Perkins: The rich should get more votes

[aaronleland]

Well, in effect, haven't we already approved of this approach, and isn't that what is at the heart of Citizens (hah) Untied.

Exactly. With the political influence money can buy the rich may as well already have multiple votes.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Conservatives believe that ALL US citizens MUST have the right to vote?

Is that why Conservatives opposed giving women and black people the right to vote? It wasn't Liberal Progressives trying to stop women and minorities from voting. You Conservatives understand that, right?

Actually that was the Democrats...and you're full of shit..

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

http://womensuffrage.org/?p=570

 

[HelenaHandbag]

That is not true

Most of our entitlement programs help the wealthy. They are the ones who should not be allowed to vote

Tax deductions are not entitlements, no matter how much you want to spin it that way.

Sure they are

If you receive a tax deduction and others who make the same as you do not....that is an entitlement

Now, the mugger giving you back some cab fare to get home after he robs you is an "entitlement"?

Man, progressives make me !

 

[rightwinger]

Tax deductions are not entitlements, no matter how much you want to spin it that way.

Sure they are

If you receive a tax deduction and others who make the same as you do not....that is an entitlement

No, it isn't. Entitlements involve checks from the government, not you not having to pay the government because of X.

No they don't

Entitlements can come in many forms. Tax cuts, infrastucture improvements for your business, protections from competition, waiving of regulations

 

[whitehall]

"I intended to be outrageous". The fake outrage no doubt promoted by Media Matters is proof that the low information left doesn't know the meaning of the word "outrageous" or maybe "intended".

 

[Jarhead]

That is not true

Most of our entitlement programs help the wealthy. They are the ones who should not be allowed to vote

Tax deductions are not entitlements, no matter how much you want to spin it that way.

Sure they are

If you receive a tax deduction and others who make the same as you do not....that is an entitlement

there is no tax deduction available to one person of an income level that is not available to another of the same income level.

One may opt NOT to capitalize on that deduction.........perhaps to rent but not buy.....

But every deduction available to one person is available to another of the same income bracket.

And truth is....all deductions are available to all people of ANY income level whereas most entitlements are available to ONLY those below a certain income level.

 

[Jarhead]

Sure they are

If you receive a tax deduction and others who make the same as you do not....that is an entitlement

No, it isn't. Entitlements involve checks from the government, not you not having to pay the government because of X.

No they don't

Entitlements can come in many forms. Tax cuts, infrastucture improvements for your business, protections from competition, waiving of regulations

The right to a tax deduction exists for all....

However,

one must earn the right to capitalize on a tax deduction.

No one earns the right to an entitlement.

 

[bendog]

Tax deductions are not entitlements, no matter how much you want to spin it that way.

Sure they are

If you receive a tax deduction and others who make the same as you do not....that is an entitlement

there is no tax deduction available to one person of an income level that is not available to another of the same income level.

One may opt NOT to capitalize on that deduction.........perhaps to rent but not buy.....

But every deduction available to one person is available to another of the same income bracket.

And truth is....all deductions are available to all people of ANY income level whereas most entitlements are available to ONLY those below a certain income level.

Just curious, but throwing around the word "entitlements." Do you include SS and medicare?

 

[Jarhead]

Sure they are

If you receive a tax deduction and others who make the same as you do not....that is an entitlement

there is no tax deduction available to one person of an income level that is not available to another of the same income level.

One may opt NOT to capitalize on that deduction.........perhaps to rent but not buy.....

But every deduction available to one person is available to another of the same income bracket.

And truth is....all deductions are available to all people of ANY income level whereas most entitlements are available to ONLY those below a certain income level.

Just curious, but throwing around the word "entitlements." Do you include SS and medicare?

No.

We pay for that. It is not an entitlement. My SS will be based on my contribution over my career.

 

[bendog]

Tax deductions are not entitlements, no matter how much you want to spin it that way.

Sure they are

If you receive a tax deduction and others who make the same as you do not....that is an entitlement

.

NOT to accuse of intentional misstatement, but this is not true. One person may make $100 off of selling refrigerators while another makes $100 off of venture capital and thus pays less tax.

 

[Jarhead]

Sure they are

If you receive a tax deduction and others who make the same as you do not....that is an entitlement

.

NOT to accuse of intentional misstatement, but this is not true. One person may make $100 off of selling refrigerators while another makes $100 off of venture capital and thus pays less tax.

that person chose to make 100 off of selling refrigerators.
He had the same right to make 100 off of venture capital and pay less in tax.

 

[bendog]

.

