Taxing the rich....what are you willing to give up?

Thread starter Admin #1

Sandman

Trustworthy
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
14,702
Ratings
7,149
Age
52
Online
In discussing the Fair Tax v. Flat Tax v. Current System on another thread. Taxing the rich came up briefly and how the middle class carries the burden (probably in all three systems). That got me thinking, what if we taxed the rich at a higher rate, but in return they got greater voting rights. After all, if they are going to throw down more money, shouldn't they have a greater say in how it is spent? The system would be such that if you don't pay taxes, you are worth one vote. If you pay x amount of dollars, you are worth 1.2 votes....going up based on the amount you pay. It would truly be a system in which money=power.

Now I know the numerous problems this would cause, and it would never be proposed. This is purely a hypothetical to encourage discussion...if you are in to that. Still, if it meant a substantial reduction in your taxes, would you agree to devalue your voting strength? Would you pay more to increase your voting power?
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
4,943
Ratings
14
Age
11
Location
Mid-City
Offline
That would be terrible, I know a lot of stupid rich people. It would also head towards a monarchy as long as people were smart about conserving their $$$$$$$. Pop in enough cash and you make the rules.
 
Thread starter Admin #3
OP
OP
Sandman

Sandman

Trustworthy
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
14,702
Ratings
7,149
Age
52
Online
That would be terrible, I know a lot of stupid rich people. It would also head towards a monarchy as long as people were smart about conserving their $$$$$$$. Pop in enough cash and you make the rules.
Exactly. This isn't about proposing a wonderful system of government here. This is more of a question of what people are willing to give up in order to pay less taxes, or what they are willing to give in order to acquire more power.

Still, I'd be lying if I said that this government model doesn't intrigue me.

*Edit* I just changed the title a bit to get it more in line with where I am going with this thread.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
9,042
Ratings
2,923
Offline
That system would benefit the rich more than the current one. Depending on your scale, they would probably get off cheaper with an "enhanced voting tax" system as opposed to paying off lobbyists, forming and funding PACs, forming and funding "grassroots" operations (not to mention just outright bribing politicians!). :mwink:
 
Thread starter Admin #7
OP
OP
Sandman

Sandman

Trustworthy
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
14,702
Ratings
7,149
Age
52
Online
That system would benefit the rich more than the current one. Depending on your scale, they would probably get off cheaper with an "enhanced voting tax" system as opposed to paying off lobbyists, forming and funding PACs, forming and funding "grassroots" operations (not to mention just outright bribing politicians!). :mwink:
True. We all know money=power in our current system--this system just doesn't hide it.
 

Pure Energy

Rethink Everything
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,950
Ratings
10
Location
Somerset County NJ (via St. Mary Parish)
Offline
A political system where the rich get more rights is a Plutocracy. Some people might argue we have that today, but in granting voting rights based on taxes paid, I don't see any other word for it.

Here's my re-write of the Declaration for formation of such a nation/state:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (and their wallets) with certain unalienable Rights (these rights are distributed based on contributions to the Nation’s coffers) that among these are Life, <st1:city><st1>Liberty</st1></st1:city>, and the Pursuit of Happiness (more for the few and less for the many)." :D<o></o>
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
4,943
Ratings
14
Age
11
Location
Mid-City
Offline
I'd pay more taxes initially to acquire the power to forbid the earmarking and pork that goes on. Then I'd have to pay less and less as practically nothing in the budget would remain.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Admin #10
OP
OP
Sandman

Sandman

Trustworthy
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
14,702
Ratings
7,149
Age
52
Online
I'd pay more taxes initially to acquire the power to forbid the earmarking and pork that goes on. Then I'd have to pay less and not as practically nothing in the budget would remain.
I don't think you would be the only one that would do that. In fact, I think that would be the thought process of a lot of people "buying" the extra power. Eventually, they would decrease the spending of the government which would lead to a decrease in the need for taxes.
 
Top Bottom