Requiring property ownership to vote
82The suckling pig syndrome
Should you be required to own property in order to vote in this nation? "Preposterous", you say, "not in America! That is totally against the fabric of our nation's founding!" Believe it or not, this is a long debated subject that goes back over 200 years.
The Founding Fathers had heated debates about whether or not to include requirements such as property (land) ownership in order to be able to cast a vote. Personally, I believe that to be of great benefit and merit to a nation. I believe it would especially benefit us here in North Carolina, in Johnston County, and in little old Selma.
In August of 1787, the Philadelphia Convention was meeting to discuss their first outline of the revised constitution. It was the middle of summer 212 years ago in a building with no air conditioning. The doors and windows were all shut and the drapes drawn closed. Men were hot in their temperature as well as demeanor. And representatives of the several states were debating the merits of various proposals line upon line, precept upon precept.
One of the principal architects of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris (that was his name, not his title) of Pennsylvania argued strongly for land ownership as a requisite for suffrage. Benjamin Franklin argued against the concept, lauding the common man and the responsibilities for the elected to not limit the freedoms of the electors (voters).
Which view is correct? Is it legal to restrict who can vote? In the Constitution, we presently have provisions that one can not be denied the right to vote based upon race, sex, and failure to pay a poll tax for anyone over the age of 18. However, there is no provision that says you must own property. Nor is there the provision that you can not be denied the right to vote if you do not own property.
Here is the wisdom and how it applies to us. Here in Selma, the last statistic I heard was that 61% of the residents are renters. That means that only 39% of the potential voters directly feel the bite of property taxes for the town and county. Why should someone who does actually pay taxes in this town be able to vote for someone who is going to determine the level of taxes the minority of us property owners pay? Is that fair? I say not, since they do not have a reasonable self-interest in how residents are taxed.
I also feel the same way about income taxes. Should anyone who does not actually pay income taxes be able to elect those who will set the income tax rates and determine how tax dollars are spent?
People who receive public tax money for their livelihood are dependent upon the entity from which they receive their stipend. Therefore, if these same people are eligible to vote, they will elect those who will most likely continue to support them financially. This is the insidious plan that has been in place since the 1960's. Enslave people financially and they will vote against the interest of the masses for their own benefit. A suckling pig will not voluntarily diminish its food source.
The term disfranchisement was used even in 1787. The term was not invented in 2000 when some falsely accused George W. Bush of "stealing an election". The term was then used in regards to placing qualifications on the right to vote. The term of "taxation without representation" was a long used battle cry in the young nation and part of the reason for the revolution. Just as bad, however, is "representation without taxation".
That last concept was not lost on some of the states in the 1700's. There were indeed such restrictions or qualifications for people to be able to cast a ballot. Their reason was much the same as mine; that people who pay taxes actually have an interest in how the government that extracts such taxation uses said monies.
I am under no illusion that we will ever see such qualifications for the right to vote in this nation, state, county, or town. I would settle for having all who would cast a ballot considering the good of the whole population rather than their own dependencies. That sort of thinking has gotten us career politicians, higher taxes, insane government spending, massive debt, and corruption. Some of our Founding Fathers had great wisdom…but that wisdom is lost unless we are willing to learn from them.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (2)
- Funny
- Awesome (2)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (1)
Great article!We have been studying this topic recently with our highschoolers. Democracy will fail when the people discover they can vote themselves money.
Can we call this new legislation J. Crow? Or maybe Jim C?
Yeah, your on page with guys that died 2500 years ago. Good on ya, Troy. Others might have the audacity to argue that we have made advances in political science in the last 2 millennia, but not Misha. He's no fool. And why do we vote at all? Bring on those Philosopher Kings already, right? Until then, I guess we'll have to push for explicitly apportioning political representation by income and handing the keys of government over to our nation's richest. Except Warren Buffet, that damn socialist. And I'm glad to see that we are teaching the young and impressionable politically motivated mumbo-jumbo without the backing of solid empirical data. We definitely don't want to teach people that real democratic governance is all but necessary to achieve political stability and economic growth at higher per capita incomes.
But I do have a serious concern. Should we nullify all votes before 1913? Up to that point, income taxes were (effectively) unconstitutional. Lincoln and Jefferson must have been Obama-communists at heart if they were elected by a bunch of people that decided how revenues were spent without paying an income tax.
