Rule of the Rich

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,537
Reaction score
4,982
Points
280
Location
Washington
"Sitting in with Rush Limbaugh yesterday economics professor George Mason suggested that perhaps on top of the single vote every American is already entitled to, for every additional $20,000 in income tax a person pays he should get one additional vote."

So people like Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs get's 100 votes. The CEO of United Healthcare get's 500 votes. And there is Bernie Madoff with 800 votes if he hadn't gotten caught.

Wouldn't be much point in rest of us voting.

The Limbaugh Wire for 05/25/2010
 
OP
Flopper

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,537
Reaction score
4,982
Points
280
Location
Washington
How is this any different than now?
It saves the wealthy a lot of money. Instead of having to shell out billions to buy off politicians, they can can get the job done by just voting. Think of the money it saves the political parties. No need to do all those TV commercials and ads, just throw cocktail parties for rich.
 

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
What about companies that the government declare as to big to fail but other companies can go by the wayside? It seems that the government will be protecting the rich and well connected while the less rich and less well protected will be squashed by the government. That to me seems like rule of the rich.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
210,361
Reaction score
36,902
Points
2,190
Right now, the richest 10% of Americans already control 90% of the wealth

This would give them 90% of the vote

The rich don't need it, they already control 100% of the lobbyists
 

midcan5

liberal / progressive
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
12,325
Reaction score
2,972
Points
260
Location
Philly, PA
This is one of those laugh out loud threads - soon the righties and libertarians will be yelling without the rich we'd all be poor - while then saying the reason you are poor is your own fault and then the irony thickens... :lol:


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

UBI and the Flat Tax

"The Walton family, heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune and one of the wealthiest families in the United States, eventually could receive an estimated tax break of $32.7 billion under a proposal in the budget that President Bush submitted to Congress. The Waltons would win from a repeal of the inheritance tax. In fact, the top 1 percent of income earners would continue to benefit from tax breaks in the budget.The losers: seniors on Medicare, veterans seeking health care, home owners struggling to pay heating bills, grandchildren stuck with cleaning up all the red ink Bush has spilled... It is a "disastrous budget" Senator Bernie Sanders told the White House budget chief at a Senate hearing. The senator lamented what he called the budget's "lack of moral values."


What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life."
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,659
Points
48
Location
Maine
"Sitting in with Rush Limbaugh yesterday economics professor George Mason suggested that perhaps on top of the single vote every American is already entitled to, for every additional $20,000 in income tax a person pays he should get one additional vote."

So people like Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs get's 100 votes. The CEO of United Healthcare get's 500 votes. And there is Bernie Madoff with 800 votes if he hadn't gotten caught.

Wouldn't be much point in rest of us voting.

The Limbaugh Wire for 05/25/2010
Sure, grand idea.

And when the rich start another war to rob some native people of their land and resources, let the fucking rich fight it for themselves, instead of sending all us nobodies to do their dirty work for them.

Social contract?

Screw it.
 
Last edited:

Shorebreak

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
395
Reaction score
102
Points
28
How is this any different than now?
The difference is that this makes it legal.

It's part of the age old question of who should control government. There have always been folks with money and power who claim that since they have money, they should be in charge of everyone else.

The American Revolution turned that elite perspective on it's head and declared that everyone is equal - including our voice in politics.

Protecting this American perspective of individual liberty and the power of the people is our predominant struggle, and it's ongoing, as demonstrated by this economics professor - who belongs in some fascist country where the wealthy are the decision makers.
 

bucs90

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
26,545
Reaction score
6,022
Points
280
Hey, all the ACORN babies are voting 10-20 times per election, why not the rest of us!!!!!?????

I do however feel there should be some type of academic test when one registers to vote. The higher the score, the higher the weight your vote counts. Include questions about politics, history, current events, economics, etc.

That way, we wouldn't have Shaquanda and her 17 welfare babies living off the government going to the polls just to vote for whoever promises to give her a higher welfare check. But rather, we'd have the most educated people who are aware of consequences of political actions that have more influence on votes.

If the most educated Americans votes carried higher weight, Obama never would've won.
 

Soggy in NOLA

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
40,569
Reaction score
5,352
Points
1,830
And how many more votes would Dem darlings like Pelosi, Sorros, Clinton, Gore, Obama, Rich, Moore, etc. get?
 

Soggy in NOLA

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
40,569
Reaction score
5,352
Points
1,830
It was tongue in cheek.. God you guys need to get a sense of humor. You must be a real hoot to be around for all of 30 seconds. F'n dullards.
 

Shorebreak

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
395
Reaction score
102
Points
28
Hey, all the ACORN babies are voting 10-20 times per election, why not the rest of us!!!!!?????

I do however feel there should be some type of academic test when one registers to vote. The higher the score, the higher the weight your vote counts. Include questions about politics, history, current events, economics, etc.

