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

[url]http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom-perkins-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_t2[/url] [IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/140214001743-tom-perkins-2-620xa.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Tom Perkins suggested Thursday that only taxpayers should have the right to vote -- and that wealthy Americans who pay more in taxes should get more votes. 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."[/QUOTE]

The notion that only the rich and privileged should be able to vote is nothing new and certainly not going to change the world. What an idiot.

This guy is an idiot; simple enough. I knew I recognized his name from the other article he made to the Wall Street Journal. Sorry but fuck no, just because you have money does not mean you're allowed to sway things in your favor so easily. If he's just trying to cause a commotion, he certainly comes off as a dickhead

well atleast it removes the requirement to bankroll an election campaign because they won't be needed they can just be like "i'll vote for you if you do x"

I'm rich therefore my opinion is worth orders of magnitude more then the common man.

The only thing that most people have in comparison to the rich is voting power, if the rich got more voting power then the US would turn literally in to an oligarchy.

I don't agree with this concept at all, but it does bother me a bit when the majority of people can vote to raise taxes on the minority.

Wealth based voting rights aren't exactly a new idea. It's called a plutocracy, the ancient greeks came up with it

[QUOTE=sgman91;43911539]I don't agree with this concept at all, but it does bother me a bit when the majority of people can vote to raise taxes on the minority.[/QUOTE] don't act as if rich people get so shafted by higher tax brackets. if somebody makes more money than the average person, they should do more to pay back - and higher taxes are a highly effective way for that to happen. besides, the way they're designed in most countries is so that the rich people still come out on top financially after everybody does their taxes.

He's emulating Trump, isn't he... Being deliberately [del]stupid[/del] sensational for exposure?

Well he's welcome to return to pre-1800 America where his dream was true. Fuck this guy.

Dude played too much Victoria 2.

How about a system where everyone should be able to vote, but people that proved to be informed about their choices (what they're voting for, what they're voting against and what their vote is not considering) would get more voting value? That way, people completely uninformed and "random" voters would get less value attributed to their opinion and people with more understanding and interest would get a bit more of voting power. This could also reduce abstinence since it would challenge people to actually go for the challenge of getting the higher voting value (Considering the idea that people are attracted to challenges). wouldn't this reflect better what society wants and needs without discriminating anyone? Just an idea.

how about no, tom.

Oh yeah, just take some steps back. How about we add royalty and peasants and everything again?

Fucking pig. [editline]14th February 2014[/editline] These are the people that need to get their teeth kicked in.

So I launched up Victoria 2 and the game was telling me that only 0.12 percent of the population wants this. Don't think I'll be picking that reform.

If anything he's living proof that you don't have to be very smart to make a big buck.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43912901]If anything he's living proof that you don't have to be very smart to make a big buck.[/QUOTE] It's just a game of cards to get rich of the stock market. Not that it's a lot of effort. Most of it is just patience and knowing when to pull out or go all in. [editline]14th February 2014[/editline] Then when you get money, you go into venture capital which is literally effortless money making. You're just owning sections of companies and getting money from it.

Did anyone read the article? He wanted an uproar. He wanted to sound outrageous and it worked.

[quote]You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?[/quote] Pretty fucking stupid, you cock. This is so evil-bankery/corporatey it's almost cliche.

Ask late 1700's France how well allowing only the rich people to vote and have power in government went.

Well maybe then the rich would actually start paying their taxes.

Weighted voting? What is this, the 19th century?

We had this in Belgium Until 1918

That's all well and good until you realise the political party that supports the rich the most usually supports the poor the least. But it's cool, if there's one thing the USA needs, it's more poor people.

Wow none of you read the article [Quote] 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."[/quote]

The Rich already do have more of a vote, it's called Lobbying.

"of what good is democracy if not for the poor" - Ferdinand Marcos, Tropico 4

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43915802]The Rich already do have more of a vote, it's called Lobbying.[/QUOTE] I wonder if that's the point he was trying to make... If so, sensationalist and also somewhat cunning.