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 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.”
Absolutely not.
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
Excellent idea.
“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!
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.