Manticoran constitution

[Louann Miller]

The section where voting is dependent on paying more in taxes than you
receive in government benefits came up in another SF forum.

Wouldn't that disenfranchise elderly people (there are plenty of pre-
prolongers still around) living on pensions? How about farmers who get
price supports? People too handicapped to work? Maybe even non-working
wives in married couples, if the couple gets X in benefits of some kind and
her income is counted as zero.

I suspect, sadly, that Weber had 'welfare queens' in mind and didn't think
any further.

[Loren Pechtel]

Post by Louann Miller
The section where voting is dependent on paying more in taxes than you
receive in government benefits came up in another SF forum.
Wouldn't that disenfranchise elderly people (there are plenty of pre-
prolongers still around) living on pensions? How about farmers who get
price supports? People too handicapped to work? Maybe even non-working
wives in married couples, if the couple gets X in benefits of some kind and
her income is counted as zero.
I suspect, sadly, that Weber had 'welfare queens' in mind and didn't think
any further.

I favor such a system but with a little difference:

1) I would base it on past-18 lifetime inflation-adjusted dollars.
The elderly would not be disenfranchised if they had earned reasonably
during their working years.

2) Farmers with price supports? Go ahead.

3) The handicapped on SSI? Yes--but I don't think this would be that
bad. They're not a big enough block to be altering elections anyway.
SSDI? Some would, some wouldn't.

4) Non-working wives--they're filing a joint return. They have paid
taxes.

[Michael R N Dolbear]

Post by Louann Miller
The section where voting is dependent on paying more in taxes than you
receive in government benefits came up in another SF forum.
Wouldn't that disenfranchise elderly people (there are plenty of pre-
prolongers still around) living on pensions? How about farmers who get
price supports? People too handicapped to work? Maybe even

non-working

Post by Louann Miller
wives in married couples, if the couple gets X in benefits of some kind and
her income is counted as zero.
I suspect, sadly, that Weber had 'welfare queens' in mind and didn't think
any further.

I think he has thought more than that and I don't think the word
"benefit" occurs.

Obviously a RMN officer can vote, even though he receives more from
government than he pays in taxes. Same for a shipbuilder who sells a
ship to the the government. So contractual is fine hence the same for
pensions ?

And also, pre-prolong, maybe there were /no/ government pensions, with
everyone having to choose a insurance company. Even unemployment
insurance could be done that way and only when that runs out would the
"safety net" kick in ?

And since the provision is of long standing, all suggestions for price
supports would be structured accordingly with, farmers, say,
incorporating their farming businesses as a matter of course.

My own criticism is rather higher level. If politicians were blamed for
unemployment or shutting down a industry, those affected could not
"vote the rascals out" which might cause a lot of trouble.

[Loren Pechtel]

Post by Michael R N Dolbear
Obviously a RMN officer can vote, even though he receives more from
government than he pays in taxes. Same for a shipbuilder who sells a
ship to the the government. So contractual is fine hence the same for
pensions ?

I wouldn't have a problem with them. That's pay for service.

Post by Michael R N Dolbear
And since the provision is of long standing, all suggestions for price
supports would be structured accordingly with, farmers, say,
incorporating their farming businesses as a matter of course.

Why do we need price supports for farmers anyway? Besides, I would
make corporations pass-through entites in this regard. The company
got $1M in price supports, there's 100,000 shares outstanding. You
got $10 in government benefits for every share you own.

Post by Michael R N Dolbear
My own criticism is rather higher level. If politicians were blamed for
unemployment or shutting down a industry, those affected could not
"vote the rascals out" which might cause a lot of trouble.

Look at my revision--lifetime numbers rather than year-by-year.