Finally, someone has understood.
Actually it was the law of Canada (BNA) as late as the 19th century AD.
Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
- Thread starter French Patriot
- Start date
Fortunately, we've gotten a little bit past that and in contemporary times, renters and others can vote, too. We are called "citizens".
You may have overlooked one tiny detail, to vote federally or provincially I think you have to be a Canadian citizen.
That might put the sh*t up the politicians "spine"- could be recognized for the crooks they are.
"Stakeholders" are voters which includes foreign property owners in municipal elections because they have a stake in the municipality.
No fear. If I lived in an educated society I would not have to do such an O P.
What in the hell makes you think our oligarchy is a democracy?
All said in this link applies to us.
George Carlin ~ The American Dream - YouTube
Regards
DL
One for Canada and one for what we are becoming. A kinder gentler U S.
Regards
DL
Are they net taxtakers or net taxpayers?
That is my only concern.
There are other ways to contribute to our systems of course and those would be recognized. Vets, those born with certain condition etc., would have a vote. 2nd and 3rd generation welfare, forget it.
Regards
DL
Lets have a vote to see who should be allowed to vote....After we vote to find out who the next premier of Ont. should be...and P.M should be ...B.S. Games decide leaders....Not The Common Tax Paying People...Cuz they don't tend to Vote..
The Average-Low Income Citizen's Vote, doesn't really seem to matter; in the end...
That's the problem...
The Average-Low Income Citizen's Vote, doesn't really seem to matter; in the end...
That's the problem...
Last edited:
They get benefits whenever they use sidewalks and roads.
But hey, if they want to fill our jails, well and good. Sure beats what Harper wants to do and fill them with the children of taxpayers who just want to smoke a joint.
Nothing like killing a few Mexicans to protect B C's and California's cash crop.
Regards
DL
Yes he should be. VAT's are regressive taxes but if no taxation without representation and conversely no representation without taxation hold to logic, and it does, then he is paying for it.
If we are going to pass on our national debt to their shoulders we should let them vote on how big a burden their irresponsible parents put on them.
Phocking shame on us all my fellow Canadians.
Regards
DL
If English Canadians ever get French enough we will be like France where the politicians recognize and fear where the true power is, in the people, instead of the grovelling horde that we are.
Regards
DL
Wellllll. Shribeder sure affected the vote when he bribed Mulbafoony and if that was the tip of the iceberg, and it was, then some might call that voting by proxy.
Regards
DL
Dumb reply while you sit back and let the government tax your kids with a regressive tax to add to the debt we are putting on them.
Nice parent.
My basic view is what the lawof the land in many countries in the past was; no taxation withoutrepresentation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are ataxtaker you have not earned representation through a vote. IOW, if you do not pay for representation,you do not get it.
The logic is clear.Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.
Payment can be made invarious ways so do not think I am going after the poor. In the case of Vets,representation can be earned by serving to protect the country. Those whosometimes pay taxes and at other times take taxes would have to be looked atonce a standard is set. If a person pays 15 years out of 20 for instance, hewould vote. Someone who only paid 5 years out of 20 and was on the dole orpublic purse for 15 may not get a vote.
The point is that when moreand more fall into the poor categories, their vote can and is bought by theunscrupulous politicians who are elected by promises of a raise in welfarechecks.
The rich are getting richerand the poor better off and the middle is squeezed by both side and anyelection basically becomes a war against the middle thanks to the fact thatpoliticians are owned by the rich.
This is unjust andunsustainable and must end.
Regards
DL
Your reading or comprehension is off on landowners and if you think you live in a democracy and not an oligarchy then I have nothing for you. You are in lala land.
Regards
DL
No, the logic is exactly backwards. "...if you do not pay for representation,you do not get it" is in effect no representation without taxation.
Better get that gunshot wound in your foot fixed before you bleed to death.
Even when recognized, we do nothing about them and in fact, the English praise them.
"The Night of Long Knives"
I just might have to stop coming to this Canadian site.
I get an ache of shame in my heart when the dialog goes where I do not want it to go. That is twice now just tonight.
I love you all my fellow Canadians but I sure hate you for what we have become.
Shame on us all.
Regards
DL
[/FONT]
Denial without an argument to back it is the sigh of someone who cannot think well enough to formulate one.
Regards
DL
Well, we have 43 posts in response to an O.P. where the answer is an unadulterated NO.
Total unadulterated Bullsh*t! As a Canadian voting is our birth right, it has nothing to do with our financial status. As a matter of fact when you start selecting who should and who should not vote then you are at great danger of not getting a true representation of the mood of the country. I'm interested to see what those who sleep in door ways and under bridges think too. Making them work for welfare is one thing, making them work/pay to vote is bullsh*t. How much money do you propose we piss down the drain keeping track of who's eligible to vote. On the plus side we could probably use another 100,000 bureaucrats!
Total unadulterated Bullsh*t! As a Canadian voting is our birth right, it has nothing to do with our financial status. As a matter of fact when you start selecting who should and who should not vote then you are at great danger of not getting a true representation of the mood of the country. I'm interested to see what those who sleep in door ways and under bridges think too. Making them work for welfare is one thing, making them work/pay to vote is bullsh*t. How much money do you propose we piss down the drain keeping track of who's eligible to vote. On the plus side we could probably use another 100,000 bureaucrats!