Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (779660)	4/13/2014 5:39:21 AM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Schnullie Respond to of 1571634

Anyone who stalks pregnant women in laundromats should not be able to vote.

To: bentway who wrote (779660)	4/13/2014 8:56:42 PM
From: Wayners	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571634

Of course it's a very valuable service to her family and husband. He pays the taxes and votes. She didn't pay any taxes and should be allowed to vote. Think about it this way. You are on Silicon Investor so in theory you know something about investing in stocks. If you don't own any shares in IBM for example, should you be able to vote in the proxy statement for corporate officers? What you seem to be suggesting is, because somebody is a hardworking housewife, that they should be able to vote for the corporate officers of IBM. If Ann Romney didn't pay any taxes, then yes, she should not be able to cast a ballot. If you want housewives to declare their lodging and food and spending money on themselves as income in exchange for their household services, then sure, tax the value of that as income and give them the vote. I don't think that is fair however but you can't have it both ways. They can either accept the arrangement tax free, or they can pay taxes and get a right to vote based on how much they paid.