What If Only Taxpayers (or White People) Could Vote?

This might be the most disturbing electoral map ever created – even though it’s been skewed from a map of white voters. To envision so few people might vote Democrat if only taxpayers could vote is enlightening to say the least. This map originates from a liberal CNN-data fueled BuzzFeed article some time ago covering a multitude of antiquated and restrictive voting scenarios. In this scenario, both men and women can vote, but an effective poll tax is added back to exclude non tax paying voters. The poll tax, of course, disproportionately and significantly affects poor ethnic minorities as an unintended consequence. When they weren’t attacking black communities and destroying black lives and families – the Democrats aimed to eliminate blacks from voting and Republicans from office (that is, until they managed to manipulate the black community into voting Democrat in later years). To estimate the effect of a modern poll tax, and due to a lack of data, BuzzFeed smartly chose to show only white men and women voters.

If you like this content, please take a brief moment to donate and help us do more. Even a tiny bit helps a lot:

And yes, we are aware of this, we just disagree with the “falseness” of the “doctored” label as BuzzFeed was specifically trying to simulate the effects of a poll tax. Since we know the majority of poor, non-taxpayers are non-white (nearly 60%), and white people make up close to 90% of all taxpayers, we see good reason to agree with BuzzFeed’s assumption. Also, nearly 50% of nonvoters are minorities, and they make up only 20% of likely voters. You only need a small percentage change in demographics to flip most states from blue to red. Additionally, as everyone in this map would be considered a “taxpayer” due to the poll tax, the label sticks. Is it perfect? No, as we are obviously counting white non-taxpayers disproportionately. Is the map still probably correct? Yes. Remember folks, estimates are estimates, It’s impossible to determine exactly how many income taxpayers voted, and which candidate they voted for in the last election. Considering old voting laws like the poll tax also sought to provide greater representation to tax payers and land owners (aka, the real stakeholders), it’s safe to say an electoral map of solely taxpayers would look very similar to this. Simply put, since a state goes blue or red on very minor swings in the electorate makeup – we can make an educated guess. This is why we make assumptions.

If you don’t like this particular map (Snopes anyone?) – which is admittedly a postulate – and you instead seek biased media confirmation with rock-solid boring geek data, a slanted 2012 New York Times story inadvertently determined seventy five percent of voters near the poverty level voted Democrat in recent presidential elections. Considering this voting block is massive – despite what the New York Times would have you believe – it’s highly likely a map just like this would pan out. Last time I checked, there are nearly 50 million people in poverty in the United States. If we assume just 25% of them vote, and if 75% of those voters voted Democrat, that’s a voter swing of nearly 10 million in favor of Republicans. This would have resulted in a landslide victory for Romney, with 60 million votes for Romney to Obama’s 55 million. Guess what? The map above shows such a landslide victory. To put this into perspective, such a victory would approach the margin won by Ronald Reagan in 1980, and this was that map:


And for all you picky people, Romney’s win would have looked like this:


Look familiar? If you need more evidence than this, you’re thinking too hard – or perhaps too little. Looking at a map of white voters is clearly upsetting to some folks, but it’s probably shockingly accurate, and can be backed-up with basic data from other sources. Additionally, this data backs up our assumption even further. If anything, based on the available information, the original “doctored” map might be generously blue.

The bigger question is how can we decrease the overwhelming poverty rates among blacks and Hispanics (along with everyone else, of course)? However, racial issues aside, perhaps we should be asking why non-meaningful taxpayers are even allowed to vote in the first place? Since tax-dodging corporations can’t vote, we won’t worry about them for now – we’ll just focus on individuals. We’re not recommending a poll tax or any other specific approach necessarily – we’re just asking the question. Specifically, we’re looking at those of working age (not retired) who don’t pay income tax or capital gains tax and are clearly not contributing to the federal government in any meaningful way. To be clear, married couples with only one working spouse file jointly, so they both pay taxes. Of course, there should be some exemptions, the disabled, the retired, spouses, all veterans and those currently serving for example. We’re solely talking about people who are truly on the self-imposed federal dole – and for the record, property tax and sales tax go to state and local government, not the federal government. If you pay next to nothing towards the federal government, why should you have any say in how it operates? In fact, our founding fathers, and particularly the godfather himself, James Madison, absolutely supported a measure like this.

