• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The rich should get more votes and Taxes will lead to 'economic extinction' of the 1%

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,128
1,521
136
Surprised there isn't a thread on this already. CNN posted two articles today on Tom Perkins. You may remember him as the guy who likened 1% "persecution" to Kristallnacht. Well, he's at it again. Apparently at the event focused on income inequality entitled "The War on the 1%", yes, you read that right, he has said that 1%'er biggest fear is economic extinction due to taxes which he thinks are extremely progressive as they are, and has suggested that the more taxes you pay the more votes you should get.

I'm not going to post the article text, you can read them on cnnmoney:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom-perkins-vote/index.html?iid=Lead
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom-perkins.fortune/index.html?iid=HP_LN

This is so out of touch it's hard to believe this is real. Seriously. What. The. Hell. The guy is advocating for bringing feudal society back. It used to be couple of hundred years ago that you couldn't vote unless you were a free white male 21 years of age and had owned a property. If you were slave, or a woman, or just happened to be a working poor - too bad. Is this really where we want to go back to? The feudal society?
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
2
0
I do believe that voting should only be afforded people with a basic mental capacity and demonstrable understanding of what they are voting about.

What he is talking about is the kind of thing that leads to guillotines and as long as the civilian masses are armed as they are it can never happen. It is as essential an affront to the republic as any position can be.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Thanks for including your commentary in the first post instead of making a second one. And while his fears of 'extinction' are overblown, he does have a point that increased taxes paid should give the payer a bigger "equity stake" in the country's governance. We already do that after a fashion, however - instead of extra votes, we simply allow the rich to make campaign contributions to buy their influence. Much more indirect and inefficient, but the same basic effect.
 

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
7
0
I am all for this. If the rich want more votes, per taxes paid, then they won't be able to vote; since most of them exploit all sorts of loop holes (to enjoy tax cuts).

Mitt Romney - 14% income taxes paid; http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/

I pay well over 30%.

Newell Steamer > Mitt Romney,... AND, I don't wear any funny magical underwear!!
 
Last edited:

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
I am all for this. If the rich want more votes, per taxes paid, then they won't be able to vote; since most of them exploit all sorts of loop holes and enjoy tax cuts.

Mitt Romney - 14% income taxes paid; http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/

I pay well over 30%.

Newell Steamer > Mitt Romney,... AND, I don't wear any funny magical underwear!!
Dont forget John Kerry and his wife paying 11% in 2003 on 6 million income.

A lot of these rich arent exploiting loopholes. They simply are rich(live off investments that are taxed as capital gains).
 

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
7
0
Dont forget John Kerry and his wife paying 11% in 2003 on 6 million income.

A lot of these rich arent exploiting loopholes. They simply are rich(live off investments that are taxed as capital gains).
Liberal, conservative, lizard person - I don't care; lets go for this!

If you pay more taxes, you have a stronger vote. Fuck, throw in property and sales taxes paid as well!!

I'll be America's new King.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
I don't think people on welfare should be able to vote because they are basically voting to take other peoples money for themselves. Giving the rich more votes based on taxes paid is bad for the same reason - using cronyism to get rich, then use votes to continue cronyism. It's the same situation as mandatory union dues going to democrat politicians that use their position to increase union dues, etc.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,128
1,521
136
I do believe that voting should only be afforded people with a basic mental capacity and demonstrable understanding of what they are voting about.
I agree, it sounds tempting, however I'm not sure that would be a good idea. We had literacy tests in the south 50'ish years ago that were used to deny blacks their voting rights. I do not want to go there again simply because the rules are going to be arbitrary, completely subjective, and thus ripe for abuse. While it sounds great in theory, I just don't think this can be implemented in a fair and unbiased manner.

