I thought the big bad wealthy pay no taxes, so how would they rule over us? Pick one.
So you are saying the number of votes you get is dependent upon the amount of taxes you pay? So a wealthy person would have to choose how to balance their tax deductions against how many votes they would like to wield that year?
*Not asking about a poor person as they are left out entirely from having a say in their country.
That’s a reasonable way to put it. This has gotten off topic, but I’m ok discussing this.
I don’t think he did. He was talking about politicians.
One of the only things this country generally agrees upon is that the wealthy hold too much power (big business, liberal elites, Soros, Koch’s, etc). And your solution is to formalize the power imbalance into law trusting the wealthy to do the “right thing” instead of focusing on enriching themselves at the expense of the little person.
Has this worked well before?
If they already hold too much power than we may as well still have that but also get rid of the people voting the country into financial ruin, too. I’m not trusting anyone to do the right thing, I’m referring to economic incentive and alignment of interests.
“It hasnt happened therefore it can’t work” is not a logical argument.
I think you could only allow people who pay in more than they take out to vote. And I think you could earn a vote through military service. But having multiple votes based on how much you pay in taxes seems crazy.
Politicians should be as intended from the beginning…volunteer and when your time to serve is up, you go back home
3 Likes
I still like the basic idea of Heinlein in Starship Troopers.
Baseline rights for everyone but only citizens can vote. Anyone can become a citizen through civic service. Only citizens can hold public office.
In other words, keep the door open for everyone but make sure that the do-nothings, know-nothings and people who are simply uninterested in civic participation don’t get a say.
Co-ed showers too.
3 Likes
Crazy? Allowing people with no skin in the game to have a say is crazy. It has to inevitably end in economic disaster.
Excellent point, it was intended that way in the US. That’s precisely why I advocated a $10/day stipend for lunch.
Good stewards should have No skin in the game.
We should let New Zealanders do our voting and make decisions for us.
1 Like
Which voters are more likely to make non-emotional, objective, and beneficial decisions: voters in a public company with shareholders or one with no skin in the game like the current political system? The former has untold increases in wealth generation while the latter has caused the most dire fiscal situation imaginable.
3 Likes
As an aside, this has been the most civil political thread on here I think despite getting off topic now lol.
1 Like
Then no one would be voting.
Not yet. Possibly soon, but not yet. Australia is a lost cause, the majority of Europe is absolutely going the way of pre-war Europe, perhaps only resolvable by bloodshed. Specifically Germany and Austria have lost the plot. The US is still salvageable, for now.
I am still curious on how the ‘corporate’ election method would solve our problems with the electoral process. I didn’t see the post you deleted, perhaps it was not very nice. But I would like to know a process that actually would work.
What is this mythical utopia you live in, where the elections are executed correctly?
I think this is a silly way to look at it. We should be looking at the value a person brings to the economy, not just did they receive more than they paid.
There are plenty of people who receive more than they pay, but the amount of value they brought to the economy is greater than what they received. A good portion of the value they created was siphoned off by the people at the top who generally are capital holders.
Spot-on, great post! Hence I’ve voted once since being eligible in 1997, and I never will do it again.
2 Likes
Who are you referring to here?