Perkins: The Rich Should Get More Votes

Why shouldn't the wealthy (those who actually pay most of the taxes) have more of a say in how their money is spent compared to those who don't pay any form of income tax? People think just because they have money withheld from their check and then that amount and in a lot of cases, more money, refunded to them means they actually pay taxes. Only those who actually pay should be the ones voting for how their money is spent.

People who contribute nothing should not be able to vote for whoever promises them more of other peoples money

As the old quote says....

[QUOTE]A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy[QUOTE]

reply to post by doubletap


Because if the Wealthy and elite hold 99.99999% then you get a system no diffrent to European medievil ages!

The poor and middle class have no say or rights!

The rich hold all the power and resources IE Lords and Barons

The middle class are kept about as loyal pets in the hope that they can get some scraps or maybe on the slight offchance a Lordship IE Knights

And the working class? Kept down and oppresed with no chance of ever bettering themselfs or imrpovemnt, Born,work, die poor.



You get TYRANNY!

All should have a equal say.

reply to post by jtma508


Why not give the rich their own country, where just they live and they can have as many votes as they like.

The rest of us could go and create a society without them and we can see how far they get without any slaves?

jjkenobi
reply to post by jtma508

 

There is some merit that you should be a contributing member of society to have a say in how things are ran. For example, if your brother didn't have a job, lived with you and ate your food, and did not contribute any funds or housework would you let him make budgeting decisions for your household? Why should he get to vote for HBO and the higher Internet Speed package? I feel the same way about life long welfare/food stamp recipients.

Well put, and no complaints on your politics.. how much of a contribution to society is required to be able to have a say in it? The answer would be an insult to someone, somewhere-- for no other reason than one's life being of more worth than another's.

I know several people out there who are extremely well off, and contribute a lot to their communities-- and are politically aware enough to make me remember Confucious'
cautionary of that 'little knowledge'. Example, one of my oldest friends is a recent PhD in political science and a lifelong state employee; and can't even tell you who founded the UN (and own it).

It was a tradition during old fashioned feudalism that only the people who owned land were all that could vote. If they had their way, we'd be back there in a second.
Too late, it seems oligarchical fascism already got 'er dun....

crazyewok

strongfp
reply to post by jtma508

 

Why is the U.S so fascinated with taxes?
No other country in the world foams at the mouth when people don't pay their taxes on time, or, when they see a homeless person they automatically label them as tax evaders ... boggles me a little.
Now, I know taxes are important for a stable country, but it's made so evident in the U.S how important taxes are, when they don't even spend the public's money wisely in the first place! Don't even have proper health care.

Rember the whole foundation of the USA was built on the fact a few British colonists didnt want to pay there taxes to britain

This is true, but it was more of a 'legal' rebellion against the king, a way for the wealthy to feel more in control. So in sense the wealthy have always been in control of the states.

You must also remember, before the 18th amendment was put in place nearly 70% of taxes were from the rich, from large company's - mainly the German breweries - it was only when income tax was introduced they took all these taxes off them to compensate for the lose of alcohol taxes.
Which makes you think, was prohibition just a scapegoat to get the tax man off their backs? Think about it, all the major breweries who literally kept America alive are still around today, survived prohibition. Which, coincidentally happened during the depression as well. A whole restructuring of a country.

Beavers
reply to post by jtma508

 

Why not give the rich their own country, where just they live and they can have as many votes as they like.

The rest of us could go and create a society without them and we can see how far they get without any slaves?

It could never work that way-- because in disregard of age,
Merovingians love playing with their food. And it isn't restricted to just that bloodline.

jtma508
So the man who compared the assault on the rich to the Nazi holocaust believes that the more money you pay in taxes the more votes you get, He believes that the country should operate more like a corporation. So it's not enough that they buy politicians, decide who gets to be President, sway and direct legislation, write the tax code, etc. but they want to ensure it continues by more directly controlling the outcome of elections.

He said:

"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?"

These people just don't get it. Look around the world Tom. This kind of attitude is what has people in the streets and is bringing down governments. The worm is turning Tom. The worm is turning.

The Article

But, they DON'T pay more in taxes. In most cases the uber rich pay no taxes and they get subsidies from government. We are actually paying them to make them richer through paying taxes. From a corporate standpoint, GE comes to mind. GE doesn't pay taxes, gets the subsidies and then the CEO gets the bonuses and dumps thier money offshore into foundations, shows a very low income and gets subsidies through the tax program (in Canada it is HST refunds).

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by jtma508


Been giving some thought to this proposal.
I think a much better system would be to only allow those of "TRUE" American decent to vote.
I am not wealthy but my family has been here since before the United States was formed. Actually, I can document members of the family who fought along side of Washington in the French-Indian wars.
So let's be sure we extend to right to vote ONLY to those citizens best qualified to speak for America

crazyewok


Because if the Wealthy and elite hold 99.99999% then you get a system no diffrent to European medievil ages!

The poor and middle class have no say or rights!

The rich hold all the power and resources IE Lords and Barons

The middle class are kept about as loyal pets in the hope that they can get some scraps or maybe on the slight offchance a Lordship IE Knights

And the working class? Kept down and oppresed with no chance of ever bettering themselfs or imrpovemnt, Born,work, die poor.



You get TYRANNY!

All should have a equal say.

edit on 14-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

Specifically, what rights do the wealthy have that the poor and middle class do not?

There is no logical reason to allow people who contribute nothing to vote on how other peoples money is spent. That results in the same mess we are currently in : people who contribute nothing voting for idiots who promise to give them more of other people's money via redistribution.

reply to post by doubletap


Because if you cut out the poor and middle classed and give 99% to the wealthy they will change things to cut rights secure the remaining wealtha nd power for themselfs while keeping those below them down.

Giving the rich all the power is just as bad as giving all the power to the poor

reply to post by teamcommander


So that would be the people you currently have living in reservations then would it?

reply to post by doubletap


Keep a couple of things in mind. He not only says that if you pay NO taxes you don't get to vote but that is you pay HIGHER taxes you get more votes. There would be nothing to stop the Elite voters from doing away with welfare, ending food stamps, going to war with (whomever), reducing their taxes, and on and on. They already have a disproportionately larger control over the government through financial means. This would seal it. As has been pointed out in this thread, the VAST majority of the wealthy do NOT pay taxes against the system used to determine our tax liabilities. Most of their 'income' derives from capital gains (investments and the like) and old money (inheritance). Go lookup those tax rates. You want everyone to play by the same rules? Establish a flat-tax system across the board.

Income and wealth are not linear. In the lower economic quantiles a disproportionately higher percentage of income is needed to cover basic living expenses. Even as your standard of living increases your ability to amass wealth does so at a much slower rate. Once you get to a certain point your ability to amass wealth accelerates. So a well-to-do person has the financial ability to hire tax accountants, financial advisors, and lawyers to minimize their tax exposure. Those services are unaffordable for most. So the elite are in a position to accelerate their wealth. The fact that such a massive percentage of the world's wealth has been consolidated to a very small percentage of the population at an unprecedented rate and to an unprecedented scale speaks volumes.

The rich are the evil ones, who are running filthy technology, exhortion, abusing workers, ie they believe they're allowed slaves, the business is their dream and makes them enough for homes and wealth, but in reality it would only be a small middle class business if they weren't exhorting the energies of others and shorting their wage. That is the whole way business works. Its slavery and just being like that, dealing with the other criminals makes you a very dark hat unless you're buying land for the homeless and working for everyone's own ethical businesses, and setting up businesses for the poor and handicapped run by ethical real family or adopted mentors of the community that will raise them above the poverty line, ie putting your money into others. If you're not doing really good things for people and equalizing in your community and running a completely ethical clean advanced hero type business that pays profit sharing, ie everyone makes a good wage, like a team, then you're not someone who can talk about votes at all.

I think they should be prohibited from voting and a good spot of jail in store myself.

crazyewok


Because if you cut out the poor and middle classed and give 99% to the wealthy they will change things to cut rights secure the remaining wealtha nd power for themselfs while keeping those below them down.

Giving the rich all the power is just as bad as giving all the power to the poor

There are plenty of middle class people who actually pay an income tax too. There would be representation for everyone except those who don't pay a dime yet still feel they should have a say in voting for how everyone else's money is spent.

They are the worst people on the face of the earth and need to be narded.


Balls of Steel - The Ultimate Nutshot

PERIOD!

You can not rise above the crowd in a hellzone unless you're nazi demon who abuses others. PERIOD.

For the Freedom AND the EQUALITY, MOM AND DAD TOGETHER, Can't go home to higher realms otherwise.

teamcommander
reply to post by jtma508

 

Been giving some thought to this proposal.
I think a much better system would be to only allow those of "TRUE" American decent to vote.
I am not wealthy but my family has been here since before the United States was formed. Actually, I can document members of the family who fought along side of Washington in the French-Indian wars.
So let's be sure we extend to right to vote ONLY to those citizens best qualified to speak for America

Humanity originated from Africa, therefore trace any lineage back far enough and their ancestors emigrated to this land. This means there is no such thing as a true American. But in any case, your premise is still ridiculous since the Natives were here before any Europeans.

teamcommander

I think a much better system would be to only allow those of "TRUE" American decent to vote.

So only allow the natives to vote?

Great idea I like it, give the USA back to the people you stole it from

doubletap

crazyewok


Because if you cut out the poor and middle classed and give 99% to the wealthy they will change things to cut rights secure the remaining wealtha nd power for themselfs while keeping those below them down.

Giving the rich all the power is just as bad as giving all the power to the poor

There are plenty of middle class people who actually pay an income tax too. There would be representation for everyone except those who don't pay a dime yet still feel they should have a say in voting for how everyone else's money is spent.

Don't be foolish, if you get 1 vote for every dollar you pay in taxes the rich would still EASILY out pace even the middle class that pays taxes. 30% of 50,000 is 15,000. 30% of 50,000,000 is 15,000,000. That is 1000 times the voting power of that person. Throw a few rich people together (especially the ones making billions a year) and their voting power would FAR outstrip any other social class' voting power. Not to mention with the growing income equality gap, as time goes on it would get worse and worse (and you better believe that the rich would implement rules and laws to speed the growth of that gap up). Keep in mind that with the numbers I just gave you, in order for the middle class to trump the voting power of the one rich person with the voting power in my example, you would need 1000 people paying $15,000 in taxes. We have trouble having the couple hundred in Congress to agree let alone 1000 people all sharing the same opinion.

Seriously, do the damn math, this is by far the dumbest, stupidest, and most misguided idea I've ever read. And someone who isn't rich to even suggest it is beyond silly. Just hand the reins of the government to them, then they don't have to hide the fact they own the government, they can just be public about it.

Our country was founded for equality for all, not for whoever has the most money.

I would hate to be one of these greedy cockroaches when the people finally get fed up.

All the money in the world won't save them, just like it failed to save the royals during the French Revolution.

I hope no one is offended if I say the discussion in this thread is a little disappointing. There have been two or three posters who have been willing to say, "OK, let's stop and look at this. Is there anything of value that can be salvaged from Mr. Perkins' comments?"

Perhaps there is the germ of an idea, or it might spark a related thought, but at least it expresses an opinion to be considered. Also, look at one of the hot cliches of our times, "Fairness." I would suspect that many in this thread would support the idea that, since the workers are who make the factory successful, the workers should get more of the profit and more of a say in how the factory is run.

Here, the suggestion is that since the wealthy are the ones who make the country successful (through financing it) they should have a larger share in the profits and say in running it. I'm not saying that I agree with that position, but I am saying it's worth a moment of thought and not just mindless reactions like "Take away their vote. Off with their heads. Grind up their living bodies." etc.

For instance, perhaps people who are taxpayers get a second vote in an election in an area they contribute taxes to. Or, remember that the House and Senate were designed to have different types of members with different goals. The House was to represent the mood of the common man as it changed frequently. The Senate was supposed to have distinguished people as members. People who were more statesmanlike, more deliberate, who would provide a sense of continuity. Maybe the creation of a third house would be useful, one that would be geared to the economically powerful.

No, I haven't given any thought yet to how these would work out. My point is that these ideas, and more, could come out of the OP and that they might very well be worth discussing. Open your minds, explore, think freely, be creative.