Riddle me this, patriots.

There are several ideas I hope to to get into the national consciousness.  First, do people under the age of 18 have to pay income and payroll taxes?  People like this one?  Yep.

And do we let that 17-year-old gal vote?  Nope.  So…

Won’t somebody sue every government in the country for practicing taxation without representation?!  Please?

Seriously.  What legal fig leaf lets them get away with this?  If the Colonists were justified in rebelling against George III, these little gals were also justified.  As for youngsters who aren’t making big bucks, what about their indentured servitude to the ubiquitious government debts?  It’s taxation without representation plus interest.

Also, I want to make rattan (bamboo) canings a legal punishment for certain lawbreakers.  This isn’t a joke.  It’s not an ideal solution, but read it and tell me you wouldn’t take my offer. 

And as I said, I will submit to the first ass-whuppin’ if it means the policy can be instituted.

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Riddle me this, patriots.

  1. Pingback: Riddle me this, patriots. | World's Only Rational Man | Taxation Without Representation

  2. DiogenesLamp says:

    Amen! Hallelujah! Actually, it is my understanding that the US constitution forbids a direct tax. (income tax.) I suppose a lot of people regard the 16th amendment as having rescinded it. Love the caning idea.

  3. wormme says:

    And taxation without representation isn’t the worst thing our country has done. Don’t know your age, but you probably know we used to have a military draft beginning at age 18…while the voting age was 21.

    So we were telling our youth that you’re mature enough to be taken from your family against your will, to kill or be killed in the service of your country…but you’re not mature enough to have a say in it.

  4. DiogenesLamp says:

    I’m a young 49. I remember the draft from back in the 60s. My brother enlisted to go to Vietnam, and they had done away with the draft (except for registration) by the time I was old enough. The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18, nationwide. I think this, Like the 24th Amendment, was one of the dumbest things this country ever did. If I recall properly, the 26th Amendment was passed as a result of the spoiled rotten baby boomers wanting to avoid going to Vietnam, and bewailing the fact that they couldn’t pressure their congressmen to prevent this from happening because they were too young to vote.

    I would have extended the voting age to anyone of 18 years of age who was in active service to our country, but I would have left all others to grow up 3 more years after leaving mommy and daddy’s house so they could get a little real world sense before they started opining on who should lead us.

  5. wormme says:

    Shades of Starship Troopers!

    Your solution would have been vastly better than what we did, which was still better than what we had.

  6. D.J. says:

    First, a possibly rational argument re: taxation of those too young to vote:
    “With regard to people who are not yet adults, it is right and proper that the adults responsible for their interests* should take it upon themselves to vote with that duty in mind. Therefore, the tax-paying children are represented by proxy through their parents’ use of the ballot.”

    *To me, this should be the parents, or designated guardian, rather than what Statists wish instead: teachers and state administrators rather than family.

    Yes, there are obvious weaknesses, and one of the most persuasive to the majority of social creatures is, “That’s one of the same arguments they used to deny women the right to vote!” (Yes, I’ve read your post on that subject, so you might take the attempted rebuttal as further evidence that denying the vote to those under 18 who pay taxes is a good idea.)

    Another one is the possibility of voter fraud. This may not be rational, but it will be brought up, because there is a provision where parents can report their children’s income on their own tax return if certain conditions apply. The primary condition is that the child’s income be solely from interest and dividends. (W.O.R.M., what about an argument that interest and dividends should not be taxed because they have been already?) The main thing is that the children in this case have over $1,900 in income from interest and dividends alone, which means a very large stock portfolio/bank accounts/etc., which means that they (and by extension, their families) are “rich.” The original thought is to reduce tax fraud by reassigning taxable income from the parents to the children (where it is either not taxed at all, or taxed at a lower rate). So that is the tax fraud part of the motivation background for these provisions. And since there can be tax fraud, anything involving the franchise might involve voter fraud: “These children will only vote the way their parents tell them to! In effect, it gives someone more than one vote to dispose of.” Again, this was an argument against women’s suffarage.

    As far as sci-fi literary sources go, I am somewhat reminded of David Weber’s Honor Harrington series, where if you received more in non-salary payments from the government than you paid in taxes, you could not vote.

    Penultimate question: Do you have any success at constructing (as) rational (as possible) arguments to try to refute your positions? I try to, or at least find that I can, generally by assuming what I believe my opponents’ axioms are (i.e., I want power, and any opponent to that goal is evil; Most of the people I want to convince are not rational, so emotional or fuzzy-logic arguments will suffice), and working from there.

    Ultimate question: Is emulating irrationality in this context rational or irrational?

  7. wormme says:

    You’ve certainly given this thought! And excellent points you make. You point out that “representation by proxy” has applied to women. I’ve had other people claim that not taxing children could lead to financial fraud, parents somehow laundering their funds through their kids. This seems doubtful, and anyway, fraud is already illegal.

    People do this all the time, justifying one abuse by claiming it mitigates a worse one.

    Your penultimate and ultimate questions get to the very heart of this blog. “Is emulating irrationality in this context rational or irrational?” Knowingly emulating irrationality to achieve an end that can’t otherwise be attained is quite rational. My problem is, I can’t seem to do it. To me it feels like lying, not “translating”. So I’m in search of better people, who can both reason and communicate with the irrational.

    How’s your luck at doing that?

  8. D.J. says:

    My luck is a bit better, I think. As to why that may be the case, I am not sure, but I have noticed in my math proofs, I almost never go the direct proof route (p implies q), but rather use contrapositive proofs (~q implies ~p) or proofs by contradiction (assume both p and ~q, and show a contradiction).

    Translation: mathematicians in particular are trained to assume lies and work out the logical implications. And if you can do it in math, why not do it in other fields as well? (Note: it doesn’t always work out…Saccheri and Lambert both denied the Parabolic Parallel Postulate (normal Euclidean), and instead assumed the Hyperbolic Parallel Postulate (more than one parallel through a point not on the base line), and worked out proposition after proposition of a weird geometry. Eventually, both decided they proved something that contradicted the nature of a straight line. If they had gone on instead, they would have been hailed as the first creators? discoverers? of non-Euclidean geometry, instead of Riemann and Lobachevskiy.)

    Also, in that first comment, I point out that one of the reasons that children’s income is taxed is to prevent financial/tax fraud by the parent assigning income to the child that should belong to the parent and be taxed. I suspect your reply to that is: “Yes, they owe taxes, but that means that they should be given the right to vote as well.”

    My own view is that payroll taxes should be abolished (along with the programs they fund, which are not required by the Constitution, natch). Then, if they’re making enough that they actually owe income tax, they should be mature enough to vote.

    On the other hand…..I could see politicians courting the youth vote with all the slick lies that they use on adults….and the children even less able to see through it.

    That. FRIGHTENS. Me. A lot.

  9. wormme says:

    Well, I don’t expect that children will be given the vote. That’s why I push the “taxation without representation” argument, so as to end taxation without representation.

    And payroll taxes are problematic, I agree. But there are some children, entertainers mostly, who make enough to “owe” income tax. No one them should be taxed on it. Whatever they pay in sales taxes will have to do.

  10. Pingback: A formal, public call for violence against the U.S. government. | World's Only Rational Man

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s