Tom Perkins' big idea: The rich should get more votes
Source: CNN
Tom Perkins suggested Thursday that only taxpayers should have the right to vote -- and that wealthy Americans who pay more in taxes should get more votes.
The venture capitalist offered the unorthodox proposal when asked to name one idea that would "change the world" at a speaking engagement in San Francisco moderated by Fortune's Adam Lashinsky.
"The Tom Perkins system is: You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes," Perkins said.
"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?"
-snip-
Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom-perkins-vote/index.html
Editing to add a link to the GD topic I posted last night after Mother Jones' Josh Harkinson live-tweeted the talk. See a reply there for the link to video of the entire talk.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024497533
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)EC
(12,287 posts)as verification that you are indeed even paying taxes? I'd wager you don't pay taxes.
cvoogt
(949 posts)I think he is taking 'voting with your dollars' a smidge too literally. What an unoriginal thought. We as a country have tried this, with poll taxes, allowing only land owners to vote, etc. Does he really think we should go back to that time? It's an un-American, anti-democratic notion.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)I wondered when our W-2 forms would become our voter I.D.s
But let's not stop here! How about Tom and the rest of the One-Percenters being the first to go to war! After all, those who "have more" have more to lose.
In fact, send the f*cking corporations to the next global "hot spot." And I don't mean merely to sell arms and exploit people and resources.
Renew Deal
(81,869 posts)Nika
(546 posts)... from the point he was trying to make
his quote on that was; 'Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930, Is its descendent 'progressive' radicalism unthinkable now?'
He is a perfect example why people like him don't pay enough in taxes period.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)sad to see this happen to a genius who made a lot of technology companies possible and changed lives.
He is going to be tarred and feathered.
hibbing
(10,103 posts)He probably pays a lower percentage than the rest of us.
Peace
albino65
(484 posts)How do you like it? I can't wait for the townfolk to pick up their torches and pickaxes, storm the castle and pull Dr. Frankenstein from his sleep chamber.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Plus, then we would have someone to hang
Kelselsius
(50 posts)It's only a matter of time before only the wealthy can vote. But I suspect the next step is passing a law so only property owners can vote. Like the ancient Roman Republic.
But they must fully own their property.
Weeding out all of the renters and people who still have mortgages to pay will eliminated a high percentage of our voting population.
apnu
(8,758 posts)They seem to think that owning a house should entitle them to full citizenship and everybody else can get bent.
apnu
(8,758 posts)The guy isn't that smart is he?
justhanginon
(3,290 posts)the way it works now where they only have to purchase the house and senate. I understand some reps go really cheap, senators are a little more!
Auggie
(31,178 posts)I couldn't have said this better myself. Well done!
heaven05
(18,124 posts)in the Senate and Congress, what's the big deal. Go ahead, give the rich some more, too much is never enough for the rich american RW capitalist. Perkins is off his fucking rocker. I pay more taxes than some rich people and then some.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)head on over to Somalia!
billh58
(6,635 posts)Koch Brothers have already bought millions of proxy votes for the right-wing in this country. Perkins is late to the game...
otis252
(4 posts)How many votes should the mother who lost her son in the service of his country get? Better yet, why don't we take away the vote of the gutless and give our police and firemen extra votes?
Salviati
(6,008 posts)Apply to Tom Perkins
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)The rich have to start paying taxes
They_Live
(3,239 posts)corporation doesn't pay any tax and is subsidized by the Tax Payers? Do we get stock options?
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)aquart
(69,014 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,987 posts)fujiyama
(15,185 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Limited companies and occupiers of premises with a rateable valuation of £10 could appoint nominees - as could companies for each £10 of their valuations - under a system of plural voting, which even allowed such votes to be case in another constituency...[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_voting
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/conflict/civil.html
The City of London (Which is the old City Center where the big banks are located NOT what most people call the City of London, which under English law is referred to as "Greater London".
City of London (The Corporation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation#Elections
Greater London Authority (The Actual modern City of London):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London_Authority
The City of London permits Piural voting, corporation voting etc":
A resident
A sole trader or a partner in an unlimited partnership or
An appointee of a qualifying body.
Each body or organisation, whether unincorporated or incorporated, whose premises are within the City of London may appoint a number of voters based on the number of workers it employs. Limited liability partnerships fall into this category.
Bodies employing fewer than ten workers may appoint one voter, those employing ten to fifty workers may appoint one voter for every five; those employing more than fifty workers may appoint ten voters and one additional voter for every fifty workers beyond the first fifty.
Though workers count as part of a workforce regardless of nationality, only certain individuals may be appointed as voters. Under section 5 of the City of London (Ward Elections) Act 2002, the following are eligible to be appointed as voters (the qualifying date is 1 September of the year of the election);
Those who have worked for the body for the past year at premises in the City
Those who have served on the body's board of directors for the past year at premises in the City
Those who have worked in the City for the body for an aggregate total of five years
Those who have worked mainly in the City for a total of ten years and still do so or have done within the last 5 years.[13]
Voters appointed by businesses do not forfeit the right to vote for the local Council of their home residence (so long as it is outside the City). Therefore - uniquely in the U.K. - these voters are able to vote in two separate local elections. Firstly in 'the City' as appointed voter for their employers, or fellow employees and again for the local Council where their home address is situated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation#Voters
Thus the City of London has more non resident voters then residents (Again I want to emphasis the City of London IS not what we American would call London, that is governed by the Greater London Authority). . I mention the City of London for it is one of those rare creations that permit corporations and non-residents to vote. Also remember the real political power is in the Greater London Authority.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)every newspaper an TV station would bring these kind of remarks on their front pages or at the beginning of the news. Unfortunately this seems too much to expect.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)Grasping at straws.
I just watched the clip to see if the audience laughed at him. And thank God, there were sane people in the room.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)It is so horrible.
One vote per person is the last thing keeping the U.S. from being a 100% oligarchy.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)The only thing preventing people from hitting the streets. Who knows how many people feel that their vote is the only influence they have on what goes on in this country. If they lose that . . .
Herself
(185 posts)If they keep up with over the top batshyt crazy talk, claims, arrogance, and Americans don't get out and vote in mass, the republicans will up their game.
If people are angry with Democrats for not standing up to them for this and getting bolder, they have the non-voters to blame
Rich bastards don't spend billions on campaigns and lobbyists because our votes are worthless!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)struggle4progress
(118,320 posts)rlegro
(338 posts)To these narrow-minded, self-aggrandizing jerks, money is speech. Thus the more money they have the more speech they have. That's already the operand in this country, thanks to Citizens United, but some of the uber-rich aren't satisfied, obviously. Besides owning most of the country's moneyspeech, these characters want to own most of the votes, too. Actually, though, that would just bring the current system of plutocracy out of the closet. Well, peel Mr. Perkins another grape while he uses you as a footstool.
Some "democracy." Arie, ye wretched of the earth!
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)People are people too, my friend...
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)...since money is equated with speech why not draw a direct line between money and the right to vote?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)These idiots can't think beyond lining their own pockets. They define success as personal gain. A positive feedback system is never stable for long. The Founding Fathers would spit on the neocons.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)That this would strip away the last vestige of hope many of us 99-percenters have of influencing the political process through peaceful means, doesn't he? And we all know what comes after that.
mackerel
(4,412 posts)know much about how this country was founded.