Only those that pay taxes should be able to vote

[jeffrey]

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?"

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom-perkins-vote/

[wjcalderon]

That's the worst idea I've heard in a long time!!!

[disneysteve]

I usually stay out of the political threads but that's an awful idea. A significant percentage of Americans don't pay taxes because they don't owe any taxes. Why does that mean they shouldn't have the right to vote? My 18-year-old daughter shouldn't get to vote if she owes no money to the government? And why would having more money make your opinion more important? If I earn $100,000 and someone else earns $1,000,000, is their opinion 10 times more important than my opinion? I don't think so.

[creditcardfree]

I also think this is a terrible idea. Everyone pays taxes...sales tax is the best example.

[hamchan]

Yes, because the 1% don't own enough of our government already.

[bjl584]

A better idea is a requirement to own property (real estate) before being allowed to vote. This is how the Constitution was originally set up.

To many non property owners vote on property and school tax increases. It's too easy for them to vote yes when they aren't the ones paying for it.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey. Even posting such nonsense here makes the site look desperate for participation.

[wjcalderon]

To many non property owners vote on property and school tax increases. It's too easy for them to vote yes when they aren't the ones paying for it.

Higher property and school taxes would affect non-property owners, too - higher rents, better schools for their children, etc.

[bjl584]

Higher property and school taxes would affect non-property owners, too - higher rents, better schools for their children, etc.

Not as directly. My Mom lives in an area where tons of people that rent or live in government subsidized housing happily vote for every tax increase that comes along. And why not? They aren't paying for it. It seems like a conflict of interest to me. Or maybe some form of taxation without representation.

[disneysteve]

A better idea is a requirement to own property (real estate) before being allowed to vote. This is how the Constitution was originally set up.

To many non property owners vote on property and school tax increases. It's too easy for them to vote yes when they aren't the ones paying for it.

So my mother, who owned her home for 50 years but now rents in a senior apartment building should no longer be allowed to vote and neither should the couple hundred other people who live there with her? That's a lousy idea too.

Besides, what about all of the empty-nesters who do own their homes and vote "no" on the school budget every year because their kids are grown and they don't care about supporting the schools anymore.

[bjl584]

So my mother, who owned her home for 50 years but now rents in a senior apartment building should no longer be allowed to vote and neither should the couple hundred other people who live there with her? That's a lousy idea too.

Besides, what about all of the empty-nesters who do own their homes and vote "no" on the school budget every year because their kids are grown and they don't care about supporting the schools anymore.

It looks like the original intent went much deeper than what you described:

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2012/04/at-founding-of-america-only-property.html

It may or not make sense today.

But, here is something else that has been floated around,

Should you be allowed to vote if you receive any form of government assistance such as welfare, housing, food stamps, etc.? I'd assume unemployment benefits would be excluded.

That make more sense.

[kork13]

I don't see disenfranchisement at any level as a valid option. Just because someone is reliant upon the government, or provides it with disproportionate support (taxes), how does that invalidate their right as a citizen to vote? This idea is morally reprehensible at its core. When you disenfranchise any group of people en masse, you move toward authoritarianism (a.k.a. dictatorship).

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

You can't simply remove a chunk of "the governed" from the pool of those who give their "consent" to the government and still call yourself the American republic. It goes directly against the very core of our nation from its founding. The right to vote is inherent in our basic freedom & liberty as independent citizens of a republic, and to deny that right to one citizen impugns the liberty of all citizens.

Seriously... You'd think that people would have learned from the black & women's suffrage movements of the last century... If you are a citizen, you are entitled to vote, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, gender, persuasion, wealth, education, property, status, or any other discriminator, unless you choose, by your own criminal actions, to forfeit those rights. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's our system.

[snafu]

Certainly goes against everything the USA purports to stand for. I wish these people would think up a way to encourage more eligible people to vote. So often the turn out in some constituencies is embarrassingly low in a non Presidential year or state or municipal election.

People who are unhappy with their representation should be getting more involved, not less.

[GrimJack]

It looks like the original intent went much deeper than what you described:

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2012/04/at-founding-of-america-only-property.html

It may or not make sense today.

But, here is something else that has been floated around,

Should you be allowed to vote if you receive any form of government assistance such as welfare, housing, food stamps, etc.? I'd assume unemployment benefits would be excluded.

That make more sense.

What a silly idea! How do you draw the line? If you work for a corporation that receives tax subsidies, then you can't vote? If you are a farmer and receive a subsidy, then you can't vote? If you have children and get to claim them on your taxes, you are receiving government assistance and can not vote. What you are proposing is just what Tom Perkins suggested but working from the other direction - instead of the wealthy getting more votes, the poor get no votes.

[samuelwright]

Maybe we should only let black people vote for a while?

*That awkward moment when you realize that white people have historically become successful because they exploited the labor of black slaves, and left them disenfranchised for decades.*