11 ms·
Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
- inerte 2mo agoIn the US the rich already has more public power than the poor... from lobbying to donations to "speech". I guess making it official would save them from all this work and simplify things?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- kennywinker 2mo ago[flagged]
- 21asdffdsa12 2mo agoWell, you can also get relatively rich by marrying a monster- aka the state?
- dgellow 2mo agoHow does that work? I don’t get the analogy
- red-iron-pine 2mo agoessentially: gubrment bad
- pixelatedindex 2mo agoWhat? How do you marry a state?
- pc86 2mo agoI think maybe it's an awkward attempt at some comment on politicians being able to legally insider trade?
- grim_io 2mo agoYou can't get this far without being greedy in a neurologically abnormal way. Most people would retire with "enough" long before.
- imzadi 2mo agoMy theory about this, as well as how it seems most powerful are abusers, is that you have to be willing to comprosmise your morality to get into that position in the first place. So it is not that being rich and powerful corrupts you, but you have to already be at least somewhat corrupt to get there at all.
- joquarky 2mo agoDo sociopaths even have a natural sense of morality?
- SauciestGNU 2mo agoMorality and empathy are orthogonal ideas, I see no reason why someone with antisocial personality disorder couldn't develop a moral philosophy.
- mikestew 2mo agoThe sociopath part is what allows one to do what it takes to get ultra rich in the first place. Other than Gates, not one comes to mind who gives anything to charity, for example (yes, I’m sure one or two exists).
- 21asdffdsa12 2mo agogates was so noble to even donate prescription medication in secret..
- Ekaros 2mo agoAnd at level that Gates operates charity of itself is form of power and influence. Not rich people spending money on these things is bad. But sometimes I just question motivations as a whole.
- red-iron-pine 2mo agomy understanding too was that his (ex)wife told him, basically, "what are young going to do with all of this?" like he has literally everything he needs, and there is this massive number -- do something, anything with it. You have unlimited time, so chose to do something
- mothballed 2mo agoIt's also not uncommon for extravagantly rich people to form family-run charity organizations to distract their nagging wife or family members with a pursuit where they can lord over employees / recipients / organizations without having any profit metrics by which they could be embarrassed by their inferior business chops. This is doubly applicable if you need to distract a nagging hag while you're off banging Russian bridge players.
- sph 2mo agoThe first part of your comment is correct, the second part is both wrong and unnecessary glazing of Gates. There's plenty sociopaths that give to charity, because it's a socially accepted display of wealth, and because it is quite convenient for tax purposes.
- genocidicbunny 2mo agoIt's both. Getting into the multi-billionaire levels of wealth takes a certain mindset that can probably be easily associated with some neurological disorders and personality traits that one could describe as 'monstrous'. But becoming that rich also disconnects you from the reality of the average person. Your time by necessity to maintain and grow such levels of wealth is going to be spent among other people who are either in a similar position, or want to be in a similar position and are trying to ride the coattails up the wealth ladder. And try as you might to avoid it, it will skew your mental state towards that disconnect unless you take significant effort to avoid the benefits that being at that level of wealth brings to you. Most people who would be willing to eschew said benefits are also probably not the ones trying to seek out such positions of wealth in the first place, so they're going to be severely underrepresented in the wealthy circles.
- throw2ih020 2mo agoMost "normal" people would hit $5-30 million, realize they have enough money for themselves and their descendants to be comfortable in perpetuity with some decent wealth management, and either retire or change careers to a passion project. Going to 100s, 1,000s, or 100,000s of millions inherently filters for people who have either absurd greediness (seeing wealth as a scoreboard) or a desire for power.
- pc86 2mo agoThis is it, it's absolutely a filter beyond a certain point. I have a family member, far enough removed I'll never see any of it, that sold a business in his early 30s for something like $35-40M. Set his kids up for life with trusts, bought some toys and a second home, and been just sort of hanging out ever since (this was 15-20 years ago). He's happy, has a ton of hobbies, and if you ever suggested he start another business or start putting his name on cap tables he'd laugh his ass off. It would never even occur to him that he should try to double, triple, 10x his money, because he already has 10x more than he'll ever spend. And for what it's worth his kids are remarkably well adjusted and nice, if a little bit out of touch about what most people deal with.
- throw2ih020 2mo agoSame, my father was a doctor and had tons of doctor friends from med school and work. Pretty much all of them just cared about 1. making sure the family was provided for and had excellent education, 2. patient outcomes and 3. being comfy at home.
