1 Percenter: People With More Money Should Get More Votes

Thomas Perkins is an 82-year-old venture capitalist worth an estimated $8 billion. He doesn’t like democracy. Unfortunately for us, people like him hold the balance of power in today’s America.

Asked for an idea that could “change the world” by FORTUNE’s Adam Lashinsky, Perkins told an audience at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Thursday that Americans shouldn’t be able to vote unless they pay taxes and that the wealthy should have more votes.

Perkins has houses in Belvedere, Marin County, California, and spends about two months a year at Plumpton Place, his Elizabethan mansion in East Sussex, England, which once belonged to the Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page. In 2010 he purchased the penthouse atop the Millennium Tower on Mission Street in San Francisco’s financial district.

You may remember this guy from his WSJ letter to the editor that compared what he called the “progressive war on the American one percent” to the Nazi death camps under Adolf Hitler.

When I say that capitalism is antithetical to democracy, or that the 1 Percent are trying to parlay their plutonomy into a plutocracy, this is an example of what I mean.

h/t Jillian Berman on HuffPo

UPDATE: How One Billionaire’s Idea To Give Rich People More Votes Is Already In The Works

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on February 14, 2014 - 6:32 pm

    I’m assuming this is one of those 400 people that have half the wealth of the country. I guess he can now say outrageous things like you should have a vote for every dollar, because the rest of us have to work on election day and some of us can’t make it, especially when the machines are broken where we vote ect…

    Why doesn’t this billionaire fossil go yacht-racing again. Maybe they can get him for murder this time.

  2. #2 by Larry Bergan on February 14, 2014 - 7:54 pm

    Oh, that was one vote for all the TAX dollars you pay. Does that mean GE gets negative votes.

    What about, “one man, one vote? Seems simpler.

    • #3 by brewski on February 14, 2014 - 8:23 pm

      There is an irony to the situation where people who pay no taxes at all having such a strong opinion on how the people who do pay all the taxes spend it.

      It’s like people with no children getting to vote for school board.

  3. #4 by Larry Bergan on February 14, 2014 - 11:38 pm

    That’s what I was saying, brewski. If GE pays negative taxes – gets money without paying ANY taxes, – why should he/she/it get to vote on anything? Forget about school boards.

    PS. GE isn’t the only taker.

    • #5 by brewski on February 15, 2014 - 7:57 am

      GE doesn’t vote.

  4. #6 by Larry Bergan on February 14, 2014 - 11:49 pm

    I saw you getting all upset that Americans might quit their miserable job because they no longer thought they had to keep it to stay healthy. Time will tell if that is true.

    My personal jury is still out on whether the ACA is going to keep people healthy without costing an arm, leg, or a home. We need a much better health system then one that was conjured up by the insurance/hospital industry and the Heritage lie-tank.

    There I go again, biting the hand that supposedly feeds me. Something no republican would ever do.

    By the way, I pay all kinds of taxes, brewski.

    • #7 by brewski on February 15, 2014 - 7:58 am

      Your people voted for it. Blame them.

  5. #8 by Larry Bergan on February 15, 2014 - 8:04 am

    This guy only has 8 bill?

    I’d call him a small player.

    Couldn’t even play craps on the street.

  6. #9 by cav on February 20, 2014 - 6:43 pm

    Here is a a pretty good comic strip interpretation of the Trans Pacific Free Trade Agreement, and why it is a bad idea. Also a bit on NAFTA, and how it affect income disparity.


  7. #10 by Larry Bergan on February 20, 2014 - 8:20 pm

    Brilliant cartoon! ^

    Very entertaining!

  8. #11 by brewski on February 20, 2014 - 11:20 pm

    Incredible how someone with no education and training in economics at all can be so confident in his own opinions.

    • #12 by Richard Warnick on February 21, 2014 - 7:52 am

      The point is that right-wing pundits with no economics savvy are the ones shouting down opposition to so-called “free trade.” But we already have free trade. These secret trade agreements are all about the 1 Percent taking over control of our government.

      • #13 by brewski on February 21, 2014 - 8:58 am

        The answer to right wing pundits with no economics savvy is not to listen to left wing pundits with no economics savvy.

        • #14 by Larry Bergan on February 21, 2014 - 8:29 pm

          Left wing pundits don’t exist on television. That gives them more credibility. The ONE exception is Paul Krugman whom is brilliant, but only gets on television about twice a year.

          • #15 by brewski on February 21, 2014 - 9:22 pm

            Most pundits are left wing pundits and most pundits have no economics savvy. Television is pretty much nothing but left wing pundits prattling about stuff about which they know nothing.
            Krugman’s problem is that he contradicts himself. He seems far more interested in taking a political side than explaining economics.

          • #16 by Larry Bergan on February 21, 2014 - 10:05 pm

            Name ONE left wing pundit besides Krugman. Olbermann is doing sports again.