Thanks for including your commentary in the first post instead of making a second one. And while his fears of 'extinction' are overblown, he does have a point that increased taxes paid should give the payer a bigger "equity stake" in the country's governance. We already do that after a fashion, however - instead of extra votes, we simply allow the rich to make campaign contributions to buy their influence. Much more indirect and inefficient, but the same basic effect.
Why do you think that increased taxes should give the person more say in how the government is run? Do you not see the inevitable corruption that it brings where the more money you make, the more taxes you pay, the more you can influence the government to create laws favorable to yourself in order to make even more money and pay more taxes and create even more laws to favor yourself thus perpetuating the giant circle that results in an incredible concentration of wealth at the top leaving very little for the bottom 90 percent?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I agree, it sounds tempting, however I'm not sure that would be a good idea. We had literacy tests in the south 50'ish years ago that were used to deny blacks their voting rights. I do not want to go there again simply because the rules are going to be arbitrary, completely subjective, and thus ripe for abuse. While it sounds great in theory, I just don't think this can be implemented in a fair and unbiased manner.


Why do you think that increased taxes should give the person more say in how the government is run? Do you not see the inevitable corruption that it brings where the more money you make, the more taxes you pay, the more you can influence the government to create laws favorable to yourself in order to make even more money and pay more taxes and create even more laws to favor yourself thus perpetuating the giant circle that results in an incredible concentration of wealth at the top leaving very little for the bottom 90 percent?
If we had a smaller government that wasn't all-compassing in every sphere of our lives, this would be a lesser deal. Once you've created a leviathan government whose regulatory and spending decisions can literally make or break fortunes, then it's pathetic to complain about people trying to manipulate that government to their advantage in whatever direction. Progressives like to think their political priorities are somehow more "noble" than those of the filthy rich, but really both are simply one more interest group among many.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,278
11,719
136
I sit in rooms with people like this on a fairly regular basis. There is perhaps nothing that infuriates me more than old out of touch wealthy people expounding on how they are exploited by the rest of the country while they complain that their 3rd summer house renovation is over budget by 2M or that their jet needs new engines.

The only thing that keeps me from ripping them a dozen new assholes is the knowledge that they'll all be dead within a decade or two. Simile, nod, and be first in line to drop a shovel full of dirt onto their coffin.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,128
1,521
136
If we had a smaller government that wasn't all-compassing in every sphere of our lives, this would be a lesser deal. Once you've created a leviathan government whose regulatory and spending decisions can literally make or break fortunes, then it's pathetic to complain about people trying to manipulate that government to their advantage in whatever direction. Progressives like to think their political priorities are somehow more "noble" than those of the filthy rich, but really both are simply one more interest group among many.
So your argument is that if only we had a smaller government, than the higher voting power of the wealthy elite wouldn't give them as much extra benefits as it does right now? Arguably true, the smaller the government the less benefits they can vote their way. However, if you stop for a second and ignore the corruption that comes with the bigger government, in large part the bigger government was created to protect the poor working guy from the abuses of the land/business owners who had all the power and poor working guy had none.

In the 16-18th century the government was way way smaller, and the serfs/working poor were miserable. The government created labor laws to stop child labor and to stop worker abuse, to stop the environment pollution, to mandate food and drug safety. You only need to look at coal mines about a hundred years back to see what it was like before government intervention: the horrible disregard for worker safety, the inevitable death of black lung decease, forcing miners to live on the company property and buy from the company store perpetually keeping the working guy in debt, and then the blatant murders of striking men. Read up on Ludlow Massacre . Pay attention to the demands part. Right to an 8 hour work day, proper weight checking, actually obeying safety laws, and right to shop at any store, not just the company store? Sorry, you can't have any of that. This is what it was before government stepped in to gradually stop it.

If you step back and take a look at the bigger picture this is what unabridged concentration of wealth leads to, and it doesn't matter whether the government is small or big. The only difference is how wealthy exploit the little man. The small government simply means that wealthy don't have any pesky labor laws to deal with. Big government means they can buy favorable laws. In light of the latter the "small government" slogan sounds attractive, but it ignores the reality that small government cannot protect the common man from the wealthy abuses. The proper way is not to arbitrarily cut down the government, but to reduce it to a more reasonable level while maintaining working man protection. Unfortunately I do not know how to do it, but I do know that just chopping it is not a good idea.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
I don't think people on welfare should be able to vote because they are basically voting to take other peoples money for themselves.
How about rich people not being able to vote because they can purchase lobbyists that will pass beneficial laws that will give them money? Or cut their tax burden even further?