- senordevnyc 2mo agoI totally understand the point you're trying to make, but also...if your friend put their $40M in an S&P500 index 20 years ago, it'd be worth $238M today. So more like 6x rather than 10x, but still, not bad.
- throw2ih020 2mo agoThe people I know personally with that level of wealth will typically set up family trusts to do that and manage how the wealth is distributed to the family, generally some stipend for living expenses + covering education and healthcare costs. The original people setting up the trust give up direct access to that portion of the money for the benefit of their heirs and beneficiaries. i.e. it's no longer "their" money in the personal sense.
- orphea 2mo agoThe latter. We even know what that monster is. It's psychopathy.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- robinhood 2mo agoFascinating 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?
- adamors 2mo agoThey were always capable of these thoughts, money just gave them access to actions as well. Money didn’t turn them extreme IMO, maybe more fearful about losing it.
- fakedang 2mo agoMoney would've allowed them to act any time. But no, this is because of the shifting tide, enabled by an openly elitist government that doesn't give a shit about the layman. Remember how a few years back, all these billionaires and corporations were all talking about DEI and taking the knee and George Floyd, and (insincerely) shoving it all down everyone's throats? It just became socially more acceptable for them to show their true colors.
- dandellion 2mo agoI don't see why these colors would be any more truer than the ones before. I bet they would change again just as quick if winds went back to blowing the other way. The only color they care about is the green of money. And if you asked them why they supported it they'd get all forgetful and not remember ever supporting any of that.
- fakedang 2mo agoIt will be very difficult for them to backtrack on their crap now without losing face, since many of them have gone off the far end. Elon was once a darling of the left, with sizeable donations to Obama and Clinton, and even Biden. It seems for Elon, the point he went right happened as follows: > On August 5, 2021, Biden signed an Executive Order targeting that half of cars sold in 2030 should be electric.[254] General Motors CEO Mary Barra was in attendance.[254] Musk commented, "seems odd that Tesla wasn't invited."[255] Barra said in 2024 Musk never forgave not being invited.[256][257] In 2025, former vice president Kamala Harris said that she believed that not inviting Musk was a "big mistake."[258][259] In September 2021, Musk criticized Biden as "not the friendliest administration."[258] In December 2021, Musk publicly expressed opposition to the Build Back Better Act. He literally switched sides for something so trivial, but went deeper and deeper till he went full retard.
- rekttrader 2mo agohttps://archive.is/wS6IH https://archive.is/wS6IH
- 1asGh 2mo ago[dead]
- ablation 2mo agoWhy did a billionaire propose biasing the voting system towards the rich? Gee I wonder.
- imzadi 2mo agoMaybe if they made it on effective tax rate. Your vote is weighed based on the percentage of INCOME that is taxed, but everyone gets a vote regardless.
- goldcd 2mo agoI think I'd just like it done on percentage of overall wealth handed to the government or charity each year. Handy side effect would be that if Jeff wants to buy some influence for Amazon, he could do it by paying all his warehouse and delivery employees better.
- runako 2mo agoVotes are equal because the belief system is that all people are equal. If you win the lottery, you don't instantly become a more valuable person. Prior generations understood more clearly that the physical security that underwrites great financial successes is all underwritten in blood. A better heuristic is everyone gets the number of votes equivalent to how many of their lives they could give in a conflict.
- voidfunc 2mo agoI dont think its a good model for America but if I were starting a country from scratch I might consider it. But I would also do stuff like a heavy death estate tax and disallow most generational wealth transfer.
- everdrive 2mo agoWhat would stop people from shifting to different kinds of wealth transfer? Extreme investment in education, squirrely work-arounds, nepotism, etc? I don't see how you can attempt to prevent people from providing as much benefit to their children as possible.
- 21asdffdsa12 2mo agoI would allow only one Version- which is if junior builds a buisness and that buisness shows potential, the donor buisness (daddy) should be able to pay the taxes taxfree for that buisness.
- rickydroll 2mo agoI've heard some good arguments for eliminating a wealth tax and instead treating inheritance as income. There are other forms of money manipulation that should also be treated as income. For example, the borrow-spend-die trick. Other transactions that should go through a "cash" phase include the financial three-card Monty the AI companies are pulling right now. Other manipulations we need to make illegal, such as stock buybacks. There are some "reasonable" exceptions one could argue for, but as soon as you start making exceptions, you open yourself to abuse of the system. For example, using the tax code to enact social policy. I think it would be more honest for the government to take in all the money as taxes and then turn around and distribute money for socially beneficial programs such as green energy, schools, public health, et cetera. If you look at who screams about this, you'll probably find that most of them are opportunistic people who are afraid somebody will cheat the system better than they do. This would also be a good opportunity to create an independent, transparent organization that audits where the money goes and provides raw data they use to justify their actions to the public so that others can double-check their conclusions. #IfIWereKing
- WithinReason 2mo agoNo representation without taxation?
