Rich people should get more votes

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

Via our friend from previous threads:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom-perkins-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

HONG KONG (CNNMoney)

Tom Perkins suggested Thursday that only taxpayers should have the right to vote -- and that wealthy Americans who pay
more in taxes should get more votes.

The venture capitalist offered the unorthodox proposal when asked to name one idea that would "change the world" at a
speaking engagement in San Francisco moderated by Fortune's Adam Lashinsky.

"The Tom Perkins system is: You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes," Perkins said.
"But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's
that?"

The audience at the Commonwealth Club reacted with laughter. But Perkins offered no immediate indication that he was
joking. Asked offstage if the proposal was serious, Perkins said: "I intended to be outrageous, and it was."

Perkins seemed to be aware that he was courting controversy, saying that his voting proposal would "make you more angry
than my letter to the Wall Street Journal."

That letter, published last month, compared the supposed assault on the wealthy to a wave of Nazi attacks on Jews
ahead of the Holocaust.

The letter sparked a public firestorm, and the venture capital firm he co-founded -- Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers --
distanced itself from his comments. Perkins has since allowed that the comparison went too far, but has not apologized for
the overall message and his warning about anti-rich "radicalism."

The Perkins plan for determining who should be allowed to vote is likely to give his critics further ammunition.

For his part, Perkins shows no signs of backing down from his argument that the rich in America are under attack. Perkins
said Thursday that the trend has grown since the election of President Obama -- who he described as an "amateur."

"The fear is wealth tax, higher taxes, higher death taxes -- just more taxes until there is no more 1%. And that that will creep
down to the 5% and then the 10%," he said.

**Fafnir**

Don't they get that already?

Besides, they also pay less taxes, anyway.

**Blood Hawk**

I am 90% positive that this guy is just trolling at this point.

**LordofHats**

I don't know. He could just be that stupid. Like having 1% of the popular decide the outcome of every election is a good idea, regardless of the economics behind that 1% XD

**cincydooley**

While I don't agree with it, I think there's merit to not allowing people that don't pay taxes a vote.

I mean, it would take votes away from most of our congressmembers :-D

**SilverMK2**

It worked for the Roman Empire... no... wait...

**daedalus**

Oh good, this guy again.

**agnosto**

I'm one of those freaks that believes we should do away with tax exemptions and credits. Not a fan of a flat tax but I believe that anyone with income should be putting in. No taxes to file for most people just a thank-you letter from the IRS at the end of the year, "Dear taxpayer, thank you for paying your fair share. Love and kisses, IRS."

**Polonius**

Blood Hawk wrote:I am 90% positive that this guy is just trolling at this point.

Seems to be. He himself said "I intended to be outrageous, and it was." So, I'm sure he's not serious, although I don't doubt it'd be what he'd like.

Though we all want things we know we won't get.

cincydooley wrote:While I don't agree with it, I think there's merit to not allowing people that don't pay taxes a vote.

I mean, it would take votes away from most of our congressmembers :-D

Depends how you define "pays tax." Everybody that buys a pack of smokes or gallon of gas is paying tax.

Anybody works over the table pays FICA tax.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ummmm, no. Democratic participation is a right to be exercised, not purchased.

**hotsauceman1**

cincydooley wrote:
While I don't agree with it, I think there's merit to not allowing people that don't pay taxes a vote.

I mean, it would take votes away from most of our congressmembers :-D

Surely your kidding. Democracy is about letting everyone participate in government.

**agnosto**

The US is a Republic not a Democracy.

**Polonius**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
While I don't agree with it, I think there's merit to not allowing people that don't pay taxes a vote.

I mean, it would take votes away from most of our congressmembers :-D

Surely your kidding. Democracy is about letting everyone participate in government.

Except its not. Children can't vote, and neither can felons. Most states had property requirements to vote prior to the Jacksonian era.

Now, poll taxes are explicitly forbidden under the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, so it's not going to happen, but the impetus for the amendment was its role in suppressing black voting the south, not any really class related purpose.

Still, it's blackletter law, so good luck changing it.

**d-usa**

agnosto wrote:
The US is a Republic not a Democracy.

Every time somebody types that stupid phrase a founding father goes to hell...

**hotsauceman1**

agnosto wrote:
The US is a Republic not a Democracy.

Pedantic, We have a democractic process to much of our election. Electing the new Govenor, Congressman, and other such things. We have a direct democracy when it comes to things like propositions.
We are a country founded in democracy. We are a Democracy

**LordofHats**

agnosto wrote:
The US is a Republic not a Democracy.

I knew the moment I read this thread someone would start that XD

**agnosto**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
agnosto wrote:
The US is a Republic not a Democracy.

Pedantic, We have a democractic process to much of our election. Electing the new Govenor, Congressman, and other such things. We have a direct democracy when it comes to things like propositions.
We are a country founded in democracy. We are a Democracy

No, there is a huge difference between a Democracy and a Republic; it's in every piece of official documentation all the way back to the founding fathers. Under a Republic there are some democratic mechanisms in place but there is a distinct difference between a Republic and Democracy. If we were a true Democracy, we would not have many of the Constitutional Amendments that are in place but we would also not see the work of government being paralyzed by fringe elements in a given party. Democracies are absolute majority rules whereas Republics have rules and protections in place with emphasis on the rule of law.

Personally, I believe that the US form of government is neither of the above but is closer to a Plutarchy or Oligarchy due to such conventions as the Electoral College which has greater power than the Popular Vote. The fact is that your vote means spit in the US; we go through the motions of democractic processes but the people in power always look the same.

-- Sorry pet peeve of mine because I live in a state where the federal government is always trying to take away the rights of the majority of the US who apparently believe we still live in the middle ages. I am thankful that at least this state isn't a Democracy because they'd still have hanging trees or something equally ridiculous.

**cincydooley**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
While I don't agree with it, I think there's merit to not allowing people that don't pay taxes a vote.

I mean, it would take votes away from most of our congressmembers :-D

Surely your kidding. Democracy is about letting everyone participate in government.

Like Polonius said, it's not, not entirely.

I mean, I'd actually have no problem with citizens being required to take a basic civics test (like the one we make people take to become citizens) to vote.

I mean, that way it really only disenfranchises stupid people, which I'm completely okay with

While we're at it I also think:

--you should have to retest for your drivers license (definitely NOT a right) every 5 years or so after you turn 55 or 60.
--everyone in the US should be issued a free ID, and for plenty of reasons that don't include voting.
--men should be able to sign away their parental rights during the same timeframe a woman can abort a fetus and not be on the hook for child support.
--the NFL and other major sports should have their Tax Exempt status removed
--Women should be allowed on the front lines of the military if they can meet the same standards presently set for men.
--both members of a gay couple should not be allowed to be listed as parents on a birth certificate.
--gay couples should be affored the same rights (taxes, insurance) as any other couple entering the contract of marriage in the US.

Have at it

**agnosto**

d-usa wrote:
agnosto wrote:
The US is a Republic not a Democracy.

Every time somebody types that stupid phrase a founding father goes to hell...

They were all rich land owners... Kind of similar to who runs everything now...

Historian George Thayer wrote: When [George Washington] ran for the Virginia House of Burgesses from Fairfax County in 1757, he provided his friends with the 'customary means of winning votes'; namely, 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and 2 gallons of cider royal. Even in those days this was considered a large campaign expenditure, because there were only 391 voters in his district, for an average outlay of more than a quart and half per person.

And they were apparently drunkards as well...

**LordofHats**

cincydooley wrote:

--you should have to retest for your drivers license (definitely NOT a right) every 5 years or so after you turn 55 or 60.

Agist pig

--everyone in the US should be issued a free ID, and for plenty of reasons that don't include voting.

Well lets just hand the identity thieves the key to the city! (not really, I don't have an issue with this. We could probably eliminate the normal Drivers Liscense Card and just make a citizenship card that includes most of the same information along with a DL box that says the citizen is certified to drive).

--men should be able to sign away their parental rights during the same timeframe a woman can abort a fetus and not be on the hook for child support.

Sexist! (meh, I'm conflicted on this issue but in the end I think this is a bad idea for society as a whole unless some social system was set in place to help support those children and the mothers)

--the NFL and other major sports should have their Tax Exempt status removed

FOOTBALL! (I don't really care)

--Women should be allowed on the front lines of the military if they can meet the same standards presently set for men.

Everyone knows women should be in the kitchen

(/sarcasm. This isn't going so well so far is it? Haven't many of the women applying by these standards ended up falling out of training? I haven't followed up on it in sometime. Way behind on the info.)

--both members of a gay couple should not be allowed to be listed as parents on a birth certificate.

Seriously though we do this? DO they still list both biological parents? I don't care if both of the couple are there so long as there's documentation of the biological parents as well (assuming it is known).

--gay couples should be affored the same rights (taxes, insurance) as any other couple entering the contract of marriage in the US.

Oh, and dem gays gonna ruin our marriages!

Have at it

I reject your reality and substitute it with my Skyrim (did I do it right?)

true Democracy

The greatest no true scottsmen that ever was.

**Polonius**

The differences between republics, oligarchies, democracies, and the like are all very blurry.

Republics emphasize the role of the people in public affairs. We do that.

Democracies emphasize political participation by all (or nearly all) citizens. We do that.

Direct democracies have everybody vote on everything. We don't do that, although many states have referendums and the like.

Representative democracies elect people to represent them. We do that.

Oligarchies are the rule of a relatively small section of the population, but more then one person or one family. Many argue that the outsized influence of the mega wealthy, we have that.

The problem is that these terms were created to describe ancient Greek City states. Athens could have all citizens vote on stuff, because that was a few thousand guys. The US could restrict voting only to those that own $1 million in gold bullion, and the US would still have hundreds of thousands of potential voters.

We are, in fact, a democratic republic.

**DogofWar1**

I wish I could believe that, deep down, he's trolling, but I have a feeling it's more of a situation where he said he was being outrageous so he could say he was joking, and avoid too much backlash, but deep down he really wants to see it happen.

It's sad, because the game is already rigged in their favor, what with corporate personhood and campaign finance and lobbying laws being what they are, but this guy wants it rigged even more.

Heck, it'd be one thing to say "no taxes no vote," but then to take it further and try and give the richest people the most votes? Well that's just crazy.

Also, Perkins probably doesn't understand that everyone pays payroll taxes at 6.2% on the first 106K income, so a lot more people would get to vote than he thinks.

d-usa wrote:

Every time somebody types that stupid phrase a founding father goes to hell...

I think they're all there then. I've seen that phrase way more times than there are signatures on the Declaration of Independence. I'll bet the whole colonial army is downstairs by now.

**Kilkrazy**

It's people like him that justify the Nazi style campaign to persecute the rich.

**hotsauceman1**

cincydooley wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
While I don't agree with it, I think there's merit to not allowing people that don't pay taxes a vote.

I mean, it would take votes away from most of our congressmembers :-D

Surely your kidding. Democracy is about letting everyone participate in government.

Like Polonius said, it's not, not entirely.

I mean, I'd actually have no problem with citizens being required to take a basic civics test (like the one we make people take to become citizens) to vote.

I mean, that way it really only disenfranchises stupid people, which I'm completely okay with

While we're at it I also think:

--you should have to retest for your drivers license (definitely NOT a right) every 5 years or so after you turn 55 or 60.
--everyone in the US should be issued a free ID, and for plenty of reasons that don't include voting.
--men should be able to sign away their parental rights during the same timeframe a woman can abort a fetus and not be on the hook for child support.
--the NFL and other major sports should have their Tax Exempt status removed
--Women should be allowed on the front lines of the military if they can meet the same standards presently set for men.
--both members of a gay couple should not be allowed to be listed as parents on a birth certificate.
--gay couples should be affored the same rights (taxes, insurance) as any other couple entering the contract of marriage in the US.

Have at it

Quick Question. What is stupid? How do you define who is stupid? How do you know the persone who took the test is actually that smart
and isnt someone
1:Ok,
2: ISnt that already a thing?
3:Maybe, Im not sure on that.
4: Why they feth did they get that in the first place
5: Sure
6: Im confused? So even if both are parents only one on the birth certificate?
7: Ok, aslong as it can be called marriage.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It's people like him that justify the Nazi style campaign to persecute the rich.

Careful there. You may have been trying to make a funny, but the Jews at the time were weighted much more heaviliy in the wealthier segments of society.

**cincydooley**

@Lord - I don't think you're required to put a father on the birth certificate. I know some state (California maybe, lemme google fu it) is allowing up to 4 people as legal parents on a birth certificate.

Personally, I think this is wrong, as it is impossible. You can only have two biological parents.

I'm fine with them putting legal guardians on there however.

Maybe the separation is pedantic. I personally don't think it is.

**LordofHats**

Well if the child ever need medical care (which is like, every child) knowing who the biological parents are and having access to that information is important. I don't care if its on the birth certificate, but it should be somewhere in the medical file.

**Polonius**

Adoption paperwork in general is tricky, with the difference between birth parents and "parents from birth."

it's really more of a bioethics issue then a legal one, gay couples or not.

**cincydooley**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Quick Question. What is stupid? How do you define who is stupid? How do you know the persone who took the test is actually that smart
and isnt someone

**hotsauceman1**

I think we are close of Off tpicing this.