Back to the post-Call me slow, but your logic here is a bit too sophisticated for me. We are going to disenfranchise the poor and renters-which should knock out all of New York City-because you should only get a say in the way funds are spent if you contribute to those funds. Right? Which, of course, means we would need to weight votes by taxes paid to properly represent each individual's contribution. Now, I'm guessing since your sooo smart, you would have a very big vote. Am I right? And what about corporations? Are we going to give Wal-Mart a permanent seat in the House of Lords, uhm, I mean, Congress? I'd also like to know why non-tax payers are allowed to use public highways and national defense, anyway. Let's stick'em all on a roadless island off the coast of Libya. Its not like our country was built on the back-breaking labor of low skill workers. And what does it mean if I go to prison? I paid for the prison, right, so I should determine how it is used, right? And I want it to be used without me in it, right? And that judge-I paid his salary, so he's got to let me go, right? Man, democracy and the rule of law sucks; bring on the rule of cash!!
But I would suggest that you take an econ class before you spout off much more-Plato might not have recognized that rents reflect property tax rates, but Adam Smith definitely did.
And we all know that if the Founding Fathers debated it then it was a good idea-like slavery and the 3/5s compromise
Well, Scott, apparently you did not read real close and have drawn a lot of extrapolation from points I have not made. No, we have not made as great political as you suppose, but rather regressions. You are a master of hyperbole.
I have taken and did very well in econ, thank you very much. Considering the amount of econ books, history books, and the like on my shelf, I think I know about which I write.
Nullification of votes prior to 1913? More hyperbole and incredibly moot considering people ultimately paid duties, imposts, and property taxes.
Disenfranchisement of the poor? Doubtful. Disenfranchisement of those who suckle off the government teat and therefore have a vested self interest in voting for those who would continue their subsidy? Abso-freakin-lutely.
Why not take it a step further? I mean, I make $70,000 a year... why should my voice count as much as the guy who makes $23,000 a year? I pay much more in taxes than him... so my opinion on those taxes should matter more. I think I should get 70,000 votes to his 23,000.
Subject: Property Ownership as qualification to on the ballot for city Office.
Comments:
Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "When I pay taxes, I buy buy civilization" The idea that renters don't pay taxes, and are thus a lesser from of citizen is simply wrong and is abhorrent to the concept of equal justice under the law.
In 1970, the U.S. Federal Court, Eastern District of Michigan Chief Judge Ralph Freeman ruled that a requirement that a candidate be an owner of real property in the political subdivision as a requirement to hold office was unconstitutional under the 5th and 14th amendments, and also violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case was Stapleton v Miller, and yes I was that Stapleton. Part of the Voting Rights Act issue was that in the city at that time, slightly over 28% of the registered voters, who otherwise would have been eligible to hold city office were bared from holding office since they were renters and not property owners, thus denying all the voters an opportunity to vote for any of them. I am amazed that 40 years later there are any of those requirements left on the books anywhere in our country, let alone any sympathy for that view. Either we are all equal before the law, all the law, or we should take the sign down. Those founding fathers that viewed property ownership as a legitimate requirement for holding office, were echoing the popular view of the time that wealth equated civic competence, a view that sports 'heroes', star entertainers and lottery winners should have long ago dispelled
Rolland Stapleton.
Rolland, you are simply mistaken about "Those founding fathers that viewed property ownership as a legitimate requirement for holding office, were echoing the popular view of the time". No, they were not echoing popular sentiment. They were putting forth the notion that those who pay the taxes have a vested interest in the vote for those who have the ability to take money from them by force. And you are incorrect that there was a view that wealth necessarily equated civic competence.
You said, "The idea that renters don't pay taxes, and are thus a lesser from of citizen". I did not put forth the idea that renters are less of a citizen. I proffered the idea that renters do not have as much of a vested interest in voting for or against those who are in charge of taxation upon real property. The two are not equivalent, as you seem to infer that I said.
Try reading the notes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 for original sentiment.
Yes, I am aware that only property voters were allowed to vote in the early days of our republic. (It was in the 1830s, I believe, that renters finally got the vote.)
If the relevant issue here is paying taxes, what if a renter has a lease which REQUIRES him to pay property taxes? (as in 'pay x dollars rent plus actual property taxes' - such leases are common in commercial and retail property)
Clearly, this renter is paying property taxes. Should he still be denied the right to vote?
Since this thread is about things like voting and paying taxes, here's a question I'd love to see discussed:
Michigan has a 'nonhomestead' tax, which is levied on rental property (and generally, on all nonagricultural real property other than a homeowner's primary residence).
This tax is dedicated to schools, and is separate from the basic school property tax levied on all property.
As a renter, I voted against this tax - which I viewed as an unfair tax levied on my home but not levied on the owner-occupied house next door - every time it was on my ballot.
Homeowners - most of whom do not own nonhomestead property subject to the tax - overwhelmingly support this tax every time it is on the ballot. (It's like free money for homeowners who don't have to pay the tax today or - like renters in the form of higher rents - in future.) This tax is so popular among homeowners that it passes routinely by huge margins like 2-1, 3-1, even 8-1 or 10-1.
