I guess venture capitalist Tom Perkins just wants to be provocative since he continues to say things that have little purpose other than to make people angry. His latest foray into outrageousness is to propose a new electoral system in which only people who pay some kind of net taxation are allowed to vote, and the more you pay in taxes, the more votes you get.
“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?”
This comes on the heels of the letter he had published in the Wall Street Journal last month that likened criticism of growing income inequality to Nazi pogroms against the Jews.
I have my own proposal. I say that we set an upward limit on how much wealth people can have. Any wealth above that level must be used to invest in job-creating endeavors or it will be confiscated. If any one resists this taxation or complains about it, they will dragged out of their house by an angry mob and tarred and feathered in the town square. Thereafter, their wealth will be redistributed to help fund anti-poverty efforts. This wouldn’t really discourage healthy venture capitalism, since they could either use or lose their excess wealth, but it would discourage the kind of venture capitalism done by firms like Bain Capital that seek to “rationalize” the market by bleeding corporations of all their money and assets while destroying jobs.
Of course, I’m not really serious. Like Mr. Perkins, I’m just being outrageous.
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.”
I’m not really serious, but if Perkins tries to implement his reforms, I will try to implement mine.
“Tarred and feathered”?
How about “drawn and quartered”, and then processed into dog food?
No point in wasting perfectly good meat.
Of course, before preparing it for dog food, it will need to be treated for its bitterness.
I was thinking that anyone who had accounts offshore that were untaxed and out of the US economy would allow the US to decline a voter’s registration.
Or perhaps anyone with legal, CPA, consulting fees exceeding $1 in a year. Or maybe before they are allowed to vote there is a financial audit by CREW of their personal and business finances. Just to be sure they actually, you know, OWN property.
Any American with offshore accounts would gladly choose their accounts over their vote. That sort buys other people’s votes in bulk.
What Perkins proposes would spare his class the need to buy other people’s votes. Cutting out the middleman, as it were.
‘Asked offstage if the proposal was serious, Perkins said: “I intended to be outrageous, and it was.”‘
Has this guy got stocks in the guillotine market or what?
This.
Seriously, the oligarchs are just taunting us at this point.
It’s only class warfare when we fight back.
Yes, a maximum wealth law.
Not a new concept, the Founder’s intent was that only property owners vote. In the fifties (science fiction author Robert) Heinlein proposed in perhaps his most reichwing publication Starship Troopers that only military veterans – not active duty, veterans – be extended the “franchise”, the right, to vote.
I’m a veteran.a combat veteran, and my vote is redisribution. One way or another.
No fear.
Not all the founders! This was one of the many things that they fought about–who should get the vote? And this was a big part of Jefferson’s political success. If you work to expand the franchise, the newly enfranchised voters will tend to support you over the party that wanted to restrict your voting rights.
We’re seeing the same dynamic with immigration reform right now. Among the reasons the Republicans are so vehemently opposed is that we’re talking about millions of new voters who will be mostly voting for Democrats.
Can we get a Kickstarter campaign going to Booman’s program?
Reeducation camps.
Uh I support your proposal as a real proposal. Just take out the tar and feathering and throw them in jail for not paying taxes. In fact, that sounds like an entirely sensible proposal to me.
Some observations:
Perkins always delivers his zingers from safe venues. I’m surprised that he didn’t book a speech at Davos.
The fact that he’s putting on a public face like we haven’t seen since Pete Peterson means that there is a political strategy behind his moves. Ross Perot fantasy? Take heat off Koch brothers?
My counter-proposal is that shareholders vote one vote per shareholder regardless of the number of shares owned and that the Board and top three levels of executives are non-voting on compensation issues.
With Citizens United, Perkins has the system he wants right now. It just works indirectly. The Koch brothers have already spent more than $1 per NC voter attacking Kay Hagan (to promote their puppet Thom Tillis) and Tillis has not even won the Republican primary yet. The lucre pumps are going to be going full blast this year. And on the Democratic side Priorities USA (I think that’s a “thank God”) is taking a dive.
This is the year that progressives need to discover how to cause the billionaires to squander massive amounts of money and still lose the Congress. It has to do with mobilizing and uniting people power. And use of personal networks. And increasing the pool of registered voters and getting huge turnout. Beyond that I haven’t a clue how it gets done. Or how it educates Democrats not to stiff their supporters again.
Tiny flaw in his proposal – voting power based on tax payments would give the top 10% a majority. And who would they elect with their majority? Those that would immediately reduce their income taxes to zero.
What deliciousness, watching the plutocrats wrestle with deciding between the franchise and their fortune. Cut my taxes to zip and lose the franchise or keep paying taxes but still be able to vote? Reduce my taxes some and balloon the deficit? Nah, just declare the nation an aristocracy, use hidden taxes on the lessers to fund government and keep the franchise pocketed in rotten districts. The aristos will always opt for the last, until the rabble show up at the door.
Your proposal is awesome right up to the point where people are getting dragged out of their houses by angry mobs. And it’s a very American proposal, too.
And the thing is, too, we don’t even need anyone’s head on a pike. We want a tax increase on the wealthy, but we’re mostly talking about amounts so modest that people like Tom Perkins would never even notice the difference if they never talked to their accountants.
And if he doesn’t like it he will suffer the horrendous consequence of being considered an asshole.
Tarring and feathering can leave the person alive.
Unacceptable. And cruel.
Just finish the job nice and fast, confiscate the funds of the traitor, and make sure to film it for the rest of them to watch.
How about that?
Occupy…Elizabeth Warren…Perkins…Koch brothers…
Something has to give, and I have absolutely no empathy for the richest and most powerful organisms in the solar system who I ostensibly share traits with.
Personally, 1793 solutions sounds about right.
you might not be serious but I sure am. I would implement a ‘sloshing money tax’ instantly if I thought I could get away with it. I’m not trying to be outrageous, I just honestly think its a much better way forward.