830
Comments (61)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
38
UncleDaddyZ 38 points ago +39 / -1

Limit to only those that pay net positive taxes.

17
geotus3000 17 points ago +19 / -2

Even better, go back to land owners only. No land, no stake.

12
Zskills 12 points ago +13 / -1

35 year old land owners who pay net taxes.

Imagine what would be possible without people voting themselves other peoples' money. Maybe there would be some gratitude.

2
borscht-nazi 2 points ago +3 / -1

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't end well as it opens a HUGE opportunity for abuses.

1
Zskills 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree it wouldn't end well, for many many reasons.

It's one of those ideas that would be good if it could be implemented without social unrest.

Kind of like eugenics. Would society be better off without retarded people reproducing? Yes. But fuck letting the government play God.

2
borscht-nazi 2 points ago +2 / -0

>go back to land owners only. No land, no stake

So, how do you see this work in practice? Will there be a minimum? A residency requirement? Would owning a square foot qualify me but owning an apartment wouldn't? How would you make sure that land owners' votes aren't sold to interested parties, in other words, that landowners aren't paid off to vote a certain way)? Would owning more land give you more votes?

1
kt524 1 point ago +1 / -0

Even better, go back to land owners only

Eminent domain and property taxes bitches. What do you own? You rent from the gov.

1
UncleDaddyZ 1 point ago +1 / -0

In theory, bill gates could disenfranchise everyone that way. Not a good idea.

0
85Dacudo 0 points ago +1 / -1

Good luck with that.