U.S. billionaire suggests rich people should get more votes A billionaire venture capitalist suggested Thursday that wealthy Americans should get more votes. Asked for an idea that would "change the world" at a speaking engagement in San Francisco, Tom Perkins said: "The Tom Perkins system is: You don't get to votCommentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
I'm not a fan of this guy, but this is a non-story.
Getting to the heart of the liberal drumbeat for 'fairness' it would be really and truly 'fair' if the people who pay most of the freight for whatever is being voted upon have their votes weighed according to what they pay.
You all do the same things in your homes where you earn the money and pay the bills so you get to say what goes for your household budgets. Imagine if your kids got to have an equal say in how you spent your money? I doubt any of you would like that.
Yet here we are telling the people who pay most of our collective bills that they don't get a proportionate say in how their money is taxed or spent. Worse yet, we let people who don't have any money at stake in society to have a say in how everyone else's money is spent.
How's that 'fair'?
I believe Thanos refers to this as "The Full Antoinette."
I actually respect a plutocrat that honestly states that he believes democracy should only belong to those who have the most money and stuff. To carry on with your Capetian reference, I'd like to see Perkins' head at the top of the pile of those who finally received the justice they've clearly earned after about ten years of a new Robespierre-esque regime cleaning up the place. But, hey, he still gets points for honesty.
I believe Thanos refers to this as "The Full Antoinette."
They should just process the poor for food, then rich people wouldn't need more votes to counter the poor vote.
I believe Thanos refers to this as "The Full Antoinette."
They should just process the poor for food, then rich people wouldn't need more votes to counter the poor vote.
It'd be the ultimate expression of their vampirism/parasitism, so your idea is more than apt.
Actually what he proposes has legal precedent. In many countries and in many parts of the USA property tax elections are proportionate with votes weighted according to who will pay the most.
Getting to the heart of the liberal drumbeat for 'fairness' it would be really and truly 'fair' if the people who pay most of the freight for whatever is being voted upon have their votes weighed according to what they pay.
You all do the same things in your homes where you earn the money and pay the bills so you get to say what goes for your household budgets. Imagine if your kids got to have an equal say in how you spent your money? I doubt any of you would like that.
Yet here we are telling the people who pay most of our collective bills that they don't get a proportionate say in how their money is taxed or spent. Worse yet, we let people who don't have any money at stake in society to have a say in how everyone else's money is spent.
How's that 'fair'?
If the super rich get to have more say in how things are then the following names shoot that argument down: Kanye West, Al Gore, George Soros, Michael Moore, et al.
Actually what he proposes has legal precedent. In many countries and in many parts of the USA property tax elections are proportionate with votes weighted according to who will pay the most.
Getting to the heart of the liberal drumbeat for 'fairness' it would be really and truly 'fair' if the people who pay most of the freight for whatever is being voted upon have their votes weighed according to what they pay.
You all do the same things in your homes where you earn the money and pay the bills so you get to say what goes for your household budgets. Imagine if your kids got to have an equal say in how you spent your money? I doubt any of you would like that.
Yet here we are telling the people who pay most of our collective bills that they don't get a proportionate say in how their money is taxed or spent. Worse yet, we let people who don't have any money at stake in society to have a say in how everyone else's money is spent.
How's that 'fair'?
If the super rich get to have more say in how things are then the following names shoot that argument down: Kanye West, Al Gore, George Soros, Michael Moore, et al.
Kardashians...
...oh, and I bet irrespective of what the TV shows, Honey Booboo and family are raking in some serious vote getting dough!
Actually what he proposes has legal precedent. In many countries and in many parts of the USA property tax elections are proportionate with votes weighted according to who will pay the most.
Getting to the heart of the liberal drumbeat for 'fairness' it would be really and truly 'fair' if the people who pay most of the freight for whatever is being voted upon have their votes weighed according to what they pay.
You all do the same things in your homes where you earn the money and pay the bills so you get to say what goes for your household budgets. Imagine if your kids got to have an equal say in how you spent your money? I doubt any of you would like that.
Yet here we are telling the people who pay most of our collective bills that they don't get a proportionate say in how their money is taxed or spent. Worse yet, we let people who don't have any money at stake in society to have a say in how everyone else's money is spent.
How's that 'fair'?
If the super rich get to have more say in how things are then the following names shoot that argument down: Kanye West, Al Gore, George Soros, Michael Moore, et al.
The solution is to institute a flat tax and to allow only net-taxpayers to vote on taxes. People who receive most or all of their sustenance from other people's taxes have an inherent conflict of interest when asked if other people should pay more taxes and they logically should be excluded from such electoral topics.
And Bono from U2 comes up as a perfect example of someone who thinks I should pay more taxes while he moved out of Ireland to avoid paying anything at all.
Actually what he proposes has legal precedent. In many countries and in many parts of the USA property tax elections are proportionate with votes weighted according to who will pay the most.
Getting to the heart of the liberal drumbeat for 'fairness' it would be really and truly 'fair' if the people who pay most of the freight for whatever is being voted upon have their votes weighed according to what they pay.
You all do the same things in your homes where you earn the money and pay the bills so you get to say what goes for your household budgets. Imagine if your kids got to have an equal say in how you spent your money? I doubt any of you would like that.
Yet here we are telling the people who pay most of our collective bills that they don't get a proportionate say in how their money is taxed or spent. Worse yet, we let people who don't have any money at stake in society to have a say in how everyone else's money is spent.
How's that 'fair'?
If the super rich get to have more say in how things are then the following names shoot that argument down: Kanye West, Al Gore, George Soros, Michael Moore, et al.
What do you mean if? They already do. They fund the people that are elected, those people return the favor by making legislation friendly to those who butter their bread. This guy just wants to put this out in the open.
At one time only landowners were allowed to vote. White, male, landowners. Plus ca change plus ca meme chose.
Actually what he proposes has legal precedent. In many countries and in many parts of the USA property tax elections are proportionate with votes weighted according to who will pay the most.
Getting to the heart of the liberal drumbeat for 'fairness' it would be really and truly 'fair' if the people who pay most of the freight for whatever is being voted upon have their votes weighed according to what they pay.
You all do the same things in your homes where you earn the money and pay the bills so you get to say what goes for your household budgets. Imagine if your kids got to have an equal say in how you spent your money? I doubt any of you would like that.
Yet here we are telling the people who pay most of our collective bills that they don't get a proportionate say in how their money is taxed or spent. Worse yet, we let people who don't have any money at stake in society to have a say in how everyone else's money is spent.
How's that 'fair'?
If the super rich get to have more say in how things are then the following names shoot that argument down: Kanye West, Al Gore, George Soros, Michael Moore, et al.
The solution is to institute a flat tax and to allow only net-taxpayers to vote on taxes. People who receive most or all of their sustenance from other people's taxes have an inherent conflict of interest when asked if other people should pay more taxes and they logically should be excluded from such electoral topics.
Can we then exclude business owners from voting on business related legislation.? Anybody receiving military benefits should not vote on military related matters, nor should business again on military procurement.
We live in a time where the American Republic may already be dead and no one has realized it yet. The President may soon be an Emperor out of necessity, given the utter inability of the Senate and House to Legislate or deal with pressing issues.
At the same time, increasingly, individual States are virtually being Bought by Wealthy individuals and groups in order to implement favourable idealistic agendas. So far that has been Right leaning, but it's only a matter of time before the Left leaning Wealthy begin doing the same out of necessity. A schism of 2 or more Feudalistic systems is not entirely out of the equation.
The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.