1 person 1 vote is stupid. Democracy was never supposed to be this way.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Why should a homeless man on drugs on the streets have the same vote as a hard working billionaire who creates thousands of jobs and pays millions in taxes to contribute to schools, hospitals, science and technology research at universities and so on? It's not fair. In my opinion, a person's vote should be weighted by how much tax that person contributes. People who pay more taxes have more voting power. People who pay less taxes have less voting power. If a person pays 1 million in taxes a year, that person's vote is worth 1 million. If a person pays 0 in taxes in a year, that person's vote is worth 0. This way, voting would not be dominated by those who want handouts and bailouts. What do you think?

The above is an unmitigated consignment of geriatric shoemakers. You want to create an oligarchy do you? No, sorry, a kleptocracy?
I can only conclude that your statement is designed to troll people and get furious responses from people you already denigrate.

If everyone has the same vote, then everyone should pay the same % of income as tax, like in Russia, rather than have the poor pay a lower % of income as tax and the rich pay a higher % of income as tax.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
If everyone has the same vote, then everyone should pay the same % of income as tax, like in Russia, rather than have the poor pay a lower % of income as tax and the rich pay a higher % of income as tax.

I see that you seem intent on doubling down on inane statements whilst ignoring the fact that your original statement remains a consignment of unmitigated geriatric shoemakers, as others have stated. Repeatedly.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Bit of an out there idea really, are you a relative of Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg

I say one person one post is unfair, only people with 5000 posts can make a post, if you have less you can only observe and your opinion is not valued.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
If everyone has the same vote, then everyone should pay the same % of income as tax, like in Russia, rather than have the poor pay a lower % of income as tax and the rich pay a higher % of income as tax.

Yeah, like Russia....... We should be like Russia......

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Why should a homeless man on drugs on the streets have the same vote as a hard working billionaire who creates thousands of jobs and pays millions in taxes to contribute to schools, hospitals, science and technology research at universities and so on? It's not fair. In my opinion, a person's vote should be weighted by how much tax that person contributes. People who pay more taxes have more voting power. People who pay less taxes have less voting power. If a person pays 1 million in taxes a year, that person's vote is worth 1 million. If a person pays 0 in taxes in a year, that person's vote is worth 0. This way, voting would not be dominated by those who want handouts and bailouts. What do you think?

By this logic, I'm working hard to get to a point in life where I'd have less of a voice than I could- instead giving away my voice to those who seek to exploit me.

you're supporting giving more power to those who seek power, and less power to the rest of us.

While I see why you might want to give less of a voice to those who leech off of the system, this isn't the way to do it.

Money isn't everything- and income taxes, last I checked, were still unconstitutional in the first place.

This is the land of the free- and it was long before the US dollar corrupted the hearts and minds of our leadership.

I don't believe anyone that uses government welfare for the majority of their income should be allowed to vote. They simply keep voting for a free ride. On the flip side, I vote the opposite because I don't want my taxes going to freeloaders. We both vote for our agendas. In short, my own argument falls on its face and things work as they should. God Bless the electoral college though because of cities like Atlanta and San Francisco.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Picking controversial topics and discussing them intelligently with ideas and examples to paint a picture is different than trolling.

Don't get me wrong, I love seeing someone get hot and bothered when you have a solid point supported by facts.

But this isn't that, and you know it.

Or maybe you know who is behind this possible second account so you're in on the joke

a reply to: allsee4eye

An oligarchy? How nice.

You want to add landed nobility in this utopia you envision, too? Hereditary lords with droit de seigneur, and other rights as well?

We have a Republican Democracy here that has been tweaked with the additions of the 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution.

I seriously doubt you could come up with anything better. God knows this ain't a better idea...not even remotely.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Somehow I knew the wonderful Russia would come into this conversation at some point...

Since you're describing, and advocating for, an oligarchy I'm not in the slightest bit surprised you'd use Russia as an example.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: DBCowboy

Picking controversial topics and discussing them intelligently with ideas and examples to paint a picture is different than trolling.

Don't get me wrong, I love seeing someone get hot and bothered when you have a solid point supported by facts.

But this isn't that, and you know it.

Or maybe you know who is behind this possible second account so you're in on the joke

Nah. I'm not that savvy.

I just don't take too much seriously.

I see ATS as a bunch of people sitting at a bar drinking and arguing.

a reply to: seagull

Russia is far less corrupt than America. Russia has single payer. Russia has flat tax. Both are good ideas that are politically impossible in America.

originally posted by: TommyD1966
If you are talking about the U.S.A. - then no. Not the way our country was founded.

Just because I make more $$$ than someone else, I should have more votes/control?

Paying more taxes doesn't mean you are smart - making more money doesn't necessarily mean you are smart.

I'd argue that people who make more money are better at getting deductions and overall don't pay that much in taxes, on a percentage basis.

Two people each make $1M a year. The smart one uses the current tax code to pay $10k in taxes, and the 'dumb' one pays $100k in taxes. The dumb one should get 10x the vote?

Holy cow I think your on to something. But I do not think it should be how much tax you pay but what percentage of your income you pay. A janitor can work just as hard for their money and we need janitors that want to work hard.

If your so astute that you can keep your tax contribution to a low level the you give up ground in how much your vote counts. It's not a rare situation. Banks only lend on your taxable income if you have no assets to put down. If you write off most of your income and pay a low tax percentage, the banks will not favor you as much as if you had claimed a high income and paid a high percentage in tax.

I think breaking up the votes into regions is fair too like we do here in Canada. It keeps the major cities from dictating how the low population areas of the country are governed. That's as fair as it gets without getting ultra-capitalist...

At the federal level, given the state of affairs, I get the impression only the 535 people actually have votes that mean anything. And those a generally up for sale to entities with enough power and money to persuade their vote.

Electing a president doesn't mean much any more, it seems to me. Is your rep really looking out for you if you are an average citizen.

If only rich people had the power vote, what would lobbyist do? Smile all day I guess.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Um...a homeless man on the streets without an I.D. and without registering in a residental precinct...cant vote.

Must be different in Canada...

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: seagull

Russia is far less corrupt than America. Russia has single payer. Russia has flat tax. Both are good ideas that are politically impossible in America.

(Pause)
Have you seen the current kleptocracy around Vladimir Putin, a man who wants to stay in power as long as is humanly possible?
Oh wait, you started this thread, with its ridiculous and ill-founded premise.
By the way, there's another unmitigated consignment of geriatric shoemakers here. It has to be yours I take it?

a reply to: allsee4eye

Just because someone makes a million doesn't mean they contribute anything. Plenty of individuals have inherited mpney made by their Grandparents and have never contributed to Society in any way what so ever.

Many in that group simply end up taking from Society, yes they may pay more taxes than someone else but since they did nothing to contribute to society other sit on a beach, why should they be rewarded with extras ?

The guy who worked and made widgets for society and paid taxes on what he earned may have paid less tax because he made less but made widgets, which means the company he worked for paid tax, the employees paid tax, and they sold widgets which also produced sales tax.

The man who inherited his money did nothing but drink on the beach and fly around the world but his Grandparents money earned enough interest that he had to pay taxes so he should be rewarded for it ? Your Canadian logic does not surprise me considering how your government just paid 10 million to a terrorist that killed a US soldier. even confessed to it, keep your brand of Democracy to yourself

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Putin does what is within bounds of the Russian constitution. I don't judge a man I do not know. He is very popular in Russia. No man who is not popular can stay in power.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Putin does what is within bounds of the Russian constitution. I don't judge a man I do not know. He is very popular in Russia. No man who is not popular can stay in power.

I had no idea that you were a fan of Vlad. Come off it. How many times has he rewritten the Russian constitution to stay in power now? Twice? Three times? More?
The premise of your thread is, and you continue to utter, a consignment of geriatric shoemakers. Address that.