At the time I lived in Michigan, most school (and concurrent school tax) elections were held on the second Monday in June, with renters casting about 10 percent of the votes - so these huge margins in favor of the tax were not being driven by renters.
Question: Should homeowners who do not own nonhomestead property be allowed to vote on the nonhomestead tax?
I have absolutely zero problem with the idea of disqualifying people who do not pay the sort of tax to which they would be subject from voting on the issue or for people who would control said taxation. If someone is on the government dole in the form of welfare, they should be disqualified from voting for people who are likely to perpetuate that cycle...or not. Those who do not pay property tax should not be allowed to vote for those who would control property tax values. If there is a non-homestead tax ballot initiative, I have no problem with those who are not subject to it not being able to vote on it.
So I have to ask; if we're going to start diminishing people's ability to vote base upon taxes.... won't that open the flood gates regarding all the other crazy ideas people have about diminishing others ability to vote. I mean, why limit the debate to economics, right? I'm a combat veteran. And I feel that because you did not (I don't really know) serve out nation in combat you are not worthy of citizenship, you have not made the survival of our nation your personal business, so there. Do you see how ridiculous it gets so quickly? Would you agree that this IS the reason we don't play this game, and (at least try) to view all as equal under the law? But to address your topic directly..."I have absolutely zero problem with the idea of disqualifying people who do not pay the sort of tax to which they would be subject from voting on the issue or for people who would control said taxation. If someone is on the government dole in the form of welfare, they should be disqualified from voting for people who are likely to perpetuate that cycle...or not. Those who do not pay property tax should not be allowed to vote for those who would control property tax values. If there is a non-homestead tax ballot initiative, I have no problem with those who are not subject to it not being able to vote on it.".... ok so who is going to keep track of who can and cannot vote on what, and since property ownership changes often, people voting status will be in flux almost continuously-not individually- but in the sense that different voters status will change all the time. And what happens when people get to vote when they shouldn't or vice-verse are denied when they should have it. I foresee incredible administrative problems with your idea sir./
"you have not made the survival of our nation your personal business"
That would be a false assumption whether or not I have served in the military.
"I mean, why limit the debate to economics, right?"
Because the Founding Fathers did. Read Madison's notes on The Constitutional Convention of 1787. Actually it is not just a matter of economics, it is a matter of ethics decided by economics.
"I foresee incredible administrative problems with your idea sir."
I don't. That is why we pay people to run local Boards of Election and provide them with plenty of office equipment.
You ignorant racist hick, that would lead to your white power utopia. You just want to strip minorities who vote democrat. How about we make a law where all people ignorant enough to believe in Jesus or any other god gets stripped of their voting rights?
Schroeder, I am laughing at your comments and the irony. If you have read American history in any depth, you would realize that the concept of voting rights being tied to property ownership is as old as the country. One primary method of taxation was on property. The concept was simply that if you do not own property that would be subject to taxation, then you do not have a vested interest in how you vote for representatives who have the power of taxation. It has ZERO to do with race, so I find your assertions of being racist laughable and ironically ignorant. Anyone of any color can own property, for instance, so how is such a suffrage concept racist? In my town and county, the method of taxation is property taxes. If there are a huge number of renters as opposed to property owners (in my town, 60% of the residents are renters), why should those who do not pay the taxes have ANY say in electing representatives that determine MY taxation? Ironically you seem to be the ignorant one. As for a hick, you have no clue to whom you write that. If you only knew...
What happens if property owners decide to allow non property owners and people on welfare to vote?
What happens is that you get exactly what we have now. People vote for their selfish interests and whomever is going to give them economic benefit at the public expense.
Troy, if someone truly owns property they are not charged property tax. Therefore, this arguement is misinformed.There aren't many people in America who actually OWN their property. Only a sovereign can own property. In America, we are citizens NOT sovereigns. In my opinion this is where we have missed it. You are on the right track but 1933 changed it all when FDR pawned our land to international bankers.
I disagree with your assertion that only sovereigns can own property, as evidenced by the fact that I personally own a lot of stuff. It is a matter of whether or not a government can and should be able to take that stuff or attach to it. That is the insidious nature of property taxation.
Your argument that only those paying property taxes or income taxes into government, should be the only ones that can vote on policy or to elect an official representative is...disturbing. Simply because of this: their inability to choose these representatives, would in no way remove them from the purview of the law or policies involved. This is like requiring someone to go to war in a draft, without giving them the vote. I could make the same argument that if you were not an active member of the military, that you should have no right to choose representatives (federal) that could send people who were *actually* affected to war. You could of course work based on a direct democracy, in this case one in which only those affected by the implications of a decision could vote for or against it. Such as only allowing those between 18 and 35 who are registered for the draft, to vote to enact it.
