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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.