Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Eddie_George

Tom Perkins Says The Rich Should Get More Votes

Recommended Posts

Tom Perkins, the legendary venture capitalist who provoked a firestorm by comparing the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany to the way rich people are treated in the United States, on Thursday offered a provocative idea about how to “change the world.” During an interview with a Fortune magazine jornalist, Perkins said that only U.S. taxpayers should be able to vote in elections.

But that’s not all. Perkins went on to say that wealthy people should get more votes than others because they pay more in taxes.

http://business.time.com/2014/02/14/tom-perkins-taxes/#ixzz2tOngCp8N

He's determined to get his 15 minutes of fame. I think he's getting greedy now though! :D

Edited by Eddie_George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting idea although is he happy to take on more responsibility, how many more votes is his wealth worth?

I'm guessing he doesn't see the irony of proposing the system that the mother country had for centuries that only the wealthy could vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://business.time.../#ixzz2tOngCp8N

He's determined to get his 15 minutes of fame. I think he's getting greedy now though! :D

Apart from the obvious awfulness of this, it is a fact that no-one really knows who ultimately pays taxes in many cases.

For example, who actually pays a companies taxes? Is it the employees, through reduced pay? The customers through increased prices? The company itself? The owners?

My favourite scrounger, the Duke of Westminster, pays no net taxes at all, regardless of whatever he notionally pays to the inland revenue.

And if you think this is wrong, ask yourself who pays VAT? It's the shops that send the cheques, so it can't be the customers, can it?

One thing we know for sure, the rich have little reason to complain about the current status-quo.

The fact that some do is an amazing act of stupidity, which they would soon regret if they got their way.

Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My google skills are as poor as my memory.

But, I dimly remember from school that Lord Salisbury (? or someone) made some quite sensible arguments against universal franchise. Points that could well argue have been borne out over the years.

The fundamental argument (as I remember it) was that if you give the vote to every oik who has no equity stake in the country then he'll demand policies that'll benefit him personally in the short term - even if they wreck the nation as a whole in the long term.

Of course, the argument does rather hang on the notion that the mere act of being a hereditary landowner imbues one with both long term vision and social benevolence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My google skills are as poor as my memory.

But, I dimly remember from school that Lord Salisbury (? or someone) made some quite sensible arguments against universal franchise. Points that could well argue have been borne out over the years.

The fundamental argument (as I remember it) was that if you give the vote to every oik who has no equity stake in the country then he'll demand policies that'll benefit him personally in the short term - even if they wreck the nation as a whole in the long term.

Of course, the argument does rather hang on the notion that the mere act of being a hereditary landowner imbues one with both long term vision and social benevolence.

The problem is those with a substantial equity stake will and are demanding policies that personally benefit them and are wrecking the nation. So they demand bailouts for banks and their pet projects, and contracts with the State.

There was a time when you could you say what was good for business, was good for the nation, but now that corporations and the elite have largely detached themselves from the nation state, I'm not so sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that "no taxes without representation" - the principle behind the US war of independence - should also mean "no representation without paying taxes" - so he is right. Just as long as we introduce a land value tax first and ensure that people's wealth is not garnered by the land fraud game.

You could refine it to say: representation only for those who pay taxes on income/capital (and not for those who just earn money from rentierism). That way Parliament would be biased against the rentiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the argument does rather hang on the notion that the mere act of being a hereditary landowner imbues one with both long term vision and social benevolence.

Starkey made an interesting point about this on Question Time a while back. He argued that hereditary landowners realised they had inherited their privileged position through accident of birth. This tended to foster a sense of social benevolence. In contrast, today's ruling elite (and he gestured to the likes of Harriet Harman, Shirley Williams and, of course, Dimbleby, on the panel) equally had attained their rank through their family connections. However, the veneer of meritocracy gave these people a grasping sense of entitlement.

Here it is. They certainly don't like him pointing out the truth:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes, Harriet Harman - the niece of the Countess of Longford - simply brazens it out and refuses to accept she had a privileged upbringing.

She says she worked to ensure women in manual jobs were paid the same as men - but in my experience, in unskilled jobs, there is no distinction in pay anyway. The real distinctions come higher up - where people who are particularly skilled or particularly good at their jobs can argue for more money - and so Starkey is right to say that in nearly all cases it is middle-class and upper-class women who have benefited from Harriet Harman's egalitarian campaigns.

Actually working-class women have had their lot in life considerably worsened by such campaigns. Because the way HPI worked is that when all women went out to work, house prices simply went up from 3 times a man's salary to 6 times a couple's joint salary - and the benefit to the women involved was, once again, zero.

Harman is a disgraceful individual. There are millions of women on the treadmill in life whose lives have actually been destroyed by this egalitarianism and the way it has fed HPI. It all comes back to property prices in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes, Harriet Harman - the niece of the Countess of Longford - simply brazens it out and refuses to accept she had a privileged upbringing.

She says she worked to ensure women in manual jobs were paid the same as men - but in my experience, in unskilled jobs, there is no distinction in pay anyway. The real distinctions come higher up - where people who are particularly skilled or particularly good at their jobs can argue for more money - and so Starkey is right to say that in nearly all cases it is middle-class and upper-class women who have benefited from Harriet Harman's egalitarian campaigns.

Actually working-class women have had their lot in life considerably worsened by such campaigns. Because the way HPI worked is that when all women went out to work, house prices simply went up from 3 times a man's salary to 6 times a couple's joint salary - and the benefit to the women involved was, once again, zero.

Harman is a disgraceful individual. There are millions of women on the treadmill in life whose lives have actually been destroyed by this egalitarianism and the way it has fed HPI. It all comes back to property prices in the end.

It's taken as read that women 'earn less than men for the same job' but is this true on a 100% life for like basis.

Say there's a job that has a pay scale of £15-£25k. Employees tend to start at the bottom and each year they can expect a pay rise of some sort. After a number of years they reach the magical £25k. The nature of the job doesn't change too much although the more experienced staff might have minor increased responsibilities in comparison to a new starter.

Bob and Jane both do the job. They started on the same rate and got the same pay rise over the first three years. Jane then had a couple of kids taking full maternity leave for each one, worked part time for a bit, now is full time again - she missed a pay rise or two and the breaks and part time working meant she didn't have the extra responsibilities. Bob did not take a career break and worked throughout, taking a modest pay rise each year and taking on some extra responsibilities. He currently earns about 20% more than jane.

Meanwhile, Kathy started at the same time as Bob and had a virtually identical employment record - she earns the same.

This seems to be how it works in companies at which I've worked. If it's 100% like for like work and the employees have like for like employment histories they'll get the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

contributor = vote

non-contributor = no vote

******ing simple aint it folks

Great idea.

What about net drains on society and the economy such as landlords and financial speculators, their contribution is negative so how should that work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from the obvious awfulness of this, it is a fact that no-one really knows who ultimately pays taxes in many cases.

For example, who actually pays a companies taxes? Is it the employees, through reduced pay? The customers through increased prices? The company itself? The owners?

My favourite scrounger, the Duke of Westminster, pays no net taxes at all, regardless of whatever he notionally pays to the inland revenue.

And if you think this is wrong, ask yourself who pays VAT? It's the shops that send the cheques, so it can't be the customers, can it?

One thing we know for sure, the rich have little reason to complain about the current status-quo.

The fact that some do is an amazing act of stupidity, which they would soon regret if they got their way.

..hah ..the public pay the VAT..the shops are the unpaid Government collectors.... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite happy to give up my vote as I don't believe you have real choice anyway.

..you quote "Capitalism has defeated communism. It is now well on its way to defeating democracy" - David Korten...at least we have never had democracy in this country ...one example alone is 'The West Lothian Question' which affected the introduction of uni fees to your children in England and Wales but not in Scotland ...just one example ... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite happy to give up my vote as I don't believe you have real choice anyway.

Yes. Let's do a deal.

Those who agree never to have a vote - should be exempt from all taxation including income tax, national insurance and council tax.

