Originally 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.
Originally 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.
Or how about this... what if we give poor people more votes and rich people fewer votes?
Originally 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.
On the other hand, most of the lower income children I've taught have a very narrow world view, even those who traipse across the border every weekend or so.
Why can't we include the middle class in this debate?
Originally 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?
Take it to debates, spanky.
Originally 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?
Originally 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?
2 edits
Originally 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.
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.
Originally 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.
Yet these leaders cause havoc by stoning cars, burning tyres in protests and striking. My car was almost stoned along with many others on the way to the airport. One such leader is a chap called Julius Malema. He was recently jailed for fraud and accepting bribery, a common crimer amogst government members in this country. Again this province's government is the only one without such crimes. The party in control of this province, the Democratic Alliance, have done an excellent job in improving this province so that is is far ahead of the others despite sabotage. You see they build schools and educate people who in turn see through these disruptive leader's plan for self gain.
Luckily only half of the poor vote for these leaders and the good party shall remain in power. The poor cannot be trusted to vote for their best interests as these leaders make promises but do not follow through. To show how ignorant some of them are, our president, Jacob Zuma, said that taking a shower prevents HIV.
1 edit
Originally 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.