bankrupt senator

[superyob]

Question. If a bankrupt person is not allowed to hold political office, should the unemployed be allowed to vote?

[FairmontGS]

Not seeing the connection in your question?

[.:4:.]

They should be able to. Not all are unemployed by choice and many held active roles in society. Even the "dole bludger" should still have the right to have a say in what parties policies they find are best for the country. On the other hand a bankrupt polly could be seen as a person (who likely has) mismanaged funds to end up in the hole. Not very good if tasked with managing the country's debt

[superyob]

Originally Posted by FairmontGS

Not seeing the connection in your question?

The question popped into my head concerning Rod Culleton's bankruptcy and resulting ineligibility to be a senate representative. So I asked if you can't serve while bankrupt, should those drawing unemployment also be ineligible to have a vote. Both presumably have no economic power..

[aussiblue]

Are we talking about his financial or morality bankruptcy?

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by superyob

The question popped into my head concerning Rod Culleton's bankruptcy and resulting ineligibility to be a senate representative. So I asked if you can't serve while bankrupt, should those drawing unemployment also be ineligible to have a vote. Both presumably have no economic power..

Yes, unemployed people should be able to vote. It's not a question of economic power - bankrupts are disqualified under federal law. Simples.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by superyob

The question popped into my head concerning Rod Culleton's bankruptcy and resulting ineligibility to be a senate representative. So I asked if you can't serve while bankrupt, should those drawing unemployment also be ineligible to have a vote. Both presumably have no economic power..

Thats a very fair call, I didnt think of that. There is no rule that says a person who has gone bankrupt cannot get another job. Come to think of it, it's like a person who owned a vcr repair shop and stuck by it with failing sales. Technology has pretty much made the video cassette redundant.

[aussiblue]

Section 44 of the Constitution re Disqualification
Any person who….
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent….
…. shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives….

Following on from section 44 is another section stipulating how a Member or Senators position becomes vacant after taking advantage of the insolvency and bankruptcy laws that have been enacted in Australia:

Section 45 Vacancy on happening of disqualification
If a senator or member of the House of Representatives….
(ii) takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or his place shall thereupon become vacant.

per: http://www.cefa.org.au/ccf/why-can%E...sit-parliament

Prior to Federation in 1901, there was quite a bit of debate as to whether someone being bankrupt should disqualify them from sitting in the Parliament. One of the great contributors to Federation, Henry Parkes had claimed bankruptcy several times and it was still considered dishonourable during the 1890’s. The discussion at the conventions was about the harshness of disqualification when many bankruptcies occur through misfortune, illness, unemployment or unstable economic conditions.

In the end it was decided that there was the potential for a bankrupt Senator or MP to be influenced (i.e. corruption) and so this section was kept to protect the Commonwealth. Others might imagine that an MP or Senator who is trying to avoid bankruptcy might be more easily influenced so they can keep their job. This kind of sentiment led the Labor Party to claim that Senator Day’s vote was tainted and should not be accepted by the Liberal Party.

And of course as soon as an unemployed person is elected to Parliament they are no longer unemployed. And of course the should be allowed to vote; as a disadvantaged group the unemployed more than anyone should have a say about who should manage the economy of the country. Or are you suggesting we go back to the days of when only the male privileged Lords could vote? A more legitimate question might be: Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

[redxm]

Cant be a polly if your bankrupt, but ex-cons can hold office??

[superyob]

All I was asking is that if one cannot lead if one is economically unable, should one be able to have a say in the direction of the country's government while one is presumably economically unable.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by superyob

All I was asking is that if one cannot lead if one is economically unable, should one be able to have a say in the direction of the country's government while one is presumably economically unable.

So old age pensioners cannot vote?
What about disability?
What about part time workers?

And if I earn lots can I vote twice?

[aussiblue]

if one cannot lead if one is economically unable

It's not about leadership (he not the PM or even the party leader) or about be economically unable; it was about the perception that a bankrupt was more likely to be open to corruption.

