Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

Do you agree with the term Zero Liability Voter?

These are defined as voters who pay NO federal income tax.

People who fill out their income tax return AND receives more money back than they paid into the system= a Zero Liability Voter (ZLV)

In your opinion~ Do you think a ZLV has little/no concern for the programs that Congress funds from tax dollars that impact others? small businesses (for example)?

If the Government works for everyone, shouldn't EVERYONE contribute to the Government?

If we ALL pay into the Federal system wouldn't we we all have a stake in the outcome?

 
grlygrlz2

Asked by grlygrlz2 at 5:43 PM on Nov. 30, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (106,530 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (116)
  • There is no easy answer. I received the EIC when I was a single mom. It was a huge help. Like you said though, it wasn't anything I earned. At some point we need to stop and think about how we are going to pay for things, just like we do in our daily lives. No one is suggesting taking their right to vote or that they are less valuable. The program is designed to pay out more than the people pay in. It is classic redistribution of wealth. It's not a question of being affected by the federal government. We all are in some way. It's the same concept of making your child pay for part of their first car. If their money is involved they are more likely to be careful with it. Those who don't contribute as much or get back more than they give may not be as concerned with where the money comes from to fund the programs.
    sopranomommy

    Answer by sopranomommy at 10:17 PM on Nov. 30, 2010

  • ...These poeple live in bad neighborhoods, eat unhealthy foods (more often) have less access to a good education and have lower life expectancies than people of YOUR means...Im sure some would HAPPILY make the TRADE if it were THAT EASY


    ***


    MANY of the people you speak of made POOR CHOICES which has kept them down. This country offers the poor and disabled SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES for little or no cost! If someone CHOOSES not to take advantage of such programs to BETTER themselves, then others should keep supporting them indefinitely?! At what point do we make people RESPONSIBLE for their destinies?!


    I grew up piss poor but I wanted a better life for myself, so I made WISE CHOICES in order to do so. So for that, I should have to contribute indefinitely to those who CHOSE not to better themselves?! Being born poor or with challenges to overcome, doesn't mean you can't alter your lifepath!

    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 7:19 PM on Nov. 30, 2010

  • YEP! And zero liability voters overwhelmingly vote DEMOCRAT!!! Wonder why?! (sarcasm)

    If EVERYONE paid a flat/fair tax, then I feel since EVERYONE would be vested in the system, they would pay closer attention to where their tax money is going, and demand accountability from their elected officials!! Problem is the ZLV vote to keep the handouts coming, with nary a thought as to who or what is negatively affected in the process--you know like the occasional poster who thinks the government can "just print more money" to get us out of debt....typical ZLV!!
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 6:53 PM on Nov. 30, 2010

  • What they should do is eliminate all 'negative' returns. If a person has enough credits to give them a return cut it off at the zero mark ~ ie if the tax they owe is $700 and they paid $654, but with the credits they would end up with a return of $1200 change it so they get $46.

    It's one thing if a person owes $13000 and paid $8000, and with their credits still get a return of $1 - $3000. It's another entirely when a person owes less than $1000, pays far less than that, and gets back three times what they owed in the first place.

    I do like the idea of 'prebates' for the elderly.

    Gotta love the funny math coupled with people howling about a budget that is a complete mess. The country is broke, and it isn't going to remain solvent enough to continue to pay so many people to sit at home, eat, and complain about what they don't have without some changes ~ and rich people don't 'owe' poor people squat.
    Farmlady09

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 6:58 PM on Nov. 30, 2010

  • You eluded..so I am asking

    ***

    "Eluding" would be considered to be STRETCHING and interpreting someone else's words to fit YOUR agenda...in other words....TWISTING the comments in order to attempt to discredit that person's comments. One of the Alinsky principles...quite the "apt pupil," aren't you?! :o)
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 6:58 PM on Nov. 30, 2010

  • Ohh Lori, don't give her success stories.. It does nothing for her agenda.

    ***

    I know...which is why I like to tout them!! LOL :o)
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 7:25 PM on Nov. 30, 2010

  • IMO, there is almost a lust by some folks to become wealthy, as if possessions define who one is; indicate importance. Is it an obsession or just a desire for power and control?  Further, the unspoken law that in order for some to get ahead, others need to be kept down. Truly, I see the divide growing. Word to the masses, those at the tip top (think of the rule makers) will do everything in their collective power to make sure the vast majority of us are kept down. A few at the top and the rest with little to nothing- Politicians do not care who has made the "right" decisions in life........................................

    Sisteract

    Answer by Sisteract at 8:07 PM on Nov. 30, 2010

  • Taxation without representation doesn't mean taxation for representation.

    It's messed up to suggest that some citizens should be able to vote and others shouldn't.

    Using that logic corporations should have a vote too because they are paying in too. I can't imagine living in a country where a poor, single mom got no vote, but Walmart does. Totally jacked up.
    UpSheRises

    Answer by UpSheRises at 9:45 PM on Nov. 30, 2010

  • When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic--Ben Franklin
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 11:40 PM on Nov. 30, 2010

  • Zero liability is a definition used to describe a certIn segment of the voting population. I'm not saying they don't have a right to a vote. Asking if people agree with the term/ phrase.


    They will never get it grlygrlz.

    Zero Liability Voters don't have a stake in the government other than they are getting free food, housing and other help. So the only way they are impacted is if they lose that. They don't contribute in any real way just take and then get mad when those who are paying for everything don't want to pay more. They are able to vote and always will be able to vote. They should also be contributing to our society by paying taxes. When nearly 40 percent of people are not paying any taxes or they are getting everything they paid in and then some back they don't care what happens to the rest of us that do foot the bill. They don't care about the small business owner who will go under.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:46 AM on Dec. 1, 2010

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN