lest they tick off some pointy headed beaureaucrat.
They would probably be well within their rights to tell the consumers to beat it - not that it would be a good business practice to do so.
Freelance and work for yourself - you can take all of the time off that you want that way, and no one would bitch at you for it.
But running a business there doesn't sound like it is.