Why is poor people voting for their interests wrong, but rich people doing it is great?
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Thanks for including your commentary in the first post instead of making a second one. And while his fears of 'extinction' are overblown, he does have a point that increased taxes paid should give the payer a bigger "equity stake" in the country's governance. We already do that after a fashion, however - instead of extra votes, we simply allow the rich to make campaign contributions to buy their influence. Much more indirect and inefficient, but the same basic effect.
The rich get way more out of their taxes basically by definition. Someone working 10 hour shifts at the local plant with 6 vacation days/year gets way less out of America's infrastructure than someone in the 1% who relies on highways to transport his company's goods, ports to ship internationally, police to protect him and keep down unrest at his inheritance of a substantial percentage of America's wealth, schools to educate his current and future workers, regulations to keep his bankers (relatively) honest, etc., etc.
 

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
7
0
That job is already filled. Obama nabbed it.
In 2016, when I get political power from most taxes paid, I promise to pull back the home invading, loud music playing, skittles gorging, knocking on your door at 2am drunk asking for help hordes to leave all you white folk alone.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
639
126
The rich get way more out of their taxes basically by definition. Someone working 10 hour shifts at the local plant with 6 vacation days/year gets way less out of America's infrastructure than someone in the 1% who relies on highways to transport his company's goods, ports to ship internationally, police to protect him and keep down unrest at his inheritance of a substantial percentage of America's wealth, schools to educate his current and future workers, regulations to keep his bankers (relatively) honest, etc., etc.
We're on the edge of the rabbit hole kids. Will we go down it??
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The rich get way more out of their taxes basically by definition. Someone working 10 hour shifts at the local plant with 6 vacation days/year gets way less out of America's infrastructure than someone in the 1% who relies on highways to transport his company's goods, ports to ship internationally, police to protect him and keep down unrest at his inheritance of a substantial percentage of America's wealth, schools to educate his current and future workers, regulations to keep his bankers (relatively) honest, etc., etc.
Fine, let the government stop building the infrastructure. The rich can pay and build it for themselves and their own exclusive use when it makes economic sense to do so, instead of the federal government building a bunch of bridges to nowhere and ports where a politician includes it as an earmark on some unrelated bill. Everyone else can walk everywhere or pay tolls to the rich for using their stuff. Kinda like how some states and cities are selling off their infrastructure to private companies.

I presume you're joking about "schools to educate their workers" since public schools suck and companies are off-shoring to get away from the products of that education; notice the high and persistent unemployment in this country.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,474
9,423
126
This is so out of touch it's hard to believe this is real. Seriously. What. The. Hell. The guy is advocating for bringing feudal society back. It used to be couple of hundred years ago that you couldn't vote unless you were a free white male 21 years of age and had owned a property. If you were slave, or a woman, or just happened to be a working poor - too bad. Is this really where we want to go back to? The feudal society?
Universal suffrage was not made law in the US until 1964.

Perkins doesn't need more votes because he can already buy public opinion. You think any other old man with a crackpot political idea gets published front page on CNN?
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
How about rich people not being able to vote because they can purchase lobbyists that will pass beneficial laws that will give them money? Or cut their tax burden even further?

Why is poor people voting for their interests wrong, but rich people doing it is great?
I never said rich people buying votes/cronyism was great, quite the opposite. How about the government follow the constitution, that way there's no laws or regulations to pass worth buying via lobbying in the first place?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,298
14,499
136
Universal suffrage was not made law in the US until 1964.

Perkins doesn't need more votes because he can already buy public opinion. You think any other old man with a crackpot political idea gets published front page on CNN?
Thank You.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,298
14,499
136
Dont forget John Kerry and his wife paying 11% in 2003 on 6 million income.

A lot of these rich arent exploiting loopholes. They simply are rich(live off investments that are taxed as capital gains).
I don't recall the Kerrys whining about how they'd soon be extinct from taxation, about the class warfare & the persecution, just like with the Nazis.

Oh, capital gains rates *are* a loophole, btw. A really big & useful one for the financial elite.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Fine, let the government stop building the infrastructure. The rich can pay and build it for themselves and their own exclusive use when it makes economic sense to do so, instead of the federal government building a bunch of bridges to nowhere and ports where a politician includes it as an earmark on some unrelated bill. Everyone else can walk everywhere or pay tolls to the rich for using their stuff. Kinda like how some states and cities are selling off their infrastructure to private companies.

I presume you're joking about "schools to educate their workers" since public schools suck and companies are off-shoring to get away from the products of that education; notice the high and persistent unemployment in this country.
That's a pretty awful idea, since nothing large-scale would ever get built without eminent domain, and the benefits of things like public transportation don't accrue just to the person collecting the fees for it. If you build a subway system connecting a city, the whole city's economy benefits substantially - the rich most of all, but everyone, including the poor. It only makes sense to pay for it with tax dollars from everyone. That's also why it's stupid to bash public transit for not being 'profitable' in terms of the fees it collects, so long as the economic benefit of having the system running offsets the net cost of running it. Neither highways nor Amtrak run a profit, but it's silly to expect them to.

Our public schools are actually fine if you look at the median rather than the average. We have abysmal schools in the poorest areas, but the majority of our schools are okay. Meanwhile, we have unquestionably the best universities in the world, many of which are public as well, and even the private ones depend in large part upon research funding from the NSF, DOD, DOE, and public-private partnerships sponsored by the state. People aren't offshoring to avoid our college graduates, they're offshoring to avoid paying the going rate for American college graduates in the US, which is rational if still harmful. If all you need are 'well-educated' high school graduates, then sure, other places are better, but intellectual property and industrial technology are our biggest exports by far in this country, and those require more than a high school education in most cases.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
I don't recall the Kerrys whining about how they'd soon be extinct from taxation, about the class warfare & the persecution, just like with the Nazis.

Oh, capital gains rates *are* a loophole, btw. A really big & useful one for the financial elite.
Do you even realize that STCGs for the wealthy are taxed the same as normal wages now (nearly 40% for Federal, alone)? LTCG rates are in place to entice people to hold their securities longer, making the markets less volatile.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,128
1,521
136
Fine, let the government stop building the infrastructure. The rich can pay and build it for themselves and their own exclusive use when it makes economic sense to do so, instead of the federal government building a bunch of bridges to nowhere and ports where a politician includes it as an earmark on some unrelated bill. Everyone else can walk everywhere or pay tolls to the rich for using their stuff. Kinda like how some states and cities are selling off their infrastructure to private companies.
You mean kind of like Chicago-Daley Parking Meter deal worked out for the city? Ignore for a second the shitty contract terms that allowed Chicago Parking Meters LLC to bill city for losses of the meters that weren't functioning. That was a failure of a corrupt government to sign such a shitty contract. However, please ignore that for a moment and look at what happened to the parking rates. The parking rates quadrupled and now Chicago is the most expensive city in the nation to park. That's what happens when you let private sector move into the inelastic sector such as parking metering. Prior to the sale the program was self sufficient, it was run at cost, but after the sale the rates quadrupled. The same thing is going to happen if you privatize public utilities/infrastructure without regulating it. Do you really think paying 4x for road tolls or bridges is going to be better for everyone but the ones who own those tolls/bridges?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-02/opinion/ct-edit-meters-20130602_1_chicago-parking-meters-llc-chicago-city-council-aldermen
 
Last edited:

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
Dont forget John Kerry and his wife paying 11% in 2003 on 6 million income.

A lot of these rich arent exploiting loopholes. They simply are rich(live off investments that are taxed as capital gains).
Did you pay more than $600,000 in taxes in 2003?

I didnt think so, so stop bitching about it when other people pay 20X more than you do in taxes.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS