Skip to comments.Billionaire who compared the Occupy protests to 'Kristallnacht' now thinks the rich..get more votes
Posted on 02/14/2014 11:03:21 AM PST by C19fan
A billionaire venture capitalist has made the controversial suggestion that the rich should get more votes than the poor- and some shouldn't be allowed to have a say at all. Tom Perkins, whose personal net worth is believed to be around $8billion, has suggested that only American taxpayers should be allowed to vote in the U.S. and that those who pay more in taxes should be allotted more votes. 'The Tom Perkins system is: You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes,' he said at an event in San Francisco on Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I believe there should be property requirements for voting.
The Founding Fathers thought that only people who had a stake in the country should have a vote. That has changed. Has it changed for the better? I don’t think so.
No it sounds like early America...
I think that if you take public assistance you lose your vote-—conflict of interest and all that. . .besides, if you say in effect, I am no longer able to care/take care of myself or family and I rely on the government to pay my bills and give me money, you are acting like a minor . . .therefore, as a minor you can’t vote.
Only people with a stake in the country should have a vote.
So that sounds to me like only net-tax-payers, property owners, and veterans (their stake is the skin they risked).
I don’t know how you work that out in practical terms.
We need to fix the tax system not change the voting to how much people pay taxes.
His plan would allow the 1% to control the govt. Which they pretty much do now anyway.
There originally were. Today, a good part of the population are not freeholders because of lifestyle choices - not mine. I like having my own house.
I agree that people who are wards of the state, i.e., on welfare, should not have a vote. If they do, they can and will sell it to the highest bidder.
But I do not agree with this guy about more votes for the Uber-Rich. The Uber-Rich helped PUT us here in the first place. The Uber-Rich don’t pay their share. The Uber-Rich are frequently “citizen of the world” types. He wants to give MORE votes to people like Nancy Pelosi, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Hollywood crowd, etc????
Those people who earn a lot DO pay more than people who don’t, but that is ONLY the “working wealthy” - doctors, lawyers, professionals, skilled tradesmen, etc. The Uber-Rich protect their incomes while supporting expensive social programs that WE have to pay for - the working wealthy and the middle class.
A more realistic proposal would be to have a two America governing system. Those who wanted a monarch and a privy council instead of an executive branch and congress would be locked out of voting for any other offices.
The monarch and privy council would get the same percentage of federal receipts as their monarch garnered in total votes in the previous election election cycle. They could use it for Obama phones, vacations and salaries for the ruling class, EBT cards for their voters or anything else they liked.
When, not if, they ran out of money, they would have to go to the parallel constitutionally elected executive and congress who would be free to provide or not provide additional revenue shares based on how they managed things going forward. Sort of like a board of trustees overseeing a bankrupt organization.
The moronic half of America would have their votes, breads, circuses and other free stuff. The conservative half would have responsible government which might actually generate more revenue for the moronic half.
AS if it would ever happen, but:
For every 20 grand you pay in federal tax dollars you should get a vote. 2 for 40, 3 for 60.... &c.
I also think that only land-owning citizens should have voting rights.
If you receive a check with any Federal logo on it you should not be able to vote because of a direct conflict of interest.
If the Fed is your bread and butter then you cannot be counted on to do what’s right when tough choices are called upon.
Tom Perkins’ recommendation is hereby awarded the Milton Miteybad Seal of Approval.
Well, how much property though?
If I owned 100 acres and wanted to see 1’x1’ plots, or even 1” x 1” plots so people become ‘ property owners ‘ whats to stop me?
I understand your idea and have thought about it. But there would be a way around it.
Besides, its racist, homophobic, favors white middle aged - blah,blah,blah.
No vote for those who only receive from Government be it state or Federal. We are being overwhelmed by the gimme generations. One gimme generation begets another. If you are a senior with a work history of paying taxes, then you get to vote.
If you are on government support, you shouldn’t be voting.
One man one vote presumes equal representation, but progressive taxation is not equal responsibility. The rich guy has a point, but the problem is unequal taxation.
“If I owned 100 acres and wanted to see 1x1 plots, or even 1 x 1 plots so people become property owners whats to stop me?”
Nothing at all. Though I believe that there is precedent in law on how “land ownership” is defined?
But, honestly, how many people will be begging for your delicious 1 ft. sq. plots? Plots that they will have to pay tax on and maintain. Some areas even have “blight” regulations. Your land could be seized in those areas if you don’t seasonally mow it.... :)
Devil’s advocate questions. Not to be taken seriously.
Honestly - the only changes in our voting system WE will ever see is allowing felons to vote and maybe even non-citizens.
His plan is very viable.
When a person goes to vote they would have to bring a card from the IRS that shows their income for the previous year.
