Yes, it's an old idea. Only the nobility voted for centuries here, then it was expanded to only land owners.Don't they already do this indirectly, anyway?
Regardless, I fully agree. Damn poors wanting policies that affect them positively, like they mater anyway. They do not contribute to society nearly as much as I do. Know your betters.
Hey I have a great idea too!
Democracy - "rule of the people".
Not "rule of some people", not "Rule of the guy with the big wallet". Rule of the people.
We want money eliminated from politics at all levels, not introduced to it at a greater level.
There was actually one country that tried that. It was called Rhodesia.
That went well.
Not saying I agree with him, but I understand where he is coming from. You can argue that through his tax money, he contributes more to society than a guy who doesn't have a job and more importantly, does not pay taxes to the Government.
Why is it that they both have the same political power (1 vote), whilst one individual is clearly more important to the overall health of society than the other.
Again, want to reiterate that I do not agree with him at all. Just trying to understand his thinking process.
Not saying I agree with him, but I understand where he is coming from. You can argue that through his tax money, he contributes more to society than a guy who doesn't have a job and more importantly, does not pay taxes to the Government.
Why is it that they both have the same political power (1 vote), whilst one individual is clearly more important to the overall health of society than the other.
Again, want to reiterate that I do not agree with him at all. Just trying to understand his thinking process.
Epic troll, right?
Not saying I agree with him, but I understand where he is coming from. You can argue that through his tax money, he contributes more to society than a guy who doesn't have a job and more importantly, does not pay taxes to the Government.
Why is it that they both have the same political power (1 vote), whilst one individual is clearly more important to the overall health of society than the other.
Again, want to reiterate that I do not agree with him at all. Just trying to understand his thinking process.
I would love to see every individual dictate where their tax dollars went. It would be the fastest downfall of an empire in the modern times. Complete anarchy.Actually, Adam Carolla suggested this system years ago, and it makes some sense. Now, it doesn't make sense that rich people get more votes on things like immigration or abortion, but on where their tax dollars are going? That seems fair.
Consider this scenario:
Tom Perkins and Self-righteous Gaffer are living together in an apartment. They go to the grocery store. Tom Perkins pays for 99% of the groceries and Self-righteous Gaffer pays for 1% of the groceries. Should Self-righteous Gaffer really get to choose 50% of the food? That doesn't seem fair.
Actually, Adam Carolla suggested this system years ago, and it makes some sense. Now, it doesn't make sense that rich people get more votes on things like immigration or abortion, but on where their tax dollars are going? That seems fair.
Self-righteous Gaffer
"No representation without taxation." Didn't I read that on a banner?
Thatsthejoke.jpgNot sure if sarcastic, but you've got it backwards.
Don't the majority of large corporations in the US pay zero taxes?
I would be perfectly fine if each tax bracket got you one more vote. In the grand scheme of things it won't do much as lower income people greatly outnumber higher income people. But that's just my opinion, feel free to hate.
But everyone pays taxes so everyone gets to vote.
Not even going to acknowledge the last bit.
Somebody posted this for me the other day and I feel it's pretty apt here as well ...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism