The repeal the 19th meme is funny but now I'm not sure that is as much of a problem.
The property requirement meant that only those with skin in the game were the ones who got to decide who governed. Without it we have paupers and indolents with the power to spend money that they did not earn or pay.
That inevitably leads to the death spiral from the famous quote:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Obviously no political movement can form based on this principle since our current "conservatives" are too spineless to even fight for voter ID requirements. But at least it is within the overton window allowing for public discussion.
As long as the draft and selective Service exist there's no argument that should deprive men of the vote.
There's also an argument to be made that, while havin skin in the game (aka paying taxes) is important there's also an argument to be made that men, historically didn't vote for mass-handouts and frivolous welfare. Case in point: Switzerland, one of the few countries where women got the vote way after men did, and insane tax-spending only ever exploded after they got the vote.
Sounds like the draft should be ended, and the militia system be reinstituted.
Taxation isn't "having skin in the game". There is never a direct benefit to you. That's why I recommend bonds as a form of funding.
They absolutely do. Your issue is that women vote for it at a higher rate, not that men don't do it.
"Taxation is theft" has become a meme, but it's basically true; you, as a taxpaying citizen, have no real say in how your tax money is spent. Sure, you can elect officials that might spend how you like, but that's no guarantee they won't pick this one time to start taking bribes. You'll have a hard time voting in a politician that promises to spend 100% to your liking in the first place. You could run yourself, but not for every position in existence.
Can you explain bonds and how they might solve this problem?
No.
I just spent the past hour trying to explain it in a giant comment and now I accidentally hit the back button and lost everything. Links and all.
...
I'm going to fight through my unbridled rage and sorrow and give you a small bullet list of the concept.
Sorry to hear, I know that feel.
That's great, I didn't know. If they're seperated in a useful manner, maybe I'd consider it for investing surplus money.
I'm unclear on this 'negative yield' thing, though, it sounds like it demotivates financial investment so what's the benefit to the person paying into it?
As awesome as that scenario would be, I'd count that as a strong incentive for parasites to go all out trying to prevent this from being permitted. I actually consider this to be the true motivator for anyone fighting against the idea of tax erasure (politically, I guess it could be called tax reform).