James Madison wrote extensively on oppression, and he feared the greatest risk of oppression in the United States would come from those citizens who did not own property. Madison believed that those who did not own property would likely outnumber those who did, thus providing them with a stronger voting block. As such, he feared an oppression of the minority rich, not unlike what the Nazis did to the wealthy minority Jewish class in Germany in the early 20th century. Madison also feared oppression by the rich, but decided their minority status would put them at much greater risk in a true democracy – this despite their greater individual wealth and influence. His solution was to provide two thirds of the voting power to the wealthy.

Perhaps it’s time we reconsider Madison’s ideas. If an overwhelming number of tax paying citizens votes Republican, maybe we should take note. The core of our society has illuminated the “check engine” light – a cry for help. While those of us who do not pay taxes continue to vote for more taxes, and more spending, it’s safe to say that eventually the chickens will come home to roost. While non-taxpayers continue to vote for the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, taxpayers will overwhelmingly continue voting for lower taxes, less regulation, more freedom, less spending, and a stronger economy.

As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money,” and as James Madison said, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Notice he specifically says many and elective, while also pointing out the obvious. Perhaps Madison knew we would be destined for tyranny without voter checks and balances like these?

If you enjoyed this article, please take a brief moment to donate and help us do more. Even a tiny bit helps a lot:


86 thoughts on “What If Only Taxpayers (or White People) Could Vote?

  1. George Gillenwater says:

    I think this would be awesome…if you don’t pay a entry fee into a amusement park, buy a concert ticket,etc…if tooth don’t pay taxes you don’t vote…period…boy wouldn’t this just shake the establishment….exactly what we need today

    Liked by 2 people

    • An ellipsis does not indicate a trailing or traveling thought. It denotes omitted words. Here is a definition: “the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues.” Please, punctuate your sentences with periods. Every place you have an ellipsis in your comment is an appropriate place for a period.


      • Oh, so sorry, that’s not the right answer. We were looking for something that had to do with the post at the top of the page. But we have a nice prize for you backstage, Spencer. And be sure to come back when our subject is “off-topic postings”. I’m sure you will do well.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ingram Barclay says:

        Spencer, the rudeness of your comment aside, you failed to include the entire definition. Must be convenient to have only to tell part of the story.

        The term ellipsis comes from the Greek word meaning omission: an ellipsis shows that something has been left out. If you’re quoting someone but only want part of that quote, use an ellipsis to show that you’ve taken some words out (your reader trusts that you’ve kept the original meaning of the words, even though you’ve taken them out of their original context).
        “The battle, due to foul weather and lack of leadership, was lost” →“The battle… was lost.”
        “I wore my new silver, strapless, floor-length, silk dress and matching shoes.” → “I wore my new… dress and matching shoes.”
        “Follow these twenty-five simple steps … and you’ll be able to cook the perfect turkey.”
        As the song says, “Happy birthday to you…”

        An ellipsis can also be used to show that someone has stopped speaking or thinking before the sentence has been completed, or that there’s a long pause in the speech. This is an informal usage: don’t use it in academic writing.
        Andrew, can you, um… never mind, I forgot what I was saying.
        So, do you think we should…?
        He… speaks… so… slowly… it’s… as… if… he… is… trying… to… annoy… you.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Danny D says:

        Don’t be pedantic. Idiom dictates that punctuation means whatever the writer says it means. You turd. Ha ha ha…


    • Lyndsey says:

      Imagine if the government didn’t steal our money. Period. Wouldn’t that really shake the establishment? They can’t be trusted with our hard earned wages. They borrow money from OUR Social Security, (a loan which they CANNOT pay considering the trillions of dollars of debt we’re in because of their frivolity & deception. A truly free country will not be forced to pay taxes. Freedom doesn’t work that way. A free person shouldn’t be born into an insurmountable debt caused by irresponsible & corrupt politicians which is exactly what our kids are being faced with. Today, mere existence is inconvenient. FREEDOM hasn’t lived in the US for many years. When people wake up and realize that gov. is an unnecessary ruse put on by the elite who don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves, the establishment would not be shaken. It will be obliterated.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Paul says:

        This cracks me up, the american hate of the same government they elect by means of the self proclaimed best electoral system in the world called democracy. If your government is so crap and should be reduced and abolished why do you want lOther non-democratic countries to become democratic and miserable as well? To me it sounds like you have lost control of your own government and want to abolish it. Most western prosperous democracies have higher taxes than in America and bigger governments, why? because the people actually want a fair distribution of wealth and get what they want through elections. Western non-US tax payers are generally ok with high tax rate because government institutions actually work and generate a lot of value in terms of affordable health care,higher education, good roads, security, low crime, death and incarceration rates, and relatively low poverty. You’re implicitly saying that American democracy doesn’t work. Why don’t you guys vote for someone who reforms the electorate process which seems to be high-jacked by capitalist interest and create a government that the founding fathers would be proud of. Instead of entirely abolishing the government that you as a voter have allowed to get out of control why don’t you improve it? It’s not your government that is your enemy, but the corrupting force of capitalistic corporate greed in the election process that you as a voter have allowed to take over. Anyways, just go live in a place like Sweden or Germany for a couple of years, and enjoy free education for your kids, affordable healthcare, low crime rates and security. Why shouldn’t the US do the same for it’s citizens?


    • Ingram I appreciate your attention to detail in your tutorial on the proper use of ellipses. However, I agree with Spencer’s suggestion that the ellipses used in George’s post are used improperly.

      Using an ellipse to suggest a thought continues is not just improper, it is lazy as well as unrealistic. It presumes that the reader has read all the same articles and has the same level of recall that the author does and therefore knows exactly where the author is coming from. It also seems to imply that even though the author is posting a new thought, the reader knows exactly what the author is going to say next.

      Way to often I have seen on social media, where an individual posts a statement that is choppy and does not flow in a coherent manner. The poster always assumes that the reader understands what message he or she is trying to convey and is ill concerned with checking the spelling or, even reading what they have typed prior to posting to insure that the statement is the exact message that is to be conveyed.

      But in all fairness to George, I have to admit that I have in the past uses ellipses improperly as well.

      Again, thanks for the tutorial on their proper usage!


    • T Bassett says:

      How about if you don’t pay taxes you can’t stand – then the multi bankrupt tax dodging orange fascist sex pest wouldn’t be about to sell out to Russia?


    • spencer may be entirely correct but at least he has an educated response. i appreciate his sharing of his thoughts however disjointed they may be. anyone who spurs me on to learn something new any day of the week is called friend in my book. as a day where i learn something new is a golden day indeed.


  2. Dan says:

    I wish that this article had sources listed. It’s very interesting, but I like to be able to point at evidence that supports a theory and this does not provide any links to the data that allowed the author to come to this conclusion.

    Liked by 1 person

    • you citation, while interesting, is irrelevant to this topic. I’ll agree that i wish that there was a citation the included map- but discrepancies at the state level, while an issue I believe we should resolve (NO federal funds going to ANY states), it is not relevant to the prospect of the individual citizens vote. The issue here, is whether any citizen, whether from red state or blue, should be permitted to have a say in federal matters if he/she does not incur a net loss with respect to federal taxation. My position is (as i said before) that allowing federal money to find its way into state affairs obfuscates and confuses this matter- which is only a boon to the encroachment of tyranny. The law should be simple and small. Therefore, no fed money for states- and you don’t have to pay, you don’t get a say- pretty simple and makes it difficult for the devil’s details to hide ambiguity and obfuscation. Just my opinion.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I can already tell that is wrong and possibly made up based on where they list California. As a Resident of California and someone who reads and pays attention I know for a fact the state needs the federal government to survive.


      • But why? Is it because the state frivolously spends its money? Because too many of her citizens are on welfare? California has a huge tax base to draw from. It’s what, something like in the top 10 economies in the WORLD.


    • This is a red herring…as even the methodology in your link doesn’t correspond to the topic. Your article includes “share of federal jobs,” which includes military bases and the civil population that supports it. Not relevant to the topic.