- tomlockwood 2mo ago"Let them eat cake!"
- croes 2mo ago"Eat the Rich"
- croes 2mo agoHow about that: If you are a billionaire you lose your voting rights because you are already powerful enough and don’t need that extra power
- greenavocado 2mo agoThe way that's gonna go is "We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing."
- Maxatar 2mo agoThere are only 900 billionaires in the U.S. Do you think if they lost their voting rights it would affect the outcome of even a single election whatsoever?
- mothballed 2mo agoIf it includes ability to vote via campaign donations that cause votes, then yes absolutely. Note for instance in the Massie primary, rich donors literally turned money into new votes by prodding a bunch of demented elderly people who never vote in primaries to believe Massie was banging AOC and Ilhan Omar and secretly a democrat (the vote from regular primary voters remained almost unchanged, the delta was almost entirely new voters brought out by a fraudulent propaganda campaign). That's essentially indistinguishable from those rich people having cast the vote themselves.
- senordevnyc 2mo agoIt’s always other people who are brainwashed by the propaganda, huh?
- mothballed 2mo agoI mean if all the people that voted last primary voted basically the same you have some sort of control group, the only significant delta in that primary was a huge group of very elderly people that don't vote in the primaries except this time that showed up after they were targeted for a hilariously false campaign with Isreali AIPAC money. If the control group changed as well I'd agree with you, but the delta here was basically a huge group of demented people that were specifically targeted to show up in a one-off. It's hardly just disingenuously brushed away as some "other people" that just changed their mind after labeling the other guy's opinion as propaganda because they disagreed.
- masfuerte 2mo agoMoney is power. That is the problem with extreme wealth. It provides unaccountable power outside the democratic process. It is not surprising that an already powerful man wants even more power, but I do not understand why anyone else would go along with this.
- weard_beard 2mo agoI don’t understand what there is to gain for anyone by making the implicit system we have today explicit?
- buellerbueller 2mo agoMaybe it is a clever play to shine light on the problem? (I doubt, but can't entirely discount, it.)
- Jenk 2mo ago> I do not understand why anyone else would go along with this. Aspirations.
- Lord-Jobo 2mo agoWhich have ignorance as their root cause. Ignorance of the type of people that become ultra wealthy, and ignorance of the odds of becoming one of them. We should “listen” to these people with the same attitude as we do”listen” to gas station lottery addicts, instead we give them WAY too much credibility.
- red-iron-pine 2mo ago"temporarily embarrassed millionaires"
- JKCalhoun 2mo agoI don't buy that. You can't convince me someone shopping at Dollar General has aspirations of becoming Elon-Musk-wealthy.
- goldcd 2mo agoSomebody needs to introduce some sort of buddy system for billionaires. This would allow them to air their dumb opinions in private to normal people, where they could be gently mocked like the rest of us. Currently there seems to be a dangerously quick pipeline for them between a thought passing through their minds, and millions being made aware. God help me if you all knew the things I've said over the years..
- andrefmrocha 2mo agoAnother example of why we will have to eat the rich or die trying
- piker 2mo agoThe article is paywalled, but isn’t he Canadian? Who cares what he thinks.
- throw1234567891 2mo agoHe’s German who lived in Canada for too long.
- jchallis 2mo agoLutke is a German who has lived in Canada for decades. Why comment on American tax policy ? Seems out of his lane .
- taybin 2mo agoMaybe he's suggesting it for Canada?
- adamors 2mo agoThere’s no such thing for the billionaire class.
- Lord-Jobo 2mo agoThese people almost universally believe their opinions and thoughts are uniquely special and always worth bowing to. They are egotists. It’s one of the biggest parts of who they are.
- senordevnyc 2mo agoThe guy made an offhand remark. Someone else chose to write a whole article about it, and we all chose to leave hundreds of comments here.
- dgellow 2mo agoThe guy is a massive asshole but I don’t see the issue commenting on other countries policies, that’s what we all do
- boelboel 2mo agoMultiple Canadian billionaires are pro trump and wouldn't mind becoming a 51st state.