Moving away from military, since you don't believe the tax rates on property affect anyone that doesn't directly pay those fees (Since obviously an increase in property tax rates absolutely *never* cause an increase in renter costs to cover the increase) then how about hospitals and the medical industry? If you're not currently owning/running a hospital, or acting as a medical provider, should you have any representation in the privacy or malpractice rules? Should you not be able to vote on, or choose representatives who have a say in, creating those policies?
Lets go further, since by and large the corporations in America and employers cover the bulk of federal income (15% corporate, 32.4% employment), with the top 1% of income earners paying more than the bottom 95%, should you even *have* the right to vote as so little (comparatively) of your income goes toward paying taxes? Or perhaps you would like something more equitable. The more money you make (and pay taxes on), the more votes you get? Seems to be in the same line of logic.
This whole argument can be put to rest on all sides if we simply eliminate property taxes and include them in a fair tax. i.e. The property tax could be included whenever someone, landowner or not, buys an item such as a new car, some fast food, a new TV, etc. That way, EVERYONE would be paying a portion of property taxes without even considering it. Renters, too, would benefit since rent could then be reduced. Of course, it would be more difficult to raise the level of fairness concerning those who are simply wards of the State (those with no income at all who must be supported by those who are working) yet who are currently allowed to vote.
Owner pass on the cost of property taxes to their renters. Also, people who dont pay income tax pay sales tax, gas tax, payroll tax and numerous other taxes. Usually at an overall higher rate than those who make enough to pay income tax.
I can see you getting angry at people not paying what you see as their "fair share" but thinking they shouldnt get to vote for these reasons disgusts me.
Stephan, there are flaws in your arguments, but quite honestly, I am not in the mood to sit and type. As a matter of fact, I rarely even log onto Hub Pages any more.
Andrew, though renters do pay rent, in which is built in the cost of taxation, they still do not pay property tax and therefore do not have a direct bite upon them. As to your assertion that people who don't pay income tax pay other forms at a higher rate, you are factually incorrect. I don't care about as a percentage of income, by the way, so that argument is specious to me if that is where you are headed. If it disgusts you, then you also must be disgusted by many of the Founding Fathers, since it was their idea to begin with.
Bobb, I love the Fair Tax, but doubt it would ever be adopted to replace property taxes. It stands a chance to replace income taxes, but I doubt for property.
Yes, I agree that the Fair Tax, if it was ever enacted would probably not replace property taxes but I put that in there to try and generate some 'what if' comments. I think what we are concerned with here is that everyone stands up and helps support our Country's expenses. Some other countries, particularly in Scandinavia, have already gone through what we are going through now and perhaps we could learn a few things from them. I like the quote above: Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "When I pay taxes, I buy civilization". I think he meant that if everyone has a share, not just in the profits (the taxes paid in by workers that are paid out to those with no jobs), but also in the responsibilities, we would all be better off. After all, unless I'm mistaken, most crimes of violence are committed by folks who have literally nothing to lose. One other thing. I disagree with the thought posted above that we cannot learn from someone who died 2500 years ago. I used to also believe that when I was much younger but now I realize that knowledge of history is essential to our future.
CT was the king of poll tax which in 1600-1700's required land ownership for voting until it was abolished. Current trends of voter ID seem to retreat to those principles for voting, presumably to prevent diluting the vote by non-owners, non-taxpayers, and those without vested interests in American government.
I am not a fan of the poll tax concept, i.e., paying a specific tax in order to cast a vote. That is different from the idea of being an over all taxpayer in order to be eligible to vote. Voter ID laws are nowhere near the idea of excluding non-owners, non-taxpayers, etc. A voter ID law is simply the common sense idea of making sure that each person fairly votes just once, and as themselves. It is irrespective of whether or not you own property or pay taxes.
![Introduction to the Constitution: Some History of the Constitutional Convention [Part 2]](http://s3.hubimg.com/u/5834086_50.jpg "Introduction to the Constitution: Some History of the Constitutional Convention [Part 2]")
![On Principle and Pragmatism IIIb - Plato, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the U.S. Constitution [88]](http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5589003_50.jpg "On Principle and Pragmatism IIIb - Plato, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the U.S. Constitution [88]")
Misha 3 years ago
Another good thought Troy. :) You are on the same page with Plato and Socrates on this, and looks like it is an universal law - left to its own means, democracy will commit suiside by electing to the office those who promise more pay and less work...