Would you be in favour or against a suffrage where only net taxpayers are allowed to vote?

this.
land ownership is the only way to go

Owning property, having children, married, and paid taxes the previous year would be appropriate criterion.

Paying taxes is illegal faggot. If you pay income tax you are a fucking slave. Slaves should not be allowed to vote. Therefore only those who don't pay income taxes should be allowed to vote.

New proposal: only father and mother of at least one 100% white child get the right to vote.

I'd be for it. 99% of America's rich would not be allowed to vote anymore. They would have to get candidates in the way they always have.
Money, lying, propaganda, and if that all fails, flat out rigging.

I don't think you'd like a America where the people who pay, are the ones who get say.

White men who have completed military service should be able to vote and hold office. Any kind of wealth test just puts oligarchs in charge.

Male taxpayers.

This is not only the earliest reply, but it is also the most correct one.

>And Mother
French to the core

No, with this system if you like chose to stay at home for a while with your kids instead of sending them to kindergarten you’ll become a second class citizen who isn’t able to vote.
NO. People without land and you know women also need representation. Not all issues in societies are issues that are towards property owning men. Women have unique problems and perspectives that men don’t know, care or understand that need to be represented and also people who don’t own property also need to be represented.

>Women have unique problems and perspectives that men don’t know, care or understand that need to be represented and also people who don’t own property also need to be represented.
>flag

How much have you donated to pokimane this month?

None?

Sure, if you implement draft for everyone. Not only should you have to pay but also die for your choice.

Predicating the right to vote on how much you pay to the state means that eventually, people with more money will argue that their vote should be proportional to their contribution.

Voting or any other participation in the political system should only be granted to people who have already demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice their wellbeing for the wellbeing of their people, ie those who have done some kind of national service.

>draft for everyone
What about women. They'll only larp during the draft, and in a real war scenario, not only they'll flee away, but they'll be counter productivite, to the point you won't deploy them on the front unless you'll want to lose.

Ah, so you're just a broke simp, I gotcha.

No I’m not.

Women shouldn't serve in the military, period. But they could do some kind of national service as nurses, teachers, or day care workers.

>What about women.
Most wouldn't make it through training and thus wouldn't get to vote, just as it should be.

Except that, as experience shows us, they'll lower the standards, or create a separate set of standards for women.

No. Stupid. Do people lose their right to vote if they get sick and need medical attention?

for it no second thoughts

Why are you so against women being represented and having political power...

Precedent

Meh. I used to favor it, but I'm not so fond of it anymore. We don't live in NaziSim IRL, and the corrupt asshats who stalk dissidents through it are basically psychotic.

IRL we're a few years out from being able to do a LOT to improve the productivity of the poor. In NaziSim, welfare is largely a waste of money. You're just paying people to be marginally gentler. Back to IRL, welfare systems actually try to implement best practice interventions to help people live more functional, satisfying lives.

In this, welfare functions as a channel for technological advantages to more completely perfuse throughout society, and this power will get stronger as medicine advances into more advanced rejuvenation potentials. It is the poor whose bodies have the most to gain from rejuvenation, and even intellectual potentials are best enacted in good health.

If you give politics to net taxpayers and they strip welfare, we'll lose a lot of technological and productive potential over the next several decades.

Because you "people" are too stupid to even form a proper question.

??

>people with more money will argue that their vote should be proportional to their contribution
O more probably they'll push for less and less taxes progressively excluding the lower end of net taxpayers from the suffrage thus creating an oligarchy in the long run. Maybe an universal suffrage with a tax choice system will be ideal. Net taxpayers should instead choose in which, and how much, government's programs allocate their collected money.

>People without land and you know women also need representation
Then they should buy land. Only people who have invested in the nation's well being should get a say. Fuck the parasites and the foreigners.

I never said my gender and women and men are just as smart on average. Like if you seriously don’t want women’s perspectives and issues to be represented in the government I don’t even know what to tell you. Excluding half of the population from having representation in the government is not a good idea... Also men and women tend to vote basically the same like there’s some small differences sure but it’s not big at all.
Not owning land doesn’t make you a parasite.

Minimum IQ level of 130 to vote.

Women should be represented by their husbands, the husband votes for the family.

And I'll say it again, that basing voting rights on how good of a taxslave you are is a terrible idea. It should be based on completion of national service and be restricted to white males.

low iq freeloaders as you, only vote for more gibs

>Like if you seriously don’t want women’s perspectives and issues to be represented in the government I don’t even know what to tell you. Excluding half of the population from having representation in the government is not a good idea...
Why is it not a good idea? Looking at how men are the ones paying and dying for it and looking at how women have been voting these past couple decades, how can it be in any rational man's interest to have them keep the vote?

Why shouldn’t a wife be able to vote though :|
And I feel like husbands would only make laws then that benefit them. Also do only married men get to vote in your world?

Almost no women pay net tax across their lifetime.

Most women don't break even until they are 55, and those that do fall behind again as soon as they retire.

>Why is it not a good idea?
Because women face problems too and those problems need to be represented.
>Looking at how men are the ones paying and dying for it and looking at how women have been voting these past couple decades, how can it be in any rational man's interest to have them keep the vote?
First off there’s no wars anymore in Europe and secondly women are paying taxes too, but they aren’t paying as much because they do more housework and spend more time with their kids instead of their career, so do you then really really want to say that you think that women should work in the workforce and do less housework and stay home less with their kids?

As soon as nations started giving voting rights to women, women voted for policies that weakened their nations and societies. See: abortion, sex descrimination laws, welfare and other payments for women.

>Women have unique problems and perspectives that men don’t know, care or understand that need to be represented and also people who don’t own property also need to be represented.
that's what we're trying to avoid
those perspectives lead to net taxpayers supporting freloaders

Almost all problems faced by women would be solved by a return to a traditional culture that protects women by restricting their worst impulses.

I don’t think those are the cause of women being allowed to vote.