• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
That's a pretty terrible idea. That would create an even stronger plutocracy than we already have.

The richest 10% of Americans control what, 75% of America's wealth?
 
Exactly what we need!
Its not like the rich buy influence and votes now! They should literally have more votes! Genius! What could go wrong? :shock:
 
Technically its more in line with our founder's ideas on government than what we have now.
 
Yes, so that way the 1% moniker becomes the actual reality of the United States and not just a horrible slogan.

Do you know what largely kept the United States away from socialism? The perception by most Americans that they could work and have an opportunity to rise, and that there was less of a problem of class in the United States.

If you want to speed up a horrible revolution (leading to an exaggerated left-wing polity), the best way to do it is to put the vast majority of Americans at a dramatically lower footing in this country than currently exists.

Frankly, this was exactly what Theodore Roosevelt argued against. Big business was here to stay, but if you do not act quick, the real bane of the United States would show up: socialism.
 
Last edited:
We could go back to only allowing property owners to vote. Would greatly kill city influence in elections.

Of course people would never go for it.
 
Wiseone said:
Technically its more in line with our founder's ideas on government than what we have now.
Click to expand...

Yea, but sometimes some selective views of our founders were absolutely horrible. **had to say it**
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
We could go back to only allowing property owners to vote. Would greatly kill city influence in elections.

Of course people would never go for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah because it's garbage. There's nothing inherent about owning property that makes you more important to society than say, someone who chooses to rent.
 
Last edited:
I propose that we take the vote away from everyone with an income above the median. Only poor people allowed to vote and rich people forced to pander to them to get them to vote the way they want.
 
If you are a productive worker and create surplus value for the company you work for, and that company pays taxes, you pay taxes through your work product. Hence most everyone pays taxes.

Should we give exclusive control of our government to people who have positioned themselves to collect most of the profit created by workers? Haha, that's funny.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yea, but sometimes some selective views of our founders were absolutely horrible. **had to say it**
Click to expand...

I'm glad you did.

The founders had a lot of great ideas. However, they were also exclusively white, straight (as far as we know), relatively affluent for the time, males who are all pretty much two centuries dead. They are not gods, they are not infallible. Some owned slaves, some were abolitionists. Some had progressive ideas, some had regressive ideas. One can cherry pick the ideas of the "founders" (and I put that in quotes since sometimes we can't all agree on who the founders actually were) and make any idea sound good.

The idolatry of the "founders" by some is ludicrous. I'd rather make decisions based on the realities of today rather than base them on what people who predate baseball have to say about it. Call me crazy.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
We could go back to only allowing property owners to vote. Would greatly kill city influence in elections.

Of course people would never go for it.
Click to expand...

Because it's a horrifically bad idea.
 
Kobie said:
That's a pretty terrible idea. That would create an even stronger plutocracy than we already have.

The richest 10% of Americans control what, 75% of America's wealth?
Click to expand...

Their own wealth you mean. America doesn't own it. And we have a democracy system of choosing our republican decision makers, not plutocracy. A rich persons vote is equal to a poor persons. Although poor people elect rich people to represent them, for some reason. I don't imagine anyone would support his idea, but theres some merit to the alternative idea that if you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't vote.
 
jamesrage said:
I have asked the question before should those who pay more income taxes get more votes seeing how they contribute more.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ople-pay-more-income-tax-have-more-votes.html


Tom Perkins' big idea: The rich should get more votes - Feb. 14, 2014
[h=2]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.[/h]
Click to expand...

The rich already get more influence and access. If anything, it should be the other way around. But in reality, everyone gets 1 vote.
 
Ikari said:
The rich already get more influence and access. If anything, it should be the other way around. But in reality, everyone gets 1 vote.
Click to expand...

Your saying that those who contribute less should have more of a say?
 
jamesrage said:
Your saying that those who contribute less should have more of a say?
Click to expand...

Actually I said everyone gets 1 vote.

But just being rich doesn't mean they contribute more. I'd take a factory worker over Paris Hilton any day as having more of an impact and more contribution overall. I mean, sure if you want only Paris Hilton and Nichole Richie deciding our government, you are free to advocate for it. I say everyone gets 1 vote.

But the real point of that statement was to note that the very wealthy already have essentially more than one vote. They have more influence and more access to our government and its officials than poor people. So the teeter totter has already swung in the direction of the rich. If you wanted to keep it fair, you'd be advocating for the poor to have more votes.
 
Ikari said:
Actually I said everyone gets 1 vote.

But just being rich doesn't mean they contribute more. I'd take a factory worker over Paris Hilton any day as having more of an impact and more contribution overall. I mean, sure if you want only Paris Hilton and Nichole Richie deciding our government, you are free to advocate for it. I say everyone gets 1 vote.

But the real point of that statement was to note that the very wealthy already have essentially more than one vote. They have more influence and more access to our government and its officials than poor people. So the teeter totter has already swung in the direction of the rich. If you wanted to keep it fair, you'd be advocating for the poor to have more votes.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that.It is the media in general that has more access to our government than poor people.A candidate the media desires gets invited on Oprah and other similar talk shows, has positive news stories done about them and they get invited to debates that weasel out most of the other candidates. Name recognition ensures a easy victory.Its how a no name senator became president.
 
jamesrage said:
I disagree with that.It is the media in general that has more access to our government than poor people.A candidate the media desires gets invited on Oprah and other similar talk shows, has positive news stories done about them and they get invited to debates that weasel out most of the other candidates. Name recognition ensures a easy victory.Its how a no name senator became president.
Click to expand...

Our media isn't really the ones contributing monies for access, that would be the rich and the corporations.

In the end, we just keep it to "everyone gets one vote" and that's that. We all should have equal say to the government since the government relies on our consent to govern. We should radically reform political contributions and the debates, but that's another story. 1 person, 1 vote.
 
Ikari said:
Our media isn't really the ones contributing monies for access, that would be the rich and the corporations.
Click to expand...


People turn off and ignore ads.People however watch news stories, and shows like Oprah.This has way more influence than any bumper sticker or ad.The media doesn't really need any money to do this.
 
jamesrage said:
People turn off and ignore ads.People however watch news stories, and shows like Oprah.This has way more influence than any bumper sticker or ad.The media doesn't really need any money to do this.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that the media is influential. It's just that they're not really doing anything other than what the richers and corporations want, they're all owned by the same folk in the end.
 
1-Who is Tom Perkins? and
2-Nah...but the rich SHOULD stop investing for a few years and shelter their cash and let everyone else flounder a bit.
 
VanceMack said:
1-Who is Tom Perkins? and
2-Nah...but the rich SHOULD stop investing for a few years and shelter their cash and let everyone else flounder a bit.
Click to expand...

Tom Perkins is the yahoo who compared the treatment of the rich to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.
 
Kobie said:
Tom Perkins is the yahoo who compared the treatment of the rich to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...
Great..but I still dont know who he is or why I should care. Still disagree with him. Still think the rich out to shelter their cash and sit out for a few years.
 
VanceMack said:
Great..but I still dont know who he is or why I should care. Still disagree with him. Still think the rich out to shelter their cash and sit out for a few years.
Click to expand...

Why should they do that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom