Tom Perkins' big idea: The rich should get more votes

[garbon]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom-perkins-vote/

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?"

The audience at the Commonwealth Club reacted with laughter. But Perkins offered no immediate indication that he was joking. Asked offstage if the proposal was serious, Perkins said: "I intended to be outrageous, and it was."

Perkins seemed to be aware that he was courting controversy, saying that his voting proposal would "make you more angry than my letter to the Wall Street Journal."

That letter, published last month, compared the supposed assault on the wealthy to a wave of Nazi attacks on Jews ahead of the Holocaust.

The letter sparked a public firestorm, and the venture capital firm he co-founded -- Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers -- distanced itself from his comments. Perkins has since allowed that the comparison went too far, but has not apologized for the overall message and his warning about anti-rich "radicalism."

The Perkins plan for determining who should be allowed to vote is likely to give his critics further ammunition.

For his part, Perkins shows no signs of backing down from his argument that the rich in America are under attack. Perkins said Thursday that the trend has grown since the election of President Obama -- who he described as an "amateur."

Pressed for examples of how the rich were being demonized, Perkins said that he feared higher taxes.

"The fear is wealth tax, higher taxes, higher death taxes -- just more taxes until there is no more 1%. And that that will creep down to the 5% and then the 10%," he said.

[derspiess]

I get two votes & I'm not even rich 

[Jacob]

Tom Perkins seems to be the amateur here.

[Tamas]

What would potentially be nice is an "upper and lower house" system:

everyone would be able to vote on the lower house, and all bills which do not involve the budget would need to be passed by both houses. So the poor would have their rights protected.

Billls affecting the budget, and the budget itself, would be under the authority of the upper house only, and only people who has been net tax payers in any year in the previous 4 years would be able to vote on upper house candidates.

this way, rights of the poor would be protected, but there would be no need and way to buy votes via the budget.

[crazy canuck]

More evidence one need not be smart to be rich.

On the other hand he is entirely correct but not in the way he imagines.  His voting scheme would indeed "change the world".  In the new world I would be begging Ide not to have me amongst the first put up against the wall

[Neil]

He's just defending his lifestyle and privilege.  He'll no doubt keep doing this sort of thing up until the time a squad of Ideologues tears him limb from limb.

[crazy canuck]

What would potentially be nice is an "upper and lower house" system:

everyone would be able to vote on the lower house, and all bills which do not involve the budget would need to be passed by both houses. So the poor would have their rights protected.

Billls affecting the budget, and the budget itself, would be under the authority of the upper house only, and only people who has been net tax payers in any year in the previous 4 years would be able to vote on upper house candidates.

this way, rights of the poor would be protected, but there would be no need and way to buy votes via the budget.

How would giving the wealthiest segment of society the power to give themselves tax breaks by cutting services to the poor protect the poor?

[Eddie Teach]

Tamas, as someone who has lived in a communist country, why would you want to hasten a new revolution? 

[Valmy]

That letter, published last month, compared the supposed assault on the wealthy to a wave of Nazi attacks on Jews ahead of the Holocaust.

This guy sounds like he has the brilliance and self-awareness of Martinus.  Obviously somebody we need to consult on important matters.

[Admiral Yi]

Political systems which have included a property or income qualification have tended to work for the benefit of the upper classes.  Political systems which have not have had a tendency to hand out more free money.  Both have their disadvantages.

[Maximus]

What would potentially be nice is an "upper and lower house" system:

everyone would be able to vote on the lower house, and all bills which do not involve the budget would need to be passed by both houses. So the poor would have their rights protected.

Billls affecting the budget, and the budget itself, would be under the authority of the upper house only, and only people who has been net tax payers in any year in the previous 4 years would be able to vote on upper house candidates.

this way, rights of the poor would be protected, but there would be no need and way to buy votes via the budget.

Why would the upper house ever pass a bill that didn't involve the budget?

[grumbler]

... only people who has been net tax payers in any year...

No one in a modern first-world country is a net tax payer, unless they are out of the country and living somewhere where their government has no power to help them in case of trouble.  Taxes go for services that everyone uses, and for the conditions that everyone enjoys.

If one really feels that they pay more in taxes than they get in value, they move to a country where they get better value for their money.

[Admiral Yi]

 

[grumbler]

Political systems which have included a property or income qualification have tended to work for the benefit of the upper classes.  Political systems which have not have had a tendency to hand out more free money.  Both have their disadvantages.

True, but systems that have included property qualifications have all been overthrown or amended, so it isn't like the verdict of history isn't in on that concept.  It's better to have an annoyed elite than desperate masses.

[The Brain]

... only people who has been net tax payers in any year...

No one in a modern first-world country is a net tax payer, unless they are out of the country and living somewhere where their government has no power to help them in case of trouble.  Taxes go for services that everyone uses, and for the conditions that everyone enjoys.

If one really feels that they pay more in taxes than they get in value, they move to a country where they get better value for their money.

*backs away slowly*