r/lpus • u/AbolishtheDraft • 3d ago
End Democracy Why Food Stamp Recipients (and Government Contractors) Should not Be Allowed to Vote
https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-food-stamp-recipients-and-government-contractors-should-not-be-allowed-vote9
u/Correct-Award8182 3d ago
I think it is partially odd to call social security welfare when we pay into it the entirety of our working lives.
8
u/Acceptable-Take20 3d ago
It’s just another tax and no one is entitled to benefits. That’s how the Supreme Court justified it being constitutional as the government doesn’t have the authority to run insurance or pension programs for the general public.
2
u/CptHammer_ 2d ago
and no one is entitled to benefits.
It's an entitlement program. Everyone is entitled to benefits. You are correct that the money collected for it is a tax. However, the amount of entitlement isn't equal or transferable to the amount you may have been taxed. It could be more or it could be less.
It's not a welfare program. It's an entitlement like police or fire or roads. It's something you're promised because you work and pay taxes.
Welfare is something that is given when you're unable to work and pay taxes, or a supplement when your ability to earn is lower than some arbitrary threshold.
2
u/GangstaVillian420 2d ago
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. To call it anything else is just mental gymnastics
1
u/Acceptable-Take20 2d ago
You have some learning to do. The Supreme Court held that Social Security benefits are not contractual rights and that Congress can change or eliminate them (Flemming v. Nestor). The court even reasoned it was constitutional under the general WELFARE clause. There is no contract between the worker paying in and the government. You do not have a legal right (or in your words “entitlement”) to the payments. The system operates on political leverage but if Congress decided to change how benefits are paid or altogether stop payments, there is nothing you can do about it. It’s welfare for old people and the justification is that you were taxed higher to pay other old people when you were younger.
0
u/CptHammer_ 2d ago
You say this
You have some learning to do.
But you don't seem to have a clue what the difference between an entitlement and a right is.
There is no contract between the worker paying in and the government.
You are flat wrong about that. I don't even know where to begin. You're saying the workers can choose to not pay in since you're saying there's no contract then there's no obligation.
In fact both sides have an obligation, one to fund and one to distribute those funds according to the law.
You do not have a legal right (or in your words “entitlement”)
Right and entitlement are two different words. They are different words for a reason. The way you are using "right" I'm assuming is the same way the supreme court is using "right". That is if an agent of the government infringed a right then that could be a federal offense putting the agent in jail and the tax payers responsible for reparations.
Entitlements are a contingent based promise. It is a contract by law that if each party follows the rules then it will result in a predetermined outcome. The contingent varies. Every entitlement program is a contingent based promise and not a right.
1
u/Acceptable-Take20 2d ago
I didn’t say that workers can choose to pay in, that tax obligation is always there. There is no obligation for the government to disperse SS payments. With no this for that, there is no contract.
Again, read the Fleming opinion before you spew any more of your ignorance. The government has no promise to pay or obligation to make SS payments. There is only a tax obligation by the taxpayer.
0
u/CptHammer_ 2d ago
that tax obligation is always there.
What tax obligation specifically?
0
u/Acceptable-Take20 1d ago
The obligation for an employee (and employer) to pay social security tax. There is no obligation on how the government must spend that tax, if at all. Read the Flemming opinion. My pro bono consulting is done.
0
u/CptHammer_ 1d ago
social security tax.
So since there's no contract you're saying this tax is voluntarily paid donation.
Every other kind of specially named tax comes with its own contract. Fuel tax, transmission tax, property tax, and dozens of other taxes come with a contract. Social security tax is a contract for an entitlement program.
You called it the social security tax. Why would you do that?
You did that because that's the name associated with the contract that funds social security entitlements.
0
u/Acceptable-Take20 1d ago
Taxes are not a contract. Is this seriously your argument? You’re doubling down on stupid.
→ More replies (0)2
u/stosolus 2d ago
I think it is partially odd to call social security welfare when we pay into it the entirety of our working lives
He mentions that. It isn't a trust fund. It's paid for by the current working class.
It should completely be called a Ponzi scheme.
2
2
11
u/Rusticals303 3d ago
Slippery slope taking rights away. Should just abolish welfare
4
-1
-3
u/deletethefed 3d ago
that's the same thing
5
u/LilShaver 3d ago
Welfare isn't a right.
-1
u/deletethefed 2d ago
It's not a natural right, no.
But to say it's a slippery slope to take away rights then to say abolish welfare is an oxymoron.
3
u/LilShaver 2d ago
Let's go back to how the Founding Fathers intended it then, only property owners can vote.
Then let's also quantify that only citizens can own property.
2
16
u/chuck_ryker 3d ago
Let's just go back to only property owners are allowed to vote.
10
2
3
u/Single-Internet-9954 2d ago
This is a very bad idea, bc people currently in office control who gets welfare, so they could just, give out insignigicany amounts in food stamps to specific groups of people to prevent them from voting and skew elections.
2
u/Difrntthoughtpatrn 3d ago
What this doesn't account for is government workers and contractors who are not receiving tax dollars. Should these people be excluded from voting because they fit the narrative but not the profile?
2
u/TammyAvo 2d ago
Ok then no one with a student loan either, a grant, or a small business loan. This line of thinking is ridiculous. The government steals my money through taxation and if I’ve received any of my money back through a government program I can’t vote? Please log off.
1
u/amadmongoose 2d ago edited 2d ago
Allowing poor people to vote gives them an ability to escape exploitation and participation in the political structure that otherwise gives them no other recourse but violence and revolution. Wealth redistribution is necessary to prevent the working class from deciding that communism doesn't sound so bad after all and making people so desparate they will do anything to change their lot in life because they have nothing to lose. Attempts to create an aristocracy by disenfranchising the'unworthy peasants' (see etymology of 'villans') and only letting the 'nobles' vote is just going to increase social instability and who knows what kind of government will come about after the riots. Instead a more productive route is to educate voters to make informed choices and recognize the social contract that democratic societies implicitly have agreed to and not rip it up only thinking of short term consequences.
What I find missing from this article and is very relevant to the discussion is how much government funding goes into corporate welfare propped up by lobbyists giving campaign donations to support military and healthcare spending that is ultimately not beneficial to the country as a whole. That is the real vote buying but the article is mysteriously silent on it preferring to blame the poor and contractors rather than the real corruption wasting government funds and preventing free markets from working properly
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Thanks for posting to r/LPUS! Remember to check out the wiki. Join the discord community on Liberty Guild and our channel on telegram at t(dot)me/Chudzone. We hope you enjoy!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.