In the end it was decided that there was the potential for a bankrupt Senator or MP to be influenced (i.e. corruption) and so this section was kept to protect the Commonwealth. .

I also suspect in part it was/is about serial bankrupts and the negative image they would bring to the role.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by cs123

So old age pensioners cannot vote?
What about disability?
What about part time workers?

And if I earn lots can I vote twice?

I think my original question is clear enough...

[Junkyard-Dog]

I wrote a long post, frowned at the OP and then deleted what I was going to write.

I can't even.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Junkyard-Dog

I wrote a long post, frowned at the OP and then deleted what I was going to write.

I can't even.

What is so offensive about my question JD?

Or are we only allowed to ask questions that will keep the usual echo chamber of the supporters of a particular narrative in virtue signalling, in agreement???

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by superyob

All I was asking is that if one cannot lead if one is economically unable, should one be able to have a say in the direction of the country's government while one is presumably economically unable.

It's not all about the economy/economics

Governments are there for all society and their role is FAR more than just managing the economy. Something many seem to get confused about these days, including the pollies.

Employed/Unemployed you're still part of the broader society that will be influenced by government policy. So yes, the unemployed deserve a vote as much as anyone else.




.

[Maka]

Dignity is not preserve of the rich or privileged nor is destiny...neither is luck. Ring up the Salvo's or Vinnies & ask how important unemployed volunteers are to them. Are bankrupts still allowed to vote lol? Lets stop them too then ha ha lol!

cheer's, Maka

[Junkyard-Dog]

Originally Posted by superyob

What is so offensive about my question JD?

I never said I was offended.

[LG17]

Being unemployed is a totally different kettle of fish to being an undischarged bankrupt, just as holding a political position and being able to vote are totally different.

I'm not sure how you could even think of both in the same thought.

Being unemployed shouldn't take away your rights as a voter.

[superyob]

I have worked and paid taxes all my life, since I left school many years ago. In that time, many in a generation of able bodied men have chosen to become long term parasites, living off the cream of other people's wealth. Why should they get the same voting rights???

And while you are sputtering with indignation at the very nerve of me asking such a question, give me facts as to why you disagree, not emotional feel good virtue signalling rhetoric...

[cs123]

Originally Posted by superyob

I have worked and paid taxes all my life, since I left school many years ago. In that time, many in a generation of able bodied men have chosen to become long term parasites, living off the cream of other people's wealth. Why should they get the same voting rights???

And while you are sputtering with indignation at the very nerve of me asking such a question, give me facts as to why you disagree, not emotional feel good virtue signalling rhetoric...

There is a good chance I pay a lot more tax than you. Should I get "more" of a say than you? After all I contribute more.

Here is what we can do
1: Work out someone's net position in regards to the financial contribution to Australia. That would be taxes paid - minus benefits like child supplement, medical costs etc.
2: Apportion voting based on the net contribution. So someone paying say $20K in tax PA gets 1 Vote, someone paying $80K in tax gets 4 votes.
3: Corporations pay tax too. Allow them to vote?


Seriously, voting is your right of citizenship.

I don't begrudge it going to help those that need help.

Start a thread on polly perks and I'll be right there cheering you on!!!

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by superyob

I have worked and paid taxes all my life, since I left school many years ago. In that time, many in a generation of able bodied men have chosen to become long term parasites, living off the cream of other people's wealth. Why should they get the same voting rights???

And while you are sputtering with indignation at the very nerve of me asking such a question, give me facts as to why you disagree, not emotional feel good virtue signalling rhetoric...

I'd rather pay these people their $270/week or what ever it is then my car being stolen, my house being done over or being murdered because I have $50 in my wallet.

If they want to sit back and collect their piddly tax payer money then let them, they're not living the life of luxury.

Have a look at how many jobs are going and how many unemployed and or underemployed people there are.

