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

G51989

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/14/tom-perkins-votes_n_4788086.html

"The Tom Perkins system is: You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes," Perkins said during an event hosted by Fortune's Adam Lashinsky. "But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?"
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.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
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.
No, double no, and triple no.
 

noodlemanc

macrumors regular
Mar 25, 2010
208
17
Australasia
No.

One person . One vote.

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

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Not just no; hell no.

One person . One vote.

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

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,606
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.
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.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
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.
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.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,669
1,745
No to the OP.

But I do object to allowing non-property owners to vote on property tax increases.
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.
 

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
8,373
4,361
Pumpkindale
"... 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.
 

samiwas

macrumors 68000
Aug 26, 2006
1,575
3,518
Atlanta, GA
Quite possibly the worst idea ever.

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

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,606
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.
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.
 

macmesser

macrumors 6502a
Aug 13, 2012
805
63
Long Island, NY USA
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.
Do you really think that would change things? There would still be many ways the ultra rich could spend their money to influence elections.

----------

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.
In a way it's more honest.