Adam Carolla argued that people who do not pay federal income taxes should not be allowed to vote, contending that those who do not financially contribute to the system have an incentive to support candidates and policies that promise additional government benefits.
Carolla also extended his argument to people without government identification, saying they should not participate in elections because he does not consider them active participants in society.
“Or on infrastructure, if you are not participating in any of it in any meaningful way, and you pay no taxes, then f**k you. I don’t want you to vote. You don’t need to vote. We don’t need your vote,” Carolla said.
His argument centered on the relationship between taxation and voting. Carolla said people who pay no taxes have a financial incentive to vote for government programs because they receive the benefits without contributing financially through the tax system.
“Your vote is more free sh*t for you. That’s all it is, because you’re not paying into the system,” Carolla said.
Carolla argued that the same incentive would influence how those voters approach proposals involving higher taxes on wealthier Americans.
“So not only is it a thing where it’s like, you’re not creating anything, you’re actually voting for the free stuff,” Carolla said.
“You’re like, oh, how’s this person with no ID going to vote on the millionaire tax? Oh, well f**king pay up, b*tches. I want more free sh*t.”
Carolla continued by arguing that the economic circumstances of voters who do not pay taxes make their political preferences predictable.
“You’re f**king poor, you’re not contributing, you’re not paying any taxes, I know how you’re going to vote on everything,” Carolla said.
“It’s going to be more free sh*t for you. So no.”
Carolla then compared his proposal to laws that restrict voting by some people convicted of crimes.
He argued that society already accepts circumstances in which American citizens can lose voting rights and used that principle to support his position.
“And we do this thing where they go, prisoners aren’t allowed to vote, and I go, yeah, because they’re not part of our society,” Carolla said.
“They’re detrimental to our society.”
Carolla acknowledged the argument that incarcerated people remain American citizens and human beings, but said their conduct provides a reason to exclude them from voting.
“And I don’t know what the legalese is, but we all basically agree that if you are a purse snatcher and robbing homes and punching grandmas and you’re incarcerated, we don’t need your vote,” Carolla said.
He then presented the opposing question himself, asking why American citizenship would not be enough to retain voting rights.
“And the answer is why not? They’re still American citizens; they’re human beings; why shouldn’t they vote?” Carolla said.
“Because they’re not helping our society and I don’t want their vote.”
Carolla said he would apply a similar standard to people who do not obtain identification.
“Okay, I’m doing the same thing with people who don’t get an ID,” Carolla said.
“You’re not part of our society. F**k you.”
WATCH:
Carolla’s proposal would tie participation in elections to factors beyond citizenship and existing voter eligibility requirements, specifically whether someone pays taxes and, in his separate argument, whether that person has identification.
His comments ultimately framed voting as something that should be connected to participation in and contribution to the broader system.
Carolla maintained that people who do not financially contribute have an incentive to vote for additional government benefits funded by others, while arguing that people without identification should likewise be excluded from voting.