The numbers are hugely different, i'd rather focus on job creation, infrastructure projects nation wide, 457 visa rorting and wage exploitation rather than worrying about some douche collecting $270 a week or what ever it is on the dole (who are in the minority).

Too much worrying about losing $270 from some lazy sod rather than Apple, Google, Microsoft and mining companies paying SFA and me and you paying for them.

If anyone disagrees with my opinions then I offer the other option of a communist dictatorship with me as the evil leader, I'll make you guys do all the work, take the rewards and eventually be murdered by rebels funded and armed by the USA when I tell Apple to GAGF

[LG17]

Originally Posted by superyob

I have worked and paid taxes all my life, since I left school many years ago. In that time, many in a generation of able bodied men have chosen to become long term parasites, living off the cream of other people's wealth. Why should they get the same voting rights???

And while you are sputtering with indignation at the very nerve of me asking such a question, give me facts as to why you disagree, not emotional feel good virtue signalling rhetoric...

The right to vote has nothing to do with how much you do or don't earn.

Here's a quote from J Baker, one of the original advocates for voting rights in South Australia - "A man came here to benefit himself and his family and the fact that a large family prevented a man from acquiring property is no reason why he should be disenfranchised."


This is from the HRC -
"A healthy democracy makes sure that all members of the community have equal access to the political process. Australia is a democratic nation where governments are elected by popular vote. However, even though almost all Australians over 18 years old have the right – and the obligation – to vote, not all Australians enjoy that right as a practical matter."



Date: 2010

[ronwest]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

If anyone disagrees with my opinions then I offer the other option of a communist dictatorship with me as the evil leader, I'll make you guys do all the work, take the rewards and eventually be murdered by rebels funded and armed by the USA when I tell Apple to GAGF

Will your slogan be "Make Australia great again" ?

If so, you're a shoe-in

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by LG17

The right to vote has nothing to do with how much you do or don't earn.

I agree, I make more then alot I know who are smarter then myself, that doesn't mean I'm a wealthy person at all, I still go week to week on pays. My old man is probably the smartest man I know, took some massive risks in the late 90's to start (with 2 other colleges) a company that now has over 350 franchises in all mainland states (not sure about tasmania). He made his millions and retired 13 years ago at 50. Yes he is more in depth with politics then myself, but not working for years doesn't mean he cannot have his say, and the fact he has money then me means he has no more of a say then me. I would cut my right arm off to just get the dividends he gets once a year, but I still get my vote, because some policies will affect my situation different to his and vice versa. It's all a poll that uses all situations and their numbers and opinions to elect what is right for the people.

[fitzy1980]

Not sure what point your trying to make..

All major developed countries of the world have redistributive tax systems.

According to the ABS if your not earning at least $1200 a week your taking more from the tax system than your contributing.

May as well take away there right to vote too..

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by fitzy1980

Not sure what point your trying to make..

All major developed countries of the world have redistributive tax systems.

According to the ABS if your not earning at least $1200 a week your taking more from the tax system than your contributing.

May as well take away there right to vote too..

What about the gst? I rich person eats as much as a poor person, yet the 10% on the same amount of food is a greater percent of the poor persons income. It's a regressive tax.

[danzvtil]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

What about the gst? I rich person eats as much as a poor person, yet the 10% on the same amount of food is a greater percent of the poor persons income. It's a regressive tax.

The rich person also spends more on basics like groceries and eating out, let's face it, the more you earn the more you spend, they contribute more to gst for treasury.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by danzvtil

The rich person also spends more on basics like groceries and eating out, let's face it, the more you earn the more you spend, they contribute more to gst for treasury.

The CEO on 100x the wage of the average worker doesn't eat 100x the amount of food...

[MITCHAY]

Well when you think about it, it is the most vulnerable vote that matters most so they should absolutely have a vote. People steal to get by otherwise.

I'd much rather pay for it than have to rely on it to live. I spent nearly $5k on my holiday so I know where I want to be.