            I’ll give you Maddow. Who else?

  9. #17 by cav on February 21, 2014 - 8:45 am

    We celebrate a court ruling blocking the continuance of a pipeline project that has yet to have gained approval.

  10. #18 by Larry Bergan on February 21, 2014 - 10:06 pm


    Please elaborate. I haven’t heard any good news about pipelines.

  11. #19 by Larry Bergan on February 21, 2014 - 11:52 pm

    brewski’s top economist!


    If forty year old – failed – economic policies are your forte, you can still get a well paying job with healthcare. The rest of us can’t.


    Let’s take a look at this dude – Stephen Moore. He’s working for the organization who came up with Obamacare – The Heritage Foundation – and yet he puts Obamacare down .

    brewski? It’s your stage. Perform.

    • #20 by brewski on February 22, 2014 - 10:01 pm

      Are you saying the CBO is wrong?

  12. #21 by Larry Bergan on February 23, 2014 - 6:44 am

    I’m saying Stephen Moore is always wrong.

    • #22 by brewski on February 23, 2014 - 9:58 am

      Thanks for not answering my question.

  13. #23 by Larry Bergan on February 24, 2014 - 10:04 pm


    Why is the Congressional Budget Office on your list of unapproachable offices? I become skeptical of the organization.

    • #24 by brewski on February 24, 2014 - 10:31 pm

      Because ninnies like Richard quote the CBO all the time as evidence for some deranged claim he is making. So now when I use it all of sudden the source is suspect. Where were you when Richard used them?

      • #25 by Richard Warnick on February 26, 2014 - 6:17 pm

        The difference is, I don’t quote the CBO out of context — because I don’t have to. 😉

        • #26 by brewski on February 26, 2014 - 8:27 pm

          No out of context. None.

          • #27 by Richard Warnick on February 27, 2014 - 5:32 pm

            Again, the context is that the CBO attempted to be even-handed by mistakenly citing right-wing economists, and guessing that job losses consequent to a federal minimum wage increase might range from ZERO to 1 million.

            The lower figure is in accord with every previous federal minimum wage raise. Also, half the states already have higher minimum wages than the measly $7.25 per hour required by federal law.

          • #28 by brewski on March 1, 2014 - 10:01 pm

            “right-wing economists” = anyone who uses math

  14. #29 by Larry Bergan on February 24, 2014 - 10:54 pm


    I have to work. I wouldn’t know the CBO from my aching ass. You keep bringing it up for some reason.

  15. #30 by brewski on February 25, 2014 - 7:47 am

    Because the CBO estimates that raising the minimum wage would reduce employment by 500,000. Because the CBO estimates the the high effective tax rate on poor people caused by ACA will induce people not to even bother to try to work. That is why I bring it up.

  16. #31 by Larry Bergan on February 25, 2014 - 10:42 pm

    As long as rich youngsters continue to live a lavish life by putting daddy’s money in a fixed stock market, why should anybody else continue to work?

    If I may get serious though!

    Honestly, brewski. I don’t get this latest media scam. It doesn’t make any sense. How are people going to quit their jobs whether they have health insurance or not. They’re still going to have to pay the rent, buy expensive food, keep the heat, water and electricity on, ect…


    • #32 by brewski on February 25, 2014 - 11:07 pm

      Media scam? It’s the CBO. You know…the government. The same government you trust so much to run your lie for you. Your beloved government.

  17. #33 by Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on February 25, 2014 - 11:13 pm

    “The people who bite the hand that feeds them, generally lick the boots of those who kick them”

    Eric Hoffer, social philosopher.

  18. #34 by cav on February 26, 2014 - 5:34 pm

    Krugman offers the most succinct statement of our plight today:

    “if you want a society in which everyone has a decent life, you need to construct a society in which everyone has a decent life — not a society in which everyone has a small but equal chance of living the lifestyle of the rich and famous.”

    • #35 by brewski on February 26, 2014 - 5:48 pm

      That idea is fine. But the question is “how?”

      Ignoring the unintended consequences and behavioral responses to laws and programs is reckless.

      • #36 by cav on February 27, 2014 - 7:10 am

        As is sitting on one’s hands, impotence.

        Between ‘this’ and ‘that’ is NO fine line. Ought to be a little room to maneuver.

        • #37 by brewski on February 27, 2014 - 10:53 am

          Sure, but that doesn’t mean every idea is a good idea. Lots of ideas are bad ideas. Then there are good intentions and bad policies which make things worse. So just goose-stepping along with anyone who has the correct feelings doesn’t cut it.

  19. #38 by cav on March 1, 2014 - 8:41 pm


    Is ‘goose-stepping’ a qualified Godwin evocation?

    I’ll take my answer off the air.

    • #39 by brewski on March 1, 2014 - 10:03 pm

      The modified Godwin rule is now “Faux News”.

      That’s why I always win against Richard since that is his Pavlovian response to everything.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: