Government exists to serve the people. People do not exist so they can pay taxes. This was the very reason the Founding Fathers rebelled against Britain.
Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
191–200 of 378 posts
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#1921. This CEO is a Canadian.
2. We already have a gerontocracy. Tying income to vote-weight just solidifies the problem since most people earn more as their career progresses.
3. An alternative: grant voting rights to all under 18, proxied by their parent/legal guardian. This provides better alignment to the interests of the future than good fortune.
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#193One note about the headline. He didn't say anything about Americans. That was injected by the editor.
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#194Fascinating to see how many tech people, as soon as they get rich, turn to extreme. Name them all - they mostly all are very active on X, and each new tweet pushes the limits of what was previously deemed unacceptable. I'm rich, so my opinion must be more important, right?
> Fascinating to see how many tech people, as soon as they get rich, turn to extreme. Name them all - they mostly all are very active on X, and each new tweet pushes the limits of what was previously deemed unacceptable.
They have the money and power, but tech people in particualr lack the social graces and awareness that previous generations of rich people needed to operate. They think very highly of themselves, but all that "intelligence" doesn't prevent them from acting stupidly.
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#195> one that would strip voting rights from anyone who pays no income tax It could be an interesting thought experiment to consider the second and third order consequences, even if, from first principles this is a non-starter in a democratic society. First off all, what percent of people do not pay any taxes on income? What portion of them are poor vs. hedge fund managers or other super wealthy people who have structur…
> Regardless, if you work at Shopify, you should consider quitting. You do not have to work for a crazy person like that. Democracy is an engineering exercise, just like any other system. Every part of the system has trade-offs that must be evaluated. You can make a logical argument that any other policy is open to abuse, etc. But why do you have to accuse other people of being “crazy” for having ideas about how to e…
[deleted]
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#196> one that would strip voting rights from anyone who pays no income tax It could be an interesting thought experiment to consider the second and third order consequences, even if, from first principles this is a non-starter in a democratic society. First off all, what percent of people do not pay any taxes on income? What portion of them are poor vs. hedge fund managers or other super wealthy people who have structur…
> Regardless, if you work at Shopify, you should consider quitting. You do not have to work for a crazy person like that. Democracy is an engineering exercise, just like any other system. Every part of the system has trade-offs that must be evaluated. You can make a logical argument that any other policy is open to abuse, etc. But why do you have to accuse other people of being “crazy” for having ideas about how to e…
You mean government and society are an engineering exercise. You can't strip people of power and then say it's a democracy, at least not if words mean things.
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#197Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lütke holds seven per cent of Shopify, according to Forbes, and controls nearly a third of the votes attached to the company’s current shares. Since March 1, 2020, his base salary has been the figure he requested: $1, down from his previous $800,000. [1] [1] https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/high-net-worth/wh...
So, just so that I'm clear, that means that Lütke himself pays no income tax? (assuming that he's not paid a salary by anyone else)
No income tax, but capital gains tax. And capital gains tax is a lot less than income tax (hence Buffet’s “my secretary pays more tax than I do”). So the “$1/year” CEOs are simply reducing tax burden.
But, yes, under the proposed scheme, Lütke doesn’t get to vote. One may rest assured that this was a simple mistake. In fact, I’m sure he meant that only those pay capital gains tax get to vote, not income tax.
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#199Oh boy! Can I play too? My system, which I call an expansion of antitrust, requires all people to keep their net worth under one billion dollars. Anyone approaching that number must give away assets to stay under. If you go over that, you must be broken up, by, say, beheading, or being drawn and quartered. I'm not married to that number, if people think it should be half a billion, or 100 million, or whatever, I'll g…
[flagged]
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, just so that I'm clear, that means that Lütke himself pays no income tax? (assuming that he's not paid a salary by anyone else)
No income tax, but capital gains tax. And capital gains tax is a lot less than income tax (hence Buffet’s “my secretary pays more tax than I do”). So the “$1/year” CEOs are simply reducing tax burden. But, yes, under the proposed scheme, Lütke doesn’t get to vote. One may rest assured that this was a simple mistake. In fact, I’m sure he meant that only those pay capital gains tax get to vote, not income tax.
No capital gains tax is due until gains are realized. Lütke's gains are almost completely unrealized.