If their income was $125,000 they would have 125,000 votes and the person with an income of $20,0000 would get 20,000 votes.
“If you receive a check with any Federal logo on it you should not be able to vote because of a direct conflict of interest.”
That’s not a bad idea.
So, in order to vote, you would have had to pay taxes, but if you work for the federal government, are on Welfare, food stamps, Obamacare, Medicaid, Social Security or Medicare, you would not get a vote.
We are on the same page, see my reply #18.
I agree, but would expand it to include politicians and government employees. they should not be able to vote in elections as it is a conflict of interest.
I appreciate what the guy is saying. The rich do get screwed. But I have a different solution. Flat tax and everyone pays taxes with exceptions for those with no income. That way just about everyone has some skin in the game.
I agree with your 1st paragraph. 2nd paragraph - not so much. I have no bad feelings towards the top 1%.
It’s about time somebody said it. How fair is it that some deadbeat parasite who has never worked a day in his life gets to vote himself a share of my money?
As a senior citizen, I take umbrage with that. I worked all my life and paid taxes, including SS and Medicare. I own property and still pay taxes on that, as well as my ss check. I think I have earned my right to vote.
But you do own property, pay taxes every year and do not receive more in federal benefits than you pay in taxes?
Then you should be entitled to a vote.
Mr Perkins is an idiot although i’ve long felt that veterans should have 2 votes and currently active troops should have 3 votes. And of course only US citizens should have any vote at all.
But, honestly, how many people will be begging for your delicious 1 ft. sq. plots
Take a large number of acres, add one wealthy Democratic activist who decides to ‘ gift ‘ 1”x1” inch parcels to a few hundred thousand Democrats / liberals who do not own land.
Thats a lot of land owning libs who are now qualified to vote.
That being my only point.
“I believe there should be property requirements for voting.”
My mother rented her entire life and would have voted in a hurricane.
I have no issue with rich people.
I have issue with rich people buying politicians.
In all other occupational situations in life, the people who select their employees must be knowledgable about the requirements of the job and will review the qualifications of job candidates before selecting someone to hire.
However, when it comes to selecting (voting for) a government representative, we encourage everyone to select an applicant even though few of the voters understand the position for which the applicant is applying and few of the voters know much about the applicant. We allow voting among people who will have no costs if their applicant (candidate) wins but will reap rewards as offered by their candidate.
Voting should require knowledge of government and the candidates. Voting should require responsibility for the choices of the person who is elected by the voter. Without these requirements, voting becomes a destructive game.
Property not necessarily meaning real estate property.
Value. 401Ks. Other instruments of value
And most important not on welfare or food stamps or using an Obamaphone
“I have issue with rich people buying politicians.”
Why blame a rich person for donating to a campaign? The problem is more fundamental - it is corruption. It isn’t just money. Poor people as a block have lots of influence. Dems steal from rich people via taxes to buy these votes. Our enemy is not rich people but corrupt government.
Corruption plays a part by the seller and the buyer of votes. The true remedy is diverse, localized and weak government with little ability to fund itself.
When we allow government broad powers, the ability to centralize and be remote, the ability to self fund by using its own legislative functionaries to vote theft, we have what we have seen arise the last 80 years — Leviathan.
It is now so large, it is self-healing, self-innoculating, and delegitimizes every effort to de-fang it.
Were gt talking the same thing.
That might qualify as fraud? Regardless, I have little or no concern for the concept.
“Poor people as a block have lots of influence.”
Ding, ding, ding!
One “wealthy” (subjectively defined, of course) man donating to a candidate stands no chance against the slobbering force of the poor when there is free money to be handed out for voluminous votes.
Politics (and politicians) is corrupt. Always has been and always will. Removing corruption is an impossible dream. The only thing that can be done is to remove POWER from politicians so that their corruptive effects are negated.
You try to change basic human behavior and you will always lose. You can only alter the rules to your favor.
Not necessarily. "seller"? "buyer"? A person donates to a campaign. So what? There is no corruption unless the congressman votes differently based on the donation. How do you prove that? Assuming you can prove that you might have a case against the candidate but not the person donating to a campaign.
If it just takes money to make RINOs vote the way we want then just get some rich conservatives to buy them off. Never happen. They vote the way they do because they ARE RINOs and vote like RINOs. Same with dems. Dems steal your money to buy poor people's votes. Rich conservatives could donate all the money you want to those dems and it won't change how they vote.
hear. hear. I agree with that!
So did the ancient Romans.
I do not consider SS to be a gov’t benefit. I paid SS payments for fifty years as insurance against starving in my old age. If I had not lost both shoulders to arthritis, I would still be working. So, yeah, I think I have earned my right to vote.