"You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/14/tom-perkins-votes_n_4788086.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/14/tom-perkins-votes_n_4788086.html
Tom Perkins: People With More Money Should Get More Votes
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
Lou Dobbs took offense to this notion (but perhaps he has to). Personally, I agree with Perkins.
It certainly isn't fair that people with no skin in the game... who pay for none of the expense... get to vote for themselves getting more from others.
It certainly isn't fair that people with no skin in the game... who pay for none of the expense... get to vote for themselves getting more from others.
Lou Dobbs took offense to this notion (but perhaps he has to). Personally, I agree with Perkins.
It certainly isn't fair that people with no skin in the game... who pay for none of the expense... get to vote for themselves getting more from others.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/0...lve_americas_problems_says_venerable_tech_vc/
Ordinary people pay most of the taxes in America, there simply aren't enough rich people driving cars to pay all of the fuel taxes for the roads or smoking to pay all of the tobacco taxes and right down the line. Ordinary folks paid over a trillion in FICA taxes as opposed to the income taxes the wealthy paid, so almost 4 to 1. Most on these boards read the Fed Reserve report on how USA is worth $77 trillion, non profits now have $2 trillion which is why they can afford to pay football coaches $4-5 million to coach, what's disturbing about the recent fed report, in their opinion, was that the $1.5 trillion increase this quarter in national wealth was due to the $1 trillion rise in stock market valuations. It's difficult to believe the rich complain about taxes when they control most of the nation's wealth, perhaps their simply spoiled or self absorbed.
>>>
<<<
That's the way it ALWAYS was supposed to be. America is (was?) a MERITOCRACY... and that's what allowed us to become a great, powerful, and successful country... envy of the world!
Instead of complaining about others having more than you, why don't you make more of yourself? And not just you... ALL the complainers and ne'er-do-wells. You want to make profits in the stock market? That's up to YOU!
Those other taxes you mention are FAIR! People paying for their proportionate use.... as they should. The Federal Income Tax as it presently stands... IS UNFAIR/PROGRESSIVE AND IMMORAL!
Hi, neither I nor anyone who posted complained about the rich, so perhaps you're a bit hungover from a weekend of skiing near your swiss chalet in the alps, while sipping champagne with the Davos crowd. For those that enjoy economics people enjoy breaking down problems and seek solutions. The founders distrusted concentrated wealth and power, their solution was land redistribution. They didn't seize anyone's assets in banks and such, there was land aplenty and you got your little share. Green River shale oil holds $60 trillion in real wealth, those are govt figures which equate to $200,000 pr citizen, but oddly both parties ruining our nation won't allow that to happen, which I find odd since both parties are suppose to be properly managing our assets. Since America owns so much property I wonder if the founders economic solutions of homesteading for those seeking opportunity would work in this economic environment. Have a great week 
It is interesting to note that all the states early in U.S. history had property requirements to vote. These were gradually eliminated by 1850 with Vermont being the first state to eliminate the requirement.
The concept of requiring property to vote is built on the premise that only people who own property really have a commitment and responsibility to building the country, and and should be granted the right to vote. These property requirements were enacted at a time where there was no income tax. The modern version of "property requirements" should be built on a person demonstrating responsibility by paying federal income tax. People who do not work and pay no income tax are "takers" (I will grant an exception for SS retirees). This makes income tax the correct modern standard for establishing eligibility to vote (instead of owning property).
I disagree with Perkins that multiple votes should be granted on how much an individual pays. Back in U.S. history, men were not granted multiple votes if they had large properties. It should be strictly one person, one vote - but a person must demonstrate they are not a "taker" by paying income tax to be allowed to vote.
This is... after all... what our founding fathers actually intended.
Background info:
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html
http://www.gilderlehrman.org/histor...ics/essays/winning-vote-history-voting-rights
Was the Founding Undemocratic? The Property Requirement for Voting
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/property-requirement.html
The concept of requiring property to vote is built on the premise that only people who own property really have a commitment and responsibility to building the country, and and should be granted the right to vote. These property requirements were enacted at a time where there was no income tax. The modern version of "property requirements" should be built on a person demonstrating responsibility by paying federal income tax. People who do not work and pay no income tax are "takers" (I will grant an exception for SS retirees). This makes income tax the correct modern standard for establishing eligibility to vote (instead of owning property).
I disagree with Perkins that multiple votes should be granted on how much an individual pays. Back in U.S. history, men were not granted multiple votes if they had large properties. It should be strictly one person, one vote - but a person must demonstrate they are not a "taker" by paying income tax to be allowed to vote.
This is... after all... what our founding fathers actually intended.
Background info:
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html
http://www.gilderlehrman.org/histor...ics/essays/winning-vote-history-voting-rights
Was the Founding Undemocratic? The Property Requirement for Voting
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/property-requirement.html
You don't get it. Most of the well-to-do in this country are so... not because they "got" from the government, but IN SPITE OF BEING FUCKED LEFT AND RIGHT, YEAR AFTER YEAR via progressive/immoral federal income tax. And you say, "well, you still have some money left, so you should give THAT to others as well"...
America was never supposed to be a Hippie commune utopia, you know.
(No Swiss chalet for me. I cleaned the garage, washed my Subaru and picked up dog poop today.)
Most people are familiar with an economist named Pareto. His theory is that there is an 80-20 breakdown in most systems. It is sometimes referred to as a principle, sometimes a rule, and sometimes a law.
When you go further into breaking down the numbers, they work out to 64-4 and 50-.8.
Meaning that eight tenths of one percent will control fifty percent of the wealth.
This is the principle, rule, or law that is overlooked by those gung ho on doing something about income and wealth inequality. (very conveniently overlooked)
Because a law of the few owning half of the wealth doesn't just apply to conservative economic policy. It is a law. Laws apply to all sides.
So, when the gov't tells you it is going to redistribute wealth and do something about income inequality, AL GORE winds up fabulously rich and in the 1%.
And in a commie regime, people who are big whigs in the party own or control most of the wealth.
There will always be the few controlling much No Matter What.
The only question is whether it is based on economics or based on politics or based on control of the military.
The point is that while the gov't policymakers whine about inequality and say they are going to do something about it, what they don't say, very conveniently, is that what they are going to do is make their political pals the new 1%.
It's a law. Call it a principle or rule if you like.
When you go further into breaking down the numbers, they work out to 64-4 and 50-.8.
Meaning that eight tenths of one percent will control fifty percent of the wealth.
This is the principle, rule, or law that is overlooked by those gung ho on doing something about income and wealth inequality. (very conveniently overlooked)
Because a law of the few owning half of the wealth doesn't just apply to conservative economic policy. It is a law. Laws apply to all sides.
So, when the gov't tells you it is going to redistribute wealth and do something about income inequality, AL GORE winds up fabulously rich and in the 1%.
And in a commie regime, people who are big whigs in the party own or control most of the wealth.
There will always be the few controlling much No Matter What.
The only question is whether it is based on economics or based on politics or based on control of the military.
The point is that while the gov't policymakers whine about inequality and say they are going to do something about it, what they don't say, very conveniently, is that what they are going to do is make their political pals the new 1%.
It's a law. Call it a principle or rule if you like.