  3. Chris says:

    Except that I’m a taxpayer but I wouldn’t only vote Republican because I cant stand all their morality laws being jammed down our throats or their penchant for starting foreign wars. I would vote Libertarian first.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Aa says:

    I’m surprised to see Alaska portrayed at all on that map. Almost no one here in AK pays meaningful taxes toward our services; we leave the oil revenue to handle that. Does that mean we shouldn’t get to vote? Well, since one in ten of our state legislators has been indited for accepting bribes from oil lobbyists, perhaps we are fooling ourselves into thinking our vote matters anyway. I found it interesting that this article says ‘Corporations don’t get to vote’. To an Alaskan in the Oil Era, that seems like an incredibly naive statement to make. Between the oil lobby and the electoral college, my votes have never even once mattered in the twenty years I’ve bothered casting them. That’s life in our representational democracy, I suppose. At least it’s pretty here. And the cold keeps the crowds away. Still, take us off your silly oversimplified blue and red map, please.


    • Another Alaskan says:

      WE don’t pay state tax, true. But every one of us who has a job, pays federal income tax. Your comment makes no sense in the context of the actual article. But the map itself does match the constituency.


      • And no one ever gets back more than they pay in that would mean they are not paying taxes ie earned income. Know a friend who gets back all he paid in and 6,000$ more that’s not paying taxes I pay in all year and then cut them a check on 4/15 for several thousands


  5. DebNYer says:

    RW baloney and ironic since their Presidential candidate doesn’t have a history of paying. What if someone is a student, takes a leave of absence, gets laid off, stays home for a few years to raise children, becomes ill or is injured, or can afford to take time off; all possibilities over the natural course of living. Every citizen has the right to vote and because of the GOP’s dirty tricks, it’s a right that needs be protected. I do think you shouldn’t be able to run for POTUS if you don’t pay taxes. Referring to you Donnie.


    • Chicken Sock Puppet says:

      You obviously don’t understand the difference between income and federal gains taxes.

      As such, you should be the LAST person talking about anyone’s “dirty tricks” especially since your candidate gave tax-exempt charitable donations to her own wallet.


  6. emmayche says:

    I have said for years that those who are on public welfare (excluding, as does the author, payments for which value has been given, including Social Security, veteran’s benefits, survivor’s payments, pensions and the like) have a conflict of interest when it comes to voting. I for one do not see why this is even an issue; those who want to vote need only give up welfare for a certain period of time before their voting rights kick back in.

    Think of it as buying the welfare – which, just btw, NO ONE has a right to – with your right to vote. At the very least, this keeps the Washington (and Sacramento) politicians from buying those votes with tax money; when the votes don’t exist, just watch the policies change.

    Of course, with the current liberal makeup of the courts, this kind of change won’t happen until it, like other needed reforms, happens through armed revolution. I do not advocate such, but the signs of its approach are as clear as the signs of the approaching sunrise.


  7. Anonymous says:

    Or maybe only those with a college degree should vote. This would have a similar effect but The map would appear blue since democrats outnumber republicans 1.6 : 1 for post graduates, and 1.2 : 1 for college graduates


  8. Anonymous says:

    You are right, everyone who buys gas pays tax, and in my opinion a national sales tax is the fairest tax. If you don’t want to pay tax, don’t buy stuff, it’s that simple. This would eleminate the need for the IRS for the most part. Welfair, Food Stamps, and MedicId would take care of the needy. This system would make all the Corporations and the people who dodge taxes by working under the table, like Drug Dealers pay their fair share.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Cliff says:

    I’m not big on the theory itself but how it would be implemented seems like it would be even more weird when you consider the logistics and special cases.

    For example; how far back in time did you have to pay taxes? Could I have gotten a job for 3 days at McDonald’s, technically have paid taxes, and be fine to vote? Is it just if you’re paying taxes since the last election cycle? What about my grandmother who has been retired for 30+ years?

    How do states and the government coordinate with the IRS to implement such a system? How many more government employees would be needed to verify tax information?

    Additionally, I question the statistics themselves primarily because I can’t actually find the data anywhere. The image at the top of the page has *nothing* to do with the amount of Taxpayers who voted. The map shown only shows white voters … not taxpayers …


  10. As somebody mentioned above, federal taxes are included in gasoline for example. They are also built into the prices on almost anything that I buy, and even when you’re paying RENT you’re in effect helping to subsidize the federal taxes that somebody else is paying, etc.