NOT to accuse of intentional misstatement, but this is not true. One person may make $100 off of selling refrigerators while another makes $100 off of venture capital and thus pays less tax.

that person chose to make 100 off of selling refrigerators.
He had the same right to make 100 off of venture capital and pay less in tax.

aCK. Whatever. LOL Of course, let's all be venture capitalists ... why not!

 

[Jarhead]

NOT to accuse of intentional misstatement, but this is not true. One person may make $100 off of selling refrigerators while another makes $100 off of venture capital and thus pays less tax.

that person chose to make 100 off of selling refrigerators.
He had the same right to make 100 off of venture capital and pay less in tax.

aCK. Whatever. LOL Of course, let's all be venture capitalists ... why not!

Simple answer ben...

There is risk involved in venture capitalism. If there weren't, we all would be.

 

[BlindBoo]

Wait a minute. Isn't the same guy that said the Rich are being prosecuted like the Jews in Nazi Germany?

 

[bendog]

that person chose to make 100 off of selling refrigerators.
He had the same right to make 100 off of venture capital and pay less in tax.

aCK. Whatever. LOL Of course, let's all be venture capitalists ... why not!

Simple answer ben...

There is risk involved in venture capitalism. If there weren't, we all would be.

Well, its an oversimplification because the guy who sells refrigerators cannot afford the cyclical boom and bust of venture captialsim. And then you have large corporate entities that sell refrigerators rather than do venture capital: we NEED refrigerators. And, then you also have the Mitt Romneys, who really aren't venture captialists, but who found a way to pay those rates.

But to the extent you're saying something like the EITC is not the same as venture capital rates ... I have to agree.

 

[Ame®icano]

I made an argument before about this and I agree with him that only taxpayers should be allowed to vote, but I don't agree that should be conditioned with amount of taxes paid.

We had topic about it earlier Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

No taxation without representation goes the other way too, no representation without taxation.

 

[norwegen]

Well, in effect, haven't we already approved of this approach, and isn't that what is at the heart of Citizens (hah) Untied. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine had printing presses. To influence public opinion, and get votes, the printed "broad sheets," one large piece of paper, on which entire essays were printed, and nailed them up in public places. Paine never really had money, and Franklin was self-made by virtue of relatively non-political "books."

While at some point, the internet and social media may act as an intellectual conduint. But at the present time, a group of wealthy individuals who choose to create a corporate entity with millions of dollars, and publish anything they want to about a public figure, unless the public figure can somehow meet the unmeetable legal standard of proving actual malice as well as a false statement.

I didn't know Thomas Paine had a printing press, but regardless, American political publications of the late eighteenth century inspired resistance in the '70s and described characteristics of republican government in the '80s. Voting really wasn't a topic of discussion, I don't believe, except, perhaps as it might have pertained to the learned and cultivated, including the revolutionary and political leaders of the time.

The Internet and social media may be conduits for the intellectual, but they are also conduits for the vulgar, a class at which the intellectual productivity of the founders was not directed. The literature of the founders was not that broadly circulated. The writers and founders viewed themselves and their readers as members of an intellectual fraternity, more or less (they were meticulous with their rhetoric and the preservation of it), and regarded public opinion in only those circles as the only opinion that mattered or that could effect change. Among the mean classes, public opinion was impotent.

In a word, I'm not really sure how you link our founding to voting "rights," since even in the text of the Constitution, the founders restricted popular government to local districts, and even then, popular government could be exclusive. We essentially "approved of this approach" even in the beginning, but have since gradually been transforming franchise participation into a "right" through constitutional amendments. I think the founders had it right. Look where popular government on such a broad scale has got us. Faction is the biggest reason they despised democracy.

 

[SwimExpert]

.

NOT to accuse of intentional misstatement, but this is not true. One person may make $100 off of selling refrigerators while another makes $100 off of venture capital and thus pays less tax.

that person chose to make 100 off of selling refrigerators.
He had the same right to make 100 off of venture capital and pay less in tax.

Equal right does not mean equal opportunity.

 

[kaz]

Who cares?

They already have the votes they need.....the ones in Congress

Well, since the top 1% of earners are paying 40% of taxes and the top 5% of earners pay 60% of taxes, once again you're again basing your argument on your fantasy world, not the real one.

 

[Jarhead]

NOT to accuse of intentional misstatement, but this is not true. One person may make $100 off of selling refrigerators while another makes $100 off of venture capital and thus pays less tax.

that person chose to make 100 off of selling refrigerators.
He had the same right to make 100 off of venture capital and pay less in tax.

Equal right does not mean equal opportunity.

no it doesn't.

Equal rights are protected by law.

One must strive for opportunity.

All people may be created equal...but not all people have the same desire...and most certainly, not all people define success the same way.