27 Sep '13 20:04Originally posted by ChessPraxisAgreed. I intend on making the rules when I grow older. Did you know that the Illuminati really do control the world's economy?
The world is run by the perverse golden rule.
He who has the gold makes the rules.
Anyone who says otherwise is either a devout denialist or ignorant.
27 Sep '13 21:53Originally posted by TygertI think both sides can be trusted to vote according to their own best interests, but not necessarily for the good of the country. There are smart and well educated poor people and dumb as rocks rich people, so I don't think giving poor people fewer votes and rich people more votes is a good idea. It's difficult to argue over the fairness or unfairness of one vote per person, so I think that's still the best way to do it.
I recently had a debate with a friend about this issue. We didn't each take one particular side, but rather showed points for both sides of the issue. Comments? For the sake of the debate, please don't say one-man-one-vote because we all know that that is the best way to go, this is a hypothetical scenario in which we discuss the implications if one of the sc ...[text shortened]... n. I would normally post this in the debates forum, but I think this forum needs some lifeblood.
28 Sep '13 00:11Originally posted by TygertWhile the rich are exposed to a better education, they are not harder workers in school and thus better educated. The students I taught in higher income level schools didn't exactly work harder. They got better grades because the system was skewed so that you could get a grade without having done anything at all, and there was a great deal of grade inflation. Parents wanted their students to get good grades without school interfering with their lives. I also propose the thought that many rich people didn't achieve "richness" but inherited the money or the job that led to their higher incomes.
I recently had a debate with a friend about this issue. We didn't each take one particular side, but rather showed points for both sides of the issue. Comments? For the sake of the debate, please don't say one-man-one-vote because we all know that that is the best way to go, this is a hypothetical scenario in which we discuss the implications if one of the sc ...[text shortened]... n. I would normally post this in the debates forum, but I think this forum needs some lifeblood.
28 Sep '13 00:53Originally posted by Tygert🙄 Now I know why you think you are so superior, you're parents are rich and you think that reflects well on you! lmao!
Agreed. I intend on making the rules when I grow older. Did you know that the Illuminati really do control the world's economy?
28 Sep '13 07:54Originally posted by lemon limeThat is another interesting debate topic as then the government would represent the majority of the population. I agree that there are dumb rich people and savant poor people but for the sake of the debate, can we use the average.
I think both sides can be trusted to vote according to their own best interests, but not necessarily for the good of the country. There are smart and well educated poor people and dumb as rocks rich people, so I don't think giving poor people fewer votes and rich people more votes is a good idea. It's difficult to argue over the fairness or unfairn ...[text shortened]... it.
Or how about this... what if we give poor people more votes and rich people fewer votes?
28 Sep '13 07:55Originally posted by SahuaroThat is an interesting point which leads to another interesting hypothetical scenario: The more tax you pay, the more votes you get. It's just hypothetical for all those people who are going to have a conniption.
While the rich are exposed to a better education, they are not harder workers in school and thus better educated. The students I taught in higher income level schools didn't exactly work harder. They got better grades because the system was skewed so that you could get a grade without having done anything at all, and there was a great deal of grade inflati ...[text shortened]... cross the border every weekend or so.
Why can't we include the middle class in this debate?
28 Sep '13 08:12Originally posted by TygertMost of them are here Clan 24350
Did you know that the Illuminati really do control the world's economy?
28 Sep '13 15:16Originally posted by divegeesterDon't get it sorry.
Most of them are here Clan 24350
28 Sep '13 16:252 editsOriginally posted by TygertIf one of those HAD to be implimented, then the poor should get more votes, because the rich are typically the minority. If the minority has both more government power AND wealth, then we revert back to middle-ages.
I recently had a debate with a friend about this issue. We didn't each take one particular side, but rather showed points for both sides of the issue. Comments? For the sake of the debate, please don't say one-man-one-vote because we all know that that is the best way to go, this is a hypothetical scenario in which we discuss the implications if one of the sc ...[text shortened]... n. I would normally post this in the debates forum, but I think this forum needs some lifeblood.
28 Sep '13 16:54Originally posted by vivifyThat is a good point for the poor living in more wealthy countries as they are not nearly off as bad. You see, in South Africa, a lot of the poor support people who I can tell you straight are NOT GOOD. Here in South Africa, those leaders who get voted for by the poor take the contents of portaloos and throw them over cars, houses and white people. They encourage people to disrupt the government. (My province, the Western Cape, is the only one not controlled by the ANC) The Western Cape has the least poverty, the best education, the best healthcare and has the highest human development index.
If one of those HAD to be implimented, than the poor should get more votes, because the rich are typically the minority. If the minority has both more governmental power AND wealth, than we revert back to middle-ages.
However, if the poor have more votes, then the government will pander more to their needs, which will eventually ultimately improve their situation, resulting in less poor people, and a better life for those people.
28 Sep '13 19:301 editOriginally posted by TygertI'm by no means wealthy, but it's not difficult to see the fairness in that idea. If some people are required to carry most of the tax burden then why shouldn't they have more voting power? In time it would have the effect of evening out the tax burden and making it more fair. Overhauling the system by instituting a straight flat tax would do the same thing in less time (and with less fuss) but you know how some people are... they will claim to understand the complexities of life, but the simplest matters seem to confound them.
...another interesting hypothetical scenario: The more tax you pay, the more votes you get.
Controversial: Should poor or rich people get more votes?
Back to Top