UK election

[StCapps]

Not voting in a winner-takes-all system is perfectly rational. Especially if neither of the top candidates represents your values or the outcome is a given. Election turnout is measured so a vote not cast is also counted. Low participation might be a signal that brings forth a new option.

I said policy not lack of choices. But that low participation being taken as a signal. That doesn't fly in this country, the common refrain is "if you don't vote you can't complain." Or you'll just be looked at as plain lazy. There is nothing pragmatic about it.

Vote or don't, chances are your "signal" is irrelevant either way. You certainly aren't going to change the options by refusing to vote for one of the options, that's not how it works.

[Montegriffo]

Not voting in a winner-takes-all system is perfectly rational. Especially if neither of the top candidates represents your values or the outcome is a given. Election turnout is measured so a vote not cast is also counted. Low participation might be a signal that brings forth a new option.

My decision to remove myself from the electoral roll wasn't about not voting.
Maggie had passed a law which made it against illegal not to be registered with a fine of £400. This was to ensure that nobody avoided paying the poll tax.
The poll tax, for those who don't know, replaced rates or property tax and was one price across the board.
This meant that the poorest in society paid the same as the richest. In other words, more Tory tax cuts for the rich.
I never paid a penny.

[StCapps]

Not voting in a winner-takes-all system is perfectly rational. Especially if neither of the top candidates represents your values or the outcome is a given. Election turnout is measured so a vote not cast is also counted. Low participation might be a signal that brings forth a new option.

My decision to remove myself from the electoral roll wasn't about not voting.
Maggie had passed a law which made it against illegal not to be registered with a fine of £400. This was to ensure that nobody avoided paying the poll tax.
The poll tax, for those who don't know, replaced rates or property tax and was one price across the board.
This meant that the poorest in society paid the same as the richest. In other words, more Tory tax cuts for the rich.
I never paid a penny.

What's wrong with tax cuts for the rich?

[Montegriffo]

Not voting in a winner-takes-all system is perfectly rational. Especially if neither of the top candidates represents your values or the outcome is a given. Election turnout is measured so a vote not cast is also counted. Low participation might be a signal that brings forth a new option.

My decision to remove myself from the electoral roll wasn't about not voting.
Maggie had passed a law which made it against illegal not to be registered with a fine of £400. This was to ensure that nobody avoided paying the poll tax.
The poll tax, for those who don't know, replaced rates or property tax and was one price across the board.
This meant that the poorest in society paid the same as the richest. In other words, more Tory tax cuts for the rich.
I never paid a penny.

What's wrong with tax cuts for the rich?

What the poll tax meant in practice was that a mansion with one very rich person living in it cost one-fifth of what a council house with 5 people crammed into it cost.
The poll tax or the rates before it was to pay for local services.
This injustice caused massive riots and dissent and eventually cost Thatcher her job.

[StCapps]

My decision to remove myself from the electoral roll wasn't about not voting.
Maggie had passed a law which made it against illegal not to be registered with a fine of £400. This was to ensure that nobody avoided paying the poll tax.
The poll tax, for those who don't know, replaced rates or property tax and was one price across the board.
This meant that the poorest in society paid the same as the richest. In other words, more Tory tax cuts for the rich.
I never paid a penny.

What's wrong with tax cuts for the rich?

What the poll tax meant in practice was that a mansion with one very rich person living in it cost one-fifth of what a council house with 5 people crammed into it cost.
The poll tax or the rates before it was to pay for local services.
This injustice caused massive riots and dissent and eventually cost Thatcher her job.

What a poll tax meant in practice, is that everyone pays the same rate.

ZOMG a flat tax! A tax that isn't progressive? The rich already pay more than their fair share, how dare they not be charged more than everyone else when it comes to one tax?

Again, what is wrong with tax cuts for the rich? Seems like you British faggots are just knee-jerk against any tax cuts for the rich.

[Montegriffo]

A tax cut for the rich paid for by the poor. What could possibly be wrong with that?

[StCapps]

A tax cut for the rich paid for by the poor. What could possibly be wrong with that?

It's paid for by the rich even more than it's paid for by the poor. The rich pay a much higher percentage of the taxes than the poor do, just because one tax doesn't skew that even more in the poor's favor doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. Taxing the rich less does not result in taxing the poor more, that's not how it works, false dichotomy.

[Montegriffo]

A tax cut for the rich paid for by the poor. What could possibly be wrong with that?

It's paid for by the rich even more than it's paid for by the poor. The rich pay a much higher percentage of the taxes than the poor do, just because one tax doesn't skew that even more in the poor's favor doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. Taxing the rich less does not result in taxing the poor more, that's not how it works, false dichotomy.

With the poll tax, it did.
It was also the kind of pay to vote scheme that cost Charles I his head.
Maggie only lost hers metaphorically.

[StCapps]

A tax cut for the rich paid for by the poor. What could possibly be wrong with that?

It's paid for by the rich even more than it's paid for by the poor. The rich pay a much higher percentage of the taxes than the poor do, just because one tax doesn't skew that even more in the poor's favor doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. Taxing the rich less does not result in taxing the poor more, that's not how it works, false dichotomy.

With the poll tax, it did.

You said it yourself, everyone pays the same. The rich paying the same as the poor, is not the poor paying more taxes. Tax cuts for the rich is not raising taxes on the poor, that's not how it works.

[Montegriffo]

It's paid for by the rich even more than it's paid for by the poor. The rich pay a much higher percentage of the taxes than the poor do, just because one tax doesn't skew that even more in the poor's favor doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. Taxing the rich less does not result in taxing the poor more, that's not how it works, false dichotomy.

With the poll tax, it did.

You said it yourself, everyone pays the same. The rich paying the same as the poor, is not the poor paying more taxes. Tax cuts for the rich is not raising taxes on the poor, that's not how it works.

They tried to replace a tax on each household with a tax on the individual weighted massively in favour of the rich.
A clear bribe of the electorate which failed spectacularly.

Besides,

no taxation without representation