- cryptos 2mo agoSomehow money seem to damage personality. It's the same with David Heinemeier Hansson (who know Tobias Lütke in person), Elon Musk and many other folks.
- taybin 2mo agoThe thing about this that's so distasteful is that it removes the basis of enfranchisement from being the inherent worth of a human life and moves it more to "what have you done for me lately". It's pretty gross.
- mrwh 2mo agoI don't know why you're being downvoted, gross is exactly the word for it.
- 0xy 2mo agoThere's numerous examples of commune societies evicting people who refuse to contribute. The distasteful thing is people refusing to contribute to society, especially for long periods of time. I know many people who have various mental and physical disabilities (some severe) who insist on working. Some able-bodied people can't even match some with severe disabilities. It's sick.
- taybin 2mo agoYes, that is also gross.
- lorecore 2mo agoWorking a McJob to make some CEO and their investors rich is not a virtue. The Protestant work ethic really is a toxic ideology that can't die soon enough. It's the very basis of exploitation.
- 0xy 2mo agoWhen you choose to not work as an able-bodied person you're really insisting that your community should be forced to give you resources while you contribute nothing. Any collectivist commune would kick you out for this. It's also interesting you use the McJob angle, because when you consider the price of a Big Mac, labor is by far the largest contributor of cost, not profit. A Big Mac's cost is 30% labor, 25% ingredients and only 5% net profit. The remainder is operating costs. Seems like a pretty good deal for the people making the Big Mac, they're getting 6x more than the franchisee gets.
- andsoitis 2mo ago> 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 structured their income in a way as to pay zero or near-zero income taxes? Would the latter be disincentivized from continuing those regimes? Regardless, if you work at Shopify, you should consider quitting. You do not have to work for a crazy person like that.
- duped 2mo agoAlmost any system that limits participation in democracy will be abused to disenfranchise people that those in power do not want to give a voice. So you're coming at this from the wrong end. The goal is explicitly to keep the poors from having a voice in politics. The exact policy and enforcement of the system will reflect that. Unintended consequences, like the rich being disenfranchised would not occur.
- dgellow 2mo agoTo say it differently, if that ends up disenfranchising the powerful, a different argument and set of law would be used
- kklisura 2mo ago> 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/whos-tobi-lutke-meet-the-tech-tycoon-who-draws-1-in-salary-and-runs-canadas-largest-listed-company https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/high-net-worth/wh...
- roryirvine 2mo agoSo, 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)
- duped 2mo agoShopify seems to have a fascist problem.
- sph 2mo agoWords have a well-defined meaning. Fascism, as established by Benito Mussolini, has nothing to do with oligarchy or plutarchy.
- duped 2mo agoI'm referring to how both Lütke and DHH, a Shopify board member, have fascist politics. The word does have meaning. But underlying that meaning is a philosophy that there is an in group that should have power and many out groups from which power should be stripped. There is a long history of industrial leaders supporting fascist ideology.
- throw1234567891 2mo agoYeah, but please google first on what Mussolini preached. State-owned corporazioni are nothing like privately operated businesses of today. Don’t hang on the word. The correct word you are looking for is plutocrat, indeed.
- vivekd 2mo agoI think the title is inaccurate and a bit inflammatory. He's not advocating stripping most Americans of their voting rights. He's advocating stripping a tiny minority of Americans of their voting rights - specifically the minority of Americans that pay no income tax
- otterley 2mo agoThe suggestion is inflammatory in and of itself. The right to vote is core to democracy. One should expect even the slightest suggestion of abrogating this right, even to a tiny minority, to be met with a vociferous allergic reaction. Stripping voting rights is a historical leading indicator of a trend to totalitarianism so it has to be nipped in the bud immediately.
- vivekd 2mo agoI disagree. I don't think there's any historical data showing a correlation between loss of voting rights of a % of the population with totalitarianism. I think among the few countries where it has been tried would be Canada stripping Japanese of voting rights in WWII. Of course this was bad, but at the same time it doesn't seem to have, at least not in most people's view, turned Canada into a totalitarian states. In my opinion the real trend towards totalitarianism is inability to talk freely about ideas It's easy and popular to talk about how important democracy or voting rights are. And that makes it a bit annoying because it deprives the possibility of freely exploring other ideas. There's no possibility of free speech or free exchange of ideas so long as portion of the population thinks we have to immediately nip dangerous ideas in the bud without exploration.