That way, we wouldn't have Shaquanda and her 17 welfare babies living off the government going to the polls just to vote for whoever promises to give her a higher welfare check. But rather, we'd have the most educated people who are aware of consequences of political actions that have more influence on votes.

If the most educated Americans votes carried higher weight, Obama never would've won.
If educated people had a more powerful vote, Obama - and Bush - would be complete unknowns.

Fortunately, however, we live in a nation that treats all people as equals.

The issue isn't intelligence. Most people are intelligent enough to grasp concepts and understand when they're being screwed, if they are informed.

The real issues are that federally funded school systems breed retards rather than educated people (that's not by accident), and we have a controlled national media who works for their paymasters rather than working towards informing the people.
 

bucs90

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
26,545
Reaction score
6,022
Points
280
Hey, all the ACORN babies are voting 10-20 times per election, why not the rest of us!!!!!?????

I do however feel there should be some type of academic test when one registers to vote. The higher the score, the higher the weight your vote counts. Include questions about politics, history, current events, economics, etc.

That way, we wouldn't have Shaquanda and her 17 welfare babies living off the government going to the polls just to vote for whoever promises to give her a higher welfare check. But rather, we'd have the most educated people who are aware of consequences of political actions that have more influence on votes.

If the most educated Americans votes carried higher weight, Obama never would've won.
If educated people had a more powerful vote, Obama - and Bush - would be complete unknowns.

Fortunately, however, we live in a nation that treats all people as equals.
.
Disagree.

Right now we are living under the liberal mantra "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

In other words, when 1 citizen has 40% of his property seized by the federal government for redistribution, and another has 15%, and another has 0%, and yet another recieves +10% in a handout, we are not treated equally.

When every citizen, regardless of his earned wealth, has the same % of taxes taken from him as all other American's, then we will have equality.

Until then, we will have a significant % of our population that consumes a large amount of other peoples earnings through entitlements and handouts. That is not equal.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
210,361
Reaction score
36,902
Points
2,190
Hey, all the ACORN babies are voting 10-20 times per election, why not the rest of us!!!!!?????

I do however feel there should be some type of academic test when one registers to vote. The higher the score, the higher the weight your vote counts. Include questions about politics, history, current events, economics, etc.

That way, we wouldn't have Shaquanda and her 17 welfare babies living off the government going to the polls just to vote for whoever promises to give her a higher welfare check. But rather, we'd have the most educated people who are aware of consequences of political actions that have more influence on votes.

If the most educated Americans votes carried higher weight, Obama never would've won.
Hey, all the ACORN babies are voting 10-20 times per election, why not the rest of us!!!!!?????
I assume you have documented proof of that and are not just spouting Rush limbaugh talking points
 

Shorebreak

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
395
Reaction score
102
Points
28
Hey, all the ACORN babies are voting 10-20 times per election, why not the rest of us!!!!!?????

I do however feel there should be some type of academic test when one registers to vote. The higher the score, the higher the weight your vote counts. Include questions about politics, history, current events, economics, etc.

That way, we wouldn't have Shaquanda and her 17 welfare babies living off the government going to the polls just to vote for whoever promises to give her a higher welfare check. But rather, we'd have the most educated people who are aware of consequences of political actions that have more influence on votes.

If the most educated Americans votes carried higher weight, Obama never would've won.
If educated people had a more powerful vote, Obama - and Bush - would be complete unknowns.

Fortunately, however, we live in a nation that treats all people as equals.
.
Disagree.

Right now we are living under the liberal mantra "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

In other words, when 1 citizen has 40% of his property seized by the federal government for redistribution, and another has 15%, and another has 0%, and yet another recieves +10% in a handout, we are not treated equally.

When every citizen, regardless of his earned wealth, has the same % of taxes taken from him as all other American's, then we will have equality.

Until then, we will have a significant % of our population that consumes a large amount of other peoples earnings through entitlements and handouts. That is not equal.
I'm glad that you see it that way - my comment about treating each others as equals is in regards to the law, not the actual unlawful practices that our government has allowed.

But lets not let one injustice (unfair taxation) lead to another (adjusting the value of individual votes).

The only real solution is a return to Constitution-based government, not a series of patches and band-aids that further separate us from the legal foundation of our country.
 
OP
Flopper

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,537
Reaction score
4,982
Points
280
Location
Washington
Right now, the richest 10% of Americans already control 90% of the wealth

This would give them 90% of the vote

The rich don't need it, they already control 100% of the lobbyists
There was a time when the success of the wealthy was tied to the success of our nation, but not any more. Before WWII, the wealthy invested almost everything in the US. If the US failed they failed. Today an increasing number of US dollars are building the economies of China, Indonesia, and other developing countries. Cutting taxes on the rich will certainly mean they will have more money to invest. But where will those investment dollars go? The wealthy's influence on our government is aimed more and more at improving the world economic problems rather problems here at home.

The poor working slob has everything he owns investing in the US. If the US fails, he fails.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top