[Jabberwalker]

There used to be a time ... not all that long ago ... when you got to vote if you owned property in this country (Canada). It took a couple of rebellions and a lot of heartache stretched over a good half century to rid ourselves of family compacts. etc. This would be a devolving step.

[andyt]

Are you going to pro-rate the votes, so the person that paid $1 in income tax gets one vote, the person who paid a million gets a million votes? That would only be fair too. Of course corporations would have to be given the vote, since they pay taxes and are people.

What about sales taxes - even poor people pay those. Property taxes? Even renters pay those, the landlords don't absorb those costs and wouldn't be able to pay those taxes without having a tenant who gives them money.

Shouldn't all government workers, including the military, be denied votes, since whatever taxes they paid they just paid with somebody else's tax money?

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

Are you going to pro-rate the votes, so the person that paid $1 in income tax gets one vote, the person who paid a million gets a million votes? That would only be fair too. Of course corporations would have to be given the vote, since they pay taxes and are people.

What about sales taxes - even poor people pay those. Property taxes? Even renters pay those, the landlords don't absorb those costs and wouldn't be able to pay those taxes without having a tenant who gives them money.

Shouldn't all government workers, including the military, be denied votes, since whatever taxes they paid they just paid with somebody else's tax money?

... as long as the process works in both directions. Every tax loophole that you use and very dollar socked away in a tax haven like the Cayman Islands should take away votes proportionally to their relative value.

You're not just a consumer of come commodity ... a "customer", you are a citizen. (It's quite an ancient word. look it up.)

[andyt]

Who's a better citizen - the person on modest income who pays no tax but gives of themselves to better their community, or the Wall street shark who made a bundle off derivatives and paid lots of taxes?

Who's a better citizen, the vet who lived off other people's taxes all his life serving in the forces, but was wounded in battle and now lives off a pension and pays no tax, or George Bush or Dick Chaney who managed to beat the draft but paid lots of taxes throughout their lives?

[Thanos]

This should be retitled "Terrible & Horrible Person Says/Does Something Terrible & Horrible, Receives Far Too Much Attention Over It". Would apply equally well to any future Bieber threads too.

[andyt]

What Biebs says/does is of no consequence, unless you have teenage daughters maybe. What this guy said absolutely deserves to be discussed. He's probably getting shit from his peers right now, for stating what they are after so bluntly. Don't know if it will serve to wake up the great unwashed that support the same pols this guy does tho.

[Jabberwalker]

My teenaged daughter thinks that he's an a-hole. If h manages to alienate that entire demographic, you may see him living on the streets in a couple of decades.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Remember that other thread where some rich guy was whining about some "war on the rich" or some shit? Well this butthead is nothing but ammunition for that argument.

[Delwin]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Remember that other thread where some rich guy was whining about some "war on the rich" or some shit? Well this butthead is nothing but ammunition for that argument.

Yeah its the same guy so shouldn't we just ignore him?

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ti ... 08503.html

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Delwin Delwin:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Remember that other thread where some rich guy was whining about some "war on the rich" or some shit? Well this butthead is nothing but ammunition for that argument.

Yeah its the same guy so shouldn't we just ignore him?

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ti ... 08503.html

Seriously?? It's the same moron??

[Delwin]

Yeah, I guess he liked the attention he got from his first troll. There is obviously no way anyone can believe that a weighted voting system would actually work. Obviously the rules would always be shaped to ensure that there is no social movement by those without power.

I guess it's not enough for some of these people to be filthy rich, now they need for people to know who they are. Conrad Black comes to mind. Best just to leave them alone. Media keeps feeding the trolls.

[andyt]

My, hope, faint as it may be, is that this sort of shit put out finally wakes people up a bit. But then we just have to look on this forum.... Haven't heard from Bart tho, since I pointed out that the military lives off other peoples taxes (unless they start bringing home plunder again) and so shouldn't get a vote, and that of course votes would be prorated according to how much tax you've actually paid.

[Prof_Chomsky]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Actually what he proposes has legal precedent. In many countries and in many parts of the USA property tax elections are proportionate with votes weighted according to who will pay the most.

Getting to the heart of the liberal drumbeat for 'fairness' it would be really and truly 'fair' if the people who pay most of the freight for whatever is being voted upon have their votes weighed according to what they pay.

You all do the same things in your homes where you earn the money and pay the bills so you get to say what goes for your household budgets. Imagine if your kids got to have an equal say in how you spent your money? I doubt any of you would like that.

Yet here we are telling the people who pay most of our collective bills that they don't get a proportionate say in how their money is taxed or spent. Worse yet, we let people who don't have any money at stake in society to have a say in how everyone else's money is spent.

How's that 'fair'?

Democracy is based on the rights of individuals, not the rights of dollars. 1 person, 1 vote. The system you propose is pretty darn close to the aristocracy your forefathers fought to overthrow...

And you MUST be able to see the inevitable issue with this. Rich people will inevitably turn the working class into serfs.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

My, hope, faint as it may be, is that this sort of shit put out finally wakes people up a bit. But then we just have to look on this forum.... Haven't heard from Bart tho, since I pointed out that the military lives off other peoples taxes (unless they start bringing home plunder again) and so shouldn't get a vote, and that of course votes would be prorated according to how much tax you've actually paid.

Hear from me now: I did not exclude the military from my proposal.

[BartSimpson]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Democracy is based on the rights of individuals, not the rights of dollars. 1 person, 1 vote. The system you propose is pretty darn close to the aristocracy your forefathers fought to overthrow...

And you MUST be able to see the inevitable issue with this. Rich people will inevitably turn the working class into serfs.

Amazing to see someone named 'Chomsky' defending the rights of individuals. Forgive me if I call bullsh*t on that.

Given that the US is not now nor has ever been a democracy I'm not going to get all broken up about democratic rights.

We're a Constitutional and representational republic. With regards to that part about representation it is not without precedent to limit voting rights to those who will be impacted by or who will pay for something.

Several states allow for proportional representation of landowners with regards to numerous topics such as school bonds or the annexation of rural land to a municipality. Which is only fair.

Really, why should a tenant in an apartment get to vote on a bond they don't have to pay? Why should a tenant get to vote on an annexation that has no impact on them?

You may as well pull out that bullsh*t from 2004 and 2008 when some of the Commonwealth and EU people proposed that they should have a right to vote for the US President because of various reasons.

Sheer idiocy.

Tell you what, give me your home address and we'll have twenty homeless people move in and then you can hold a vote on who gets to run your house. You'll still be on the hook for paying the bills, of course, but the governance of your house will be far more democratic than it is now.