Skip to comments.Who Should Vote? Shareholders!
Posted on 02/21/2012 6:25:22 AM PST by Why So Serious
So, if you own a share of stock you get to vote in the company elections. If you own two shares, you have two votes. If you have 100 shares you have 100 votes. Easy to understand.
How do you acquire those shares? You purchase those shares with money. Again easy enough!
Let's use Johnson and Johnson [JNJ] as an example. If you buy a share of stock you get a vote, if you buy 10 shares you get 10 votes, and if you buy 100 shares you get 100 votes. Ready for this ... if you buy a bottle of Johnson and Johnson shampoo to wash your hair you get no votes. Just because you use the product or service that a company provides that does not allow you a say in how, or who runs that company. Fair enough!? If you do not like the way JNJ runs there company you are not obligated to use their shampoo. You could go use some other company's shampoo
Let's run the country like a company. If you pay into the system you get a vote, the more you pay the more votes you get. AND if you do not pay, if you only use the goods or services provided by the country you do not get a vote. Now, as with the shampoo, if you do not like how the country is run you could buy shares [votes] by paying into the system, or you could go to a different country [in the same way you can buy a different shampoo].
Thank you, President Soros. (Good idea, I just don’t think you thought it all the way through).
Especially considering the fact that we’re creating non taxpayers at an astounding rate.
Something akin to this thinking was why the franchise was originally restricted to landowners. There are pluses and minuses to it. Among the pluses are that landowners (at the time) would be the educated classes, so that your voters generally have some modicum of intelligence. Among the minuses are that an oligarchy can, through various means, restrict ownership of land unnaturally so as to prevent all but a select few from voting.
I thought it all the way through. The people who do not pay into the system would have no vote. That is the first start. The founders wanted to men of education and means to vote. You had to have skin in the game. I am not saying we sell shares of the country. I am saying that taxpayers are the people who should have the votes. People who pay income tax get to votes. People who don’t pay income tax, don’t get to vote.
I would be willing to happily accept a plan that gave everyone one vote, if they don’t take food stamps, government housing, public school education for their children or some other form of welfare.
If a citizen goes a year without any of those forms of welfare, then they get their vote back for the next year.
SO you would enslave 90% of the popluation? Nice little hellhole you got planned there ...
..but having to demonstrate that you are a net contributor to the system.
We are coming up on a population, ~50% pay no income taxes, taking out more than they are putting in.
As long as we are stuck with the present graduated income tax system, people, at a minimum, should be required to validate their voting status by presenting their tax return showing that they paid some taxes....
For the retired it should be easy to prove that they had a net positive tax history.......and for the disabled, they better be disabled, unable to work and can prove it.
We will not survive "one man one vote" if over 50% of the voters take out of the system more than they put in....
We would also not survive a "one tax dollar one vote" system.
There is no way to economically calculate the amount each of us pays in hidden taxes passed to us via prices for goods & services ...
that said - even if we DID have a way to do that - the “rich” also consume and pay these taxes - likely a lot more that the rest of us do. Add to that the fact that the top 25% of taxpayers already pay 87% of all income taxes (2009 stats!) and I doubt seriously that us “small guys” would have much of a voice.
87% is more than sufficient to change the constitution at will.
The country is being like a company. That’s why its so screwed up.
Corporatist fascism is the name.
No individual rights can exist.
It is the death of America.
I think “his” system was
if you pay “net” taxes, you can vote (once).
if you don’t, you don’t vote.
Originally - to be a voter, you had to own land. (The interpretation was such that very few people could not vote.)
But a landowner has “skin in the game”. A taxpayer has “skin in the game”. If there was a flat tax that applied to all taxpayers, then voters could decide to raise taxes - with everyone paying the increase, or the voters could decide certain government programs aren’t worth the taxes and therefore decide to abolish those programs.
A “Constitutional” program would be much as our Founding Fathers established. And taxes would be similar to the Tithe of the Old Testament, where all were expected to give 10%. They did not ask for “progressive” rates of tithe.
Yes, because poor people don’t love their children and wish them a better future! They have no “skin in the game” and little interest in bettering the nation, I mean if they cannot even better themselves! I cannot stand to live in a nation where Paris Hilton doesn’t have greater electoral power than a nurse or school teacher. /s
You are assuming that the 90% would stay here. A lot would go back to where ever it is that they came from
Do you know what it takes to change the US Constitution?
Not so. The constitution change has to come from the states. Soros does not pay state income taxes in all 50 states.
>>...If you pay into the system you get a vote, the more you pay the more votes you get. AND if you do not pay, if you only use the goods or services provided by the country you do not get a vote...<<
It matters not — whoever was allowed to vote in your scheme would *STILL* vote themselves gifts from the public treasury in countless imaginative methods (grants, regulation, loopholes, etc).
So, your voting scheme would simply shift the “root-cause” around, not eliminate it.
The Problem is that the FEDERAL is allowed to dangle the carrots that trigger human nature to vote with a hand held-out. This would not happen if the FEDERAL were accurately constrained to their constitutional mandates & limitations. Reverse Wickard v. Filburn and (hopefully) the rest of the unconstitutional dominoes will begin to fall as well.
But none of it is gonna happen. The perversion of the commerce clause will continue to allow the FEDERAL to dream-up ever more imaginative ways to dangle those carrots and our self-centered society will continue it’s pavlonian response. Guaranteed.
I’ve had similar ideas myself. Voting would be proportional to the amount of taxes an individual paid. Each person gets one vote, and for every dollar in taxes paid, that person gets an additional vote. This would apply at the federal, state, and local levels. Perhaps a cap should apply as well (indexed for inflation), say a maximum of 100,000 votes per person.
i agree that only taxpayers should have a say, but if you want to give all control to the few, rich and powerful, why not just go back to feudalism?
i liek the one taxpayer, one vote system, meself
You are stone cold wrong. You suggest that I would pay more money so that I could get more from the government, but they would need my money to give it to me. You see, there is no profit [like with a company] so they desire to have more shares is the desire to pay more taxes. Ultimately, you would gain greater control over your own money if you bought more votes. Wouldn’t you have more control of your money if you just kept it?
The very same 25% is likely footing a great deal of the tax burden in the states as well considering the systems are generally similar, thus they would likely control the states as well. 87% is > 2/3’s of the Congress and > 3/4’s of the states (see, I DO know my Constitution) - IOW, more than sufficient.
For the sake of argument, lets say they do not get sufficient majorities to make constitutional changes - How can you possibly feel comfortable with a system that would give the top 10% of taxpayers ~70% of the vote (again 2009 stats)?
Indeed - but you forget that the elites could then determine that the great unwashed masses don't need such things as police or fire protection, public education (state as well as fed funded), or any other legitimate function of government and defund such trivialities and replace them with services for thier gated communities.
I agree with that..
..I can't figure out whether you are kicking my ass, or agreeing with me...
....my point is that everybody has ONE vote IF they pay in something.
Human nature is human nature...if over half of the people are living off the diminished half, they are going to vote every time for the politician who promises them more stuff...
...it's the main hazard of one man one vote.
To have the vote you had to have a certain level of “investment” - aka wealth. I guess their thought pattern was if you wanted to control where the Republic went you had to have “skin” in the game.
Unlike the author of this article, the Founding Fathers didn't increase the number of votes based on wealth. IMHO this is part of the rationale behind the 3/5ths a vote per adult male slave.
Not sure it needs to be that way exactly. I could more like a system where each person who pays into the system gets a single vote. I will tell one system that does not work .. the one where 51% pay nothing and get to vote themselves something from the government. That system is reckless.
You misunderstand the 3/5ths ... that was to determine the proportional representation of a state in the house, not the number of votes a plantation owner had.
I believe the 3/5ths rational was while figuring out the House of Representatives and the population was going to determine how many representatives each state had they figured the south would get to much power if allowed to count slaves as a full person.
