Should the number of votes you get depend on your income and taxes paid?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by G51989, May 10, 2014.

  1. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #1
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/14/tom-perkins-votes_n_4788086.html

    The question?

    Should the number of votes someone gets be based on taxable income?

    For example Someone making....

    Under 10,000 gets 0 votes

    10,000-20,000 gets 1 vote

    20,000-50,0000 gets 2 votes

    50,000 - 100,000 gets 10 votes

    100,000-500,000 gets 25 votes

    500,000- 1 million gets 150 votes

    1 million - 1 billion gets 1,000 votes

    1 billion + gets 150,000 votes.

    Would you support a system like that? Apparently some people like this guy, want a system somewhat like that.

    I would say no, that would not be a good system.

    I would like to ad, the system we have here in America is not very much different from that. Sure, everyone gets " one vote ", but having so much private money in politics, clearly means that those with more money get what they want, while the average joe gets screwed. It's really the American way. I would prefer America would be a first world country and have publicly funded elections.
     
  2. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #2
    Will I be able to sell the "extra" votes I'm awarded on eBay to the highest bidder?

    Thanks in advance for any info you can provide! ;)
     
  3. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #3
    No, double no, and triple no.
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    Isn't that pretty much the system you have already?
     
  5. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #5
    In America?

    Officially no.

    In reality, yes.
     
  6. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #6
    No.

    One person . One vote.

    Corporations may be able to "influence " opinion but they cannot go to a polling place and cast a vote.
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    Easier by far to buy the politician.
     
  8. noodlemanc macrumors regular

    noodlemanc

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Australasia
    #8
    But the people can usually only vote for someone that corporations have sponsored into the elections. So having a system like the OP suggested wouldn't change things THAT much -- only difference is the politicians won't have to lie profusely to win the votes of the masses and get into office.
     
  9. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #9
    [​IMG]
     
  10. sigmadog macrumors 6502a

    sigmadog

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Location:
    near Spokane, WA
    #10
    No to the OP.

    But I do object to allowing non-property owners to vote on property tax increases.
     
  11. Micky Do macrumors 68000

    Micky Do

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Location:
    An island in the Andaman Sea.
    #11
    Plutocracy reigns…..
     
  12. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #12
    Not just no; hell no.

    I now await the conservative argument that "corporations are people" and therefore deserve the right to vote if they were started in the US, per the 15th amendment.

    Perhaps if that were true, those same conservatives should ask those corporations for their Voter ID.

    BL.
     
  13. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #13
    Let's say that's how it is for the next election .....

    An extremely large population will see a huge pay cut or hike, with the sole purpose of manipulating votes by categories(race, religion, sex, & etc). There would be an astronomical amount of lawsuits filed. Would also cause protests and riots.
     
  14. stroked Suspended

    stroked

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #14
    You are just like most renters, believing renters don't pay property tax.
     
  15. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #15
    I can agree with that.

    But with current laws, and lobbying. The system we have is not that far off from that therorytial system.

    Where are the riots now?

    The current system in America already works that way via lobbying and super pacs.
     
  16. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #16
    If you don't directly pay property taxes, you facilitate it in some way. People renting face the possibility of rent inflation depending on overall market conditions whenever property tax increases. In that sense they aren't entirely detached from it. Owners will pass on the cost as long as the market will bear it. They simply count on other properties to do the same unless the number of vacancies is higher than normal.
     
  17. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #17
    "... that this nation, under Mammon, shall have a new birth of plutocracy—and that government of the unwealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy, shall not perish from the earth."
    -- excerpt of Lincoln's Wall Street Address, 1863


    No /sarc tag needed.
    I hope.
     
  18. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #18
    Quite possibly the worst idea ever.

    And the whole "only allow property owners to vote" thing is completely unrealistic in this day and age.
     
  19. ChristianJapan macrumors 601

    ChristianJapan

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Location:
    日本
  20. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #20
    Your comparing a Devil's advocate way of manipulation on people VS outright fixing the results. Winning elections by persuasion, trickery, and etc: is one thing, but just just taking it is another. And that's what that system enables, for the rich to just take it.
     
  21. macmesser macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Location:
    Long Island, NY USA
    #21
    Do you really think that would change things? There would still be many ways the ultra rich could spend their money to influence elections.

    ----------

    In a way it's more honest.
     
  22. benthewraith macrumors 68040

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #22
    Hell no. One individual, one vote. One's person's vote should not outweigh another's.
     
  23. sviato macrumors 68020

    sviato

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Location:
    HR 9038 A
    #23
    Based on taxable income? You know top earners do everything they can to lower their taxable income
     
  24. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #24
    That would be an interesting experiment. What would they do ? Is money or power worth more to them ?

    Would they still try to lower their taxes ?
     
  25. MrWillie macrumors 65816

    MrWillie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Location:
    Starlite Starbrite Trailer Court
    #25
    Nope. One US citizen, one state or federal ID, one vote.
     

Share This Page