"When you say they “contribute”, I’d say no they don’t - because what we’re talking about here is TAXES, and they don’t contribute anything to the public purse."
"only people who are net contributors to the state financially should get the vote,"
I may have been off with my tone, but with respect, I was not with my characterization of your position, at least as initially presented. That is a statement that taxes ("TAXES") are the criterion for voting and that non financial contributions don't count. Hence housewives not voting, right?
I actually had you pegged as someone who displays common sense and proportion and therefore would come around to the idea of non financial contributions having or at least possibly having legitimacy, which you did. At this point, we share the same or similar premises.
(I also want a small state, although I've become more open to welfare in recent years, having seen the success that Hungary and Poland are having in preserving their culture by means of welfare chauvinism while woke capitalists in the US run rampant)
Feel free to tell me why housewives still don't qualify if you feel like it, or debate some other point, or not. No hard feelings either way.
"When you say they “contribute”, I’d say no they don’t - because what we’re talking about here is TAXES, and they don’t contribute anything to the public purse."
I may have been off with my tone, but with respect, I was not with my characterization of your position, at least as initially presented. That is a statement that taxes ("TAXES") are the criterion for voting and that non financial contributions don't count. Hence housewives not voting, right?
I actually had you pegged as someone who displays common sense and proportion and therefore would come around to the idea of non financial contributions having or at least possibly having legitimacy, which you did. At this point, we share the same or similar premises.
(I also want a small state, although I've become more open to welfare in recent years, having seen the success that Hungary and Poland are having in preserving their culture by means of welfare chauvinism while woke capitalists in the US run rampant)
Feel free to tell me why housewives still don't qualify if you feel like it, or debate some other point, or not. No hard feelings either way.
"When you say they “contribute”, I’d say no they don’t - because what we’re talking about here is TAXES, and they don’t contribute anything to the public purse."
I may have been off with my tone, but with respect, I was not with my characterization of your position, at least as initially presented. That is a statement that taxes are the criterion for voting and that non financial contributions don't count. Hence housewives not voting, right?
I actually had you pegged as someone who displays common sense and proportion and therefore would come around to the idea of non financial contributions having or at least possibly having legitimacy, which you did. At this point, we share the same or similar premises.
(I also want a small state, although I've become more open to welfare in recent years, having seen the success that Hungary and Poland are having in preserving their culture by means of welfare chauvinism while woke capitalists in the US run rampant)
Feel free to tell me why housewives still don't qualify if you feel like it, or debate some other point, or not. No hard feelings either way.