Okay, so now you propose “One Tax return with a balance owed, One vote”. A bit of an improvement, but still fraught with difficulties -
What happens if I have a “bad” year and my losses are sufficient to reduce my tax burden to zero? Do I loose the franchise for the following year?
What happens to government employees? They are netto recipients, do they get to vote? If so, why?
Do married couples have two votes? If so, how is this fair to a single person?
Common law marriages, one vote? Two?
What if both spouses work?
What if I have a full time job, a wife, 5 kids, a house etc ... and would normally have to pay taxes, but due to normal deductions, I am under the limit and pay nothing - is it fair that I have no say in local, state or federal matters that concern me and the well being of my family?
Is my right to vote contingent on currently paying taxes or on having done so in the past?
Lastly, if I am denied the right to vote because I did not pay taxes, how does this reconcile with my right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” if I have no say in the government that has the power to control me?
A good line of reasoning to use with those who profess to be observant in their particular religion, but who agree with progressive taxation. If God considered a flat rate fair and equitable, who are we to argue?
What happens to government employees? They are netto recipients, do they get to vote? If so, why? Yeah, we talked about those people in an earlier post. They would need to recuse themselves [except military, they are not employees ... they are volunteers].
Do married couples have two votes? If so, how is this fair to a single person? If each has a 1099 or w2, we can make it where 1099s have to justify your life style to some degree. I have had three businesses in my life, I get the joke and I know how the system is gamed.
Common law marriages, one vote? Two? What if both spouses work? See above. Just because you have a drivers license does not mean your wife gets to drive. No siree, she needs her own. Income will work the same way.
What if I have a full time job, a wife, 5 kids, a house etc ... and would normally have to pay taxes, but due to normal deductions, I am under the limit and pay nothing - is it fair that I have no say in local, state or federal matters that concern me and the well being of my family?You won't want those nominal deductions. I will want to pay to have a vote. I can fix all of that.
Is my right to vote contingent on currently paying taxes or on having done so in the past? you will be paying, there will be no alternative. You will work, because it will be in your best interest to work.
Lastly, if I am denied the right to vote because I did not pay taxes, how does this reconcile with my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if I have no say in the government that has the power to control me? I did not say that we would kill you, or not let you walk the streets with a smile on your face. You will be allowed to live, roam about the place, with a smile on your face, just not vote. And if you don't like it go some place where they won't kill you for roaming around with a smile on your face.
I see. So my rights are contingent upon my ability to pay the government. Sounds a bit like a system we fought to abandon a few hundred years ago ...
I'll take my chances with the current system ....
If this sounds like a system that we fought to abandon a few hundred years ago I can appreciate the way you see it. Let me say that rather than "take your chances" with the current system why don't you embrace the one that we fought to establish a few hundred years ago while we abandoned the one you are so afraid of?
>>...You suggest that I would pay more money so that I could get more from the government...<<
I’m sure you wouldn’t. However, since the dawn of government, the very second a govt develops some system/scheme, the constituency begins looking for ways to game the system. It is selfish, human nature and there is no govt system that can overcome it. Now again, you obviously wouldn’t. Others most certainly would. Even if you eliminated the entitlement crowd from voting, then the rich would “want something for their money” when given the ability to “buy” extra votes (so to speak). Instead of welfare, the liberal rich could game the system for power & influence and/or whatever else they or some ambitious politi-slut could dream up. If “dollars-in” equals vote-multipliers, what could George Soros do with his gazillions?
In the final analysis, it’s just a mental exercise that could never be implemented. Anything that strays from “one citizen - one vote” is a pipe-dream. Fun to think about though.
Sheesh, you have to get "certified" to be a hairdresser or put on fake nails, but any idiot can have a baby and vote, and we wonder why we get Boxer, Waters, Reid, Pelosi, Frank types in public office
Do you consider yourself a limited government conservative?
Where in the Constitution do you see the enumerated power to determine who gets to reproduce?