Originally Posted by HisServant
No, I am just saying that people who pay a ton of taxes have more skin in the game and should have a greater weight to their vote... people on welfare or other type of assistance should not get to vote because of their inherent conflict of interest (most will tend to just vote for more benefits instead of what is best for the country).
You appear to be conflating great wealth with effective stewardship; the two do not necessarily correlate.
What about the folks in the middle, those who aren't on any assistance but who don't have the resources of the millionaires?
If the millionaires push for policies that profit them and screw the folks in the middle, the middle-folks have no option but to pool their resources in opposition to the millionaires. This gives the millionaires a vested interest in shrinking the middle class. Which is what is happening.
In the system you propose, those with the most "skin in the game" get to decide
what is best for the country. What's to stop the millionaires from saying "what's good for us is good for the country! As our profits increase, our good fortune will trickle down on everyone else!"?
This is the line supply-siders have been using for decades, and when the wealth has inevitably failed to trickle down, the excuse is usually something like "But we're overtaxed!" or "But we're over-regulated!" or my personal favorite "You obviously aren't working hard enough!"
The system you advocate is a plutocracy, and over time the power to make decisions on behalf of the society ends up in fewer and fewer hands; the "skin in the game" bar keeps getting raised higher and higher.
What do you do, HisServant, when that bar rises out of your