    I don’t even WANT to think of this country being run by the Republican Party of the 21st Century. Eventually a compliant Supreme Court which would likely allow states, one by one, to go full-on hardcore Dominionism and complete merge church and state. (In the 19th Century we had a perfectly good word for the belief in that government model: ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM. This word cannot be played in Scrabble.)

    The “scourge” of illegal immigrants, LGBT people, the poor who “do nothing except eat and pee and poop” and other “undesirables” would, of course, likely be so adversely affected that they would wish this place was MERELY “like Nazi Germany was” because there would be multiple concentration camps, etc. in every Zip Code.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Ok let’s make this real simple. Paying federal income tax means that when you file your taxes you are sending a check to the IRS. Not getting $ back. If you are getting a refund all you did was loan your $ to the federal government for free.

    Liked by 1 person

    • SRG says:

      You don’t have to have sent a check to the IRS in order to have paid federal income taxes. If you have $20,000 in federal taxes withheld from your paycheck over the course of the year, but your tax burden only ends up being $19,000, you’ll get a $1,000 refund, but you still paid $19,000 in federal taxes.


    • Thomas Dwyer III says:

      “Real simple?” It sounds like you have no idea how federal income tax actually works. I received a refund every year for probably the past decade or so. That doesn’t mean I get all of my federal withholdings back. To the contrary, I pay tens of thousands of dollars to the fed every year, and that’s after subtracting my refund.

      As for loaning money to the government for free, are you suggesting this has no financial benefit to the fed? If so, you’re wrong on that point too.


    • You are wrong.
      Paying Federal income tax means that you file your taxes and do not get every penny back that was withheld from your check every week.

      If you have to send in a check, that is more an indication that you are either not having enough withheld from your check, or you have an income source where knowing the exact dollar to you need to pay is imprecise.


  12. The Dude says:

    This map is from 1850, and has been Photoshop’d or changed to prove an imaginary point.

    It’s insulting to assume your readership is so gullible and stupid to believe your falsehoods.

    Well except for the knee-jerkers above.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Turdburner says:

    All you nut cases that think because you consume gas for you car or purchase products therefore you’re paying federal taxes. You liberal dingbats don’t understand anything. If you freeloaders get a government check for doing nothing then use that money to buy gas or whatever, YOU still didn’t pay any taxes. I did, when I went to work, earned my paycheck and the feds stole MY money for your lazy ass. If YOU didn’t earn a PAYCHECK then you DID NOT pay any taxes dummies!

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Incredibly twisted thought . Loved the Jewish reference even though the thought process was more of a Nazi propagandist. The reference to a founding father was one of those they all must think that way even though it was only one person.


  15. SRG says:

    The linked sources in the article don’t even support the article’s assertions. This paragraph has two links, but neither one actually supports the claims:

    “Since we know the majority of poor, non-taxpayers are non-white (nearly 60%), and white people make up nearly 90% of all taxpayers, we see good reason to agree with BuzzFeed’s assumption.”

    The first link talks about poverty (but not taxpayer status), but doesn’t have any data about what percentage of the poor belong to a particular race.

    The second link actually says that white people make up 83% of taxpayers (not “nearly 90%”), but also says that whites make up 77.9% of the “non-payers” (people who either don’t file taxes at all, or file but have zero tax burden).

    In short, using “white people” as a proxy for “taxpayers” as the author has done is almost hilariously bad research & analysis.


  16. Fred says:

    Only a supremely stupid Democrat could argue against Thomas Jefferson approach which was only those that pay for government should have a right to vote for it.
    Note that this doesnt mean that voting tax payers have to pay alot of taxes in order to vote rather its an incentive to have a voice in government. The current state of voter rights is tantamount to legalized theft.. Having this as a law(proof of tax payment in order to vote) would stimulate the ‘poor’ into getting off their asses and getting a job. It would secondarily enforce voter id which is equally important.


  17. “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

    Alexis de Tocqueville

    With a few exceptions, it is a conflict of interest to allow a person who lives off welfare to vote for the candidate who promises them more, essentially buying the vote. With someone else’s money.


  18. Conservatives are stuck on this fool notion that the poor only democrat and always vote for more taxes. This is a misconception.

    The biggest problem I see with conservatism is the notion that lowering taxes will produce better economic gains.

    I March of 2015, Governor Snyder – Michigan, declared that the State of Michigan had a $200,000,000 dollar surplus. That announcement was quickly followed by calls for tax cuts. So what is wrong with that? The 1 billion plus deficit that road construction and reconstruction has had for over a decade and the current and continuing deterioration of roads.

    The people were pushing for the money to be earmarked for the much neglected roads while politicians were pushing for a tax cut. This back and forth continued for about two months when Governor Snyder announced that the surplus did not exist and was the result of a typo. That of course, ended the debate.

    What I have noticed over the years is a vicious cycle of spending cuts that produce a surplus followed by a tax cut that produces a deficit followed by further spending cuts. And the cycle goes on and on.

    What we need to do is set the tax rates at a level that is reasonable and then leave them alone. The government would then be required to run a surplus of 500 billion to 1 trillion dollars so that the debt can be serviced and paid off while setting aside revenue in case of recession or war.

    The first step to solving America’s problems is to acknowledge that necessary government costs money. No one is going to do the necessary work if they cannot afford to pay their bills and put food on the table.

    The idiot that calls government a needless ruse would likely rob his neighbors or pollute the ground water in the name of profit which by the way, is the problem with libertarianism. Anyone that remembers the toxic dumps of the 70’s understands why government is needed to protect the rights of the people. It may certainly fail at times, but that failure is due to incompetent people running the government.


    • >>>
      Conservatives are stuck on this fool notion that the poor only democrat and always vote for more taxes. This is a misconception.
      Should read:

      Conservatives are stuck on this fool notion that the poor only vote democrat and always vote for more taxes. This is a misconception.

      WordPress needs an edit feature.


  19. Pingback: What If Only Taxpayers Could Vote? – Driven Report

  20. This map and the premise of the article does not take into account the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment did not exist when the Constitution was ratified and not allowing any direct taxation was the solution to this problem. You can thank the progressals for passage of the 16th Amendment and the inevitable slide into tyranny…


  21. All federal taxes including, but not limited to, income taxes, estate taxes, corporate taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, and any Federal taxes not mentioned, are to be eliminated and replaced with a flat progressive income tax. The new tax brackets shall be as follow. The beginning rate $0- $3,000.00 @ 1%
    $3,001.00 – $12,000.00 @ 3%
    $12,001.00 – $24,000.00 @ 7%
    $24,001.00 – $36,000.00 @ 12%
    $36,001.00 – $60,000.00 @ 15%
    $60,001.00 – $100,000.00 @ 20%
    $100,001.00 – $250,000.00 @ 25%
    $250,001.00 – $500,000.00 @ 30%
    $500,001.00 and up 35%
    All income, regardless how obtained shall be considered income and be taxed at the appropriate rate. There will be no tax credits or deductions of any kind. All net profit made by any business or corporation, after appropriate allocation, such as payroll, reinvestments into said business or corporation, shall be considered income and taxed at the appropriate rate.
    The U.S. Congress shall not have the right to raise the rate in any manner or alter its language without a vote by U.S. legal citizens at the same time as a congressional election. The Congress shall have the right to raise the rate without a National vote only during a congressional declaration of war and only in a manner as to pay for said declaration. After the Congressional war declaration has been legally withdrawn by congress, the rate shall be automatically reduced to its prewar level. Congress shall be required to balance the national Budget on a yearly basis.


  22. Everybody pays taxes… so what do you mean? Everyone pays sales taxes, everyone pays payroll taxes, everyone has to pay fees and licensing and registrations. So this is a false idea. Its another one of those lies. The “right” want everyone to believe that only rich people pay taxes. When by far do they in comparison pay the same amount that is levied on a typical American. They use loop holes and other tax rules put in the tax code that only the rich can use which is a illegal law since it only can be used by rich. The tax code and laws should not have loopholes that only the rich can use. Most every tax relief that a typical American can use can also be used by the rich whereas none of the ones rich people have available to cut their tax burden are available. The rich bitch about how high the tax rate is for them but fail to see that their is a vast difference in the burden a typical American paying taxes on $49,000 (The average salary of a US worker) and the burden the rich would feel paying taxes on the same $49,000. This is a very unrealistic plausibility that has no real truth in its concept.


    • Not everyone pays sales tax. When was the last time you bought something from a garage sale or second hand store? No sales tax. You only pay sales taxes on new goods and services. Don’t buy new things or services- no sales tax. But I’ll grant that most people buy something new or hire a service from time to time.

      Not everyone pays payroll taxes. You think pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers report their income on a 1099? LOL How about the guy doing your lawn under the table? Lots of people avoid paying income taxes one way or another.

      Fee’s and registrations are not taxes directly but go to financially support the agency who issues it. If you don’t own a car you don’t have to pay to license one. Don’t hunt/fish? Then you don’t pay for those licenses.

      An illegal law? I think you may mean unconstitutional. But just a FYI- a loop hole is legal. There is nothing illegal about using a loop hole. Plenty of people including the poor get to take advantage of loop holes (Child tax credit comes to mind). Also, if I were a small business owner making $50k a year and took a loss, I could/should write that off for the next several years just like somebody making $10 million can/should.

      This poor people vs rich people crap is you allowing yourself to be controlled by the puppet masters. Stop. A rich person pays more in JUST property taxes in 1 year than the total of the majority of American’s yearly income. Then there is sales tax. Throw in their fancy cars/planes/boats, clothes, jewelry and they pay a small fortune to support this nation AND don’t even get me started about how many jobs they create or are responsible for.


      • Your comparisons and examples make no sense. Everyone pays sales tax in general. You make very little sense with your response that use pimps and drug dealers as empoyed. The rich v poor? I think my comment is on corporations and small businesses and the disadvantage that some of my points clearly show are in my opinion unfair. I mean you just have no real education in economics if you vannot see the reasoning behind my position. You also attack my position without any explained reasoning or better ideas.


  23. David Diyanni says:

    I am tired of our country allowing people who do not own property the right to vote on property taxes being increased! This is absolutely crazy! Why don’t I get to vote on their salary? I say people who do not own property DO NOT get to vote on property tax increase, which is almost always for schools. So why wouldn’t a renter vote for better schools? I know, people say, “Well just raise the rent!” it is not always that easy to do and it can cause you to lose a renter. What I do every other year, it seems, when there is a school tax, is to send my renters a letter which lets them know if the school tax passes their rent will go up whatever that amount it. So they can vote however they wish. it is interesting when I do this, I often see signs in their yards telling people to vote against the school tax!


  24. NoRightToNotBeOffended says:

    Tax payers are the only ones that should be able to vote. Other wise it is 2 wolves and a lamb discussing what is for dinner.


    • I agree on voting being without a electorial.. but its not like many elections were actually decided independent of voters. you have to either do away with the idea where this pointless idea exists that the need to exist so many lines and divided borders that say yeah wooohoo ususausa. but have all these independent running individuals aligned to 2 partys and at each others troats to sabatoge the other. There exists a point where some points need to be corrected to stregthen a union and yes even at least a adult discussion on moving towards a more realistic way to what can be even up to debate or vote… too much argument and stopgapping means its not a reasonable use of time and tax money if every bill or spending law they pass was through paying.. each other or porking till the need would be best just taking the middle man out and just call a pig a pig and let them fifght over being in the ring to advis3 and award the contracts on a rolling list its your at bat senator here is the bill award it and if you fuckup in this everyone will gun for him


  25. Anonymous says:

    If you don’t pay “Your fiar share”as our Namibian President dedlared…… Do not expect another dime from me. I am am sick of supporting me, my family, your family, and 330 other families.I don’t care for those other than my own. Tough luck for you taker ..


  26. Tiff says:

    Everyone pays taxes in some form whether it be sales, income, property, or other miscellaneous taxes. Everyone who drives a car, buys items, or lives on a property pays taxes. The idea that “taxpayers” all vote Republican is ridiculous.


  27. F says:

    “If you pay next to nothing towards the federal government, why should you have any say in how it operates?”

    Sooo then Trump wouldn’t be able to run for president or even vote.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s