- otterley 2mo ago> among the few countries where it has been tried would be Canada stripping Japanese of voting rights in WWII. Of course this was bad That's the point. > There's no possibility of free speech or free exchange of ideas so long as portion of the population thinks we have to immediately nip dangerous ideas in the bud without exploration. The "nipping dangerous ideas in the bud" language relates to those ideas being implemented, not being discussed. Find us a person who honestly believes there a class of citizens (other than convicted felons, minors, and mentally incompetent) shouldn't have a right to vote who doesn't want to use it for political gains.
- avalys 2mo agoWhat is inherently unreasonable about the idea that only people who pay into the system get a say in how the system operates? The constitution still guarantees fundamental human rights. Another idea - everyone is eligible to vote for the presidency and House of Representatives, but only net taxpayers can vote for the Senate. The idea that there should be some kind of checks and balances on spending taxpayer money, where the people who actually pay the taxes have a special status, isn’t fundamentally incompatible with any principle that I support. Obviously the current system - where we collect $5T in taxes each year and spend $7T, creating an enormous and ever-growing debt that the system is clearly not able to control - is not working.
- odyssey7 2mo ago“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
- avalys 2mo agoYes, and what I outlined is one reasonable way to implement “the consent of the governed”, and still a lot more democratic and inclusive than the system the authors of that statement implemented for the next ~150 years after writing it!
- odyssey7 2mo agoAre you proposing that poor people would not be subject to the laws of the United States, as they would be provided no means to consent? That only the wealthy are to be governed, regulated, etc.?
- morkalork 2mo agoCool cool cool. Now let's hear from the people who endorse stripping him of his wealth.
- jimmyjazz14 2mo agoIts cute how people who don't live here have the worst ideas for how we should run our country, like we don't see what they are trying to do.
- otterley 2mo agoPeople who do live here also have terrible ideas. Terrible ideas can come from anywhere!
- throw1234567891 2mo agoAnd the fall of Shopify begins now.
- vkou 2mo agoHe's been a turd that any reasonable person would endorse stripping of his wealth for years. Hasn't affected the bottom line one whit.
- throw1234567891 2mo agoHe’s working on it. Never let a narcissist know you figured him out. They will continue.
- homeonthemtn 2mo agoI don't understand why we humor this stuff. Our society has lost the ability to simply say "no" to something. We have to argue everything into the weeds, constantly hand wringing about biases and hearing all voices. You can be biased. I, for one, am biased towards democracy and am comfortable telling people to fuck off when they question it. I don't need to debate it. Just fuck right off.
- elevation 2mo ago> I don't understand why we humor this stuff Social contract is a difficult subject, and people don't think about it enough. But thanks to this clickbait headline, thousands of readers may come upon an articulation of why current enfranchisement is more desirable than arrangements that preceded it. In other words, it's a chance to learn what's worth defending and how our current situation might be improved.
- SolarNet 2mo agoTax the rich. And by that I mean people who "earn" their wealth through mechanisms that aren't direct income. Heck, give an exception to the tax on the first million of non-income based wealth. But something has to change because their money is their power and they deserve less of it.
- bryanlarsen 2mo agoCanada already has that exemption on the first CAD 1.25M capital gain, assuming that Shopify qualifies as a Canadian business by staying >50% Canadian for at least 2 years. But like pretty much everywhere, Canada does not tax unrealized gains. At least they don't have the silly loop-hole that the US does of the step-up in basis on death.
- tlogan 2mo agoMy biggest problem with “tax the rich” is: then what? Build another “high-speed train”? Spend the money on some fake nonprofit run by the same rich people?
- Timon3 2mo agoAre these really the only ways of spending tax income you're aware of?
- Shalomboy 2mo agoWe should really make a better shopify already; these guys aren't worth the salt they stand upon.
- kennywinker 2mo agoHonestly, shopify’s near-monopoly has confused me for at least a decade. Their platform is bad, and has always been bad - at least from the perspective of managing a store - yet no real challenger has been able to take their crown.
- danielmeskin 2mo agoThe issue, I suspect, is payment processing and KYC. To operate at their scale requires not only the cooperation of various PCI partners (who are not obligated to cooperate) it also involves massive liability. A better question to ask is for whom would the investment of building a new Shopify be worth it. I suspect the answer is “not anyone who is using Shopify”.
- scrumper 2mo agoJust to play with this a bit, this proposal instantly and completely ends Republican power. Low-taxed rural poor and retiree votes are gone, entirely. Higher earning coastal white collar and professional workers get 3-5 votes, offset to some degree but far from entirely by the business-owning rich blue collar class. The middle classes get 