I'd go for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is those with a substantial equity stake will and are demanding policies that personally benefit them and are wrecking the nation. So they demand bailouts for banks and their pet projects, and contracts with the State.

There was a time when you could you say what was good for business, was good for the nation, but now that corporations and the elite have largely detached themselves from the nation state, I'm not so sure.

+1

In the US they call it "lobbying" and at least some of it is public. Over here I think it's more a matter of cosy fireside chats in private with the PM and what the media wants the people to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than simply giving people extra votes for possessing extra money, I rather like Nevil Shute's "seven votes" system. Of course his original seven categories are somewhat anachronistic and would need updating, but the basic principle he proposed is of a meritocracy as distinct from a plutocracy, which appears to be what Perkins wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Let's do a deal.

Those who agree never to have a vote - should be exempt from all taxation including income tax, national insurance and council tax.

I'd go for it!

Or benefits... And should not be allowed to use any publicly funded infrastructure.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or benefits... And should not be allowed to use any publicly funded infrastructure.....

I agree, landowners should not get the vote. They have land which has only grown in value from public investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To settle the matter there should be a vote on whether the rich should get more votes.

Why not just put the queen back in charge? It`s the logical conclusion of that kind of thinking,

The trouble with any sort of weighted voting system is who gets to decide who gets the excluded from voting, or watered down voting rights?

I`ve often thought some sort of intelligence test combined with a test to show at least a basic grasp of some of the major issues as a prerequisite for voting rights would be a good idea. The trouble comes when you start thinking about who gets to set the test. Then you realise its a terrible idea that would leed to all sorts of horrible shenanigans.

The more complex the system the easier it is to fiddle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starkey made an interesting point about this on Question Time a while back. He argued that hereditary landowners realised they had inherited their privileged position through accident of birth. This tended to foster a sense of social benevolence. In contrast, today's ruling elite (and he gestured to the likes of Harriet Harman, Shirley Williams and, of course, Dimbleby, on the panel) equally had attained their rank through their family connections. However, the veneer of meritocracy gave these people a grasping sense of entitlement.

Here it is. They certainly don't like him pointing out the truth:

Made me laugh the other week when some tory twit started blabbing on about how only 30% of members voted for strike action on the underground. To which Starkey quickly pointed out well under half of London voted for Boris. (adjust for turnout, as they do to talk down the union vote, and its more like only 20% of London voted for Boris.

He may be right wing, but he certainly isnt tory.

He's about the only reason to watch QT nowadays. Audience usually hate him. Its depressing to see him mention clear facts and get boo-ed then some harriet harman type says nothing of substance, argues purely on playing on the audiences emotions and gets applause. I think he's had enough of question time unsuprisingly - ended up mocking some young lady in the audience last time he was on. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's about the only reason to watch QT nowadays. Audience usually hate him. Its depressing to see him mention clear facts and get boo-ed then some harriet harman type says nothing of substance, argues purely on playing on the audiences emotions and gets applause. I think he's had enough of question time unsuprisingly - ended up mocking some young lady in the audience last time he was on. :lol:

Couldn't agree more. QT only worth watching to see David Starkey in action.

And as for the old clip of DS attacking Dimblebore, as being a "heriditary broadcaster" with 'leave me out of it" as the response. Genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or benefits... And should not be allowed to use any publicly funded infrastructure.....

I'm afraid you are misinformed.

You believe the entirety of government spending is funded by personal taxation.

You believe there is no such thing as VAT or corporation tax or excise duty.

You are misinformed. Even if personal taxation was exempted for those who choose not to vote, the government would still have the half of tax revenue that doesn't derive from personal taxation to provide basic public services to the population. (See Hong Kong where public spending is just 20% of GDP for evidence that the UK could, eventually, whittle the state down to that level.)

Isn't it amazing that ordinary people, such as the people in this thread, spout state propaganda without realising they heard it first on the BBC - we have people hear propagandising for personal taxation and claiming those who don't pay income tax can't walk on the road - that is covered by VAT and other income streams.

This is getting silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.