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

Started by garbon, February 14, 2014, 01:55:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

garbon

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

QuoteThe 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.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

derspiess

"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Jacob


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.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

crazy canuck

Quote from: Tamas on February 14, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
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?  :hmm:
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Valmy

QuoteThat 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.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

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

Quote from: Tamas on February 14, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
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

Quote from: Tamas on February 14, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
... 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.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!


grumbler

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 02:10:41 PM
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 future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

The Brain

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2014, 02:34:35 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 14, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
... 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*
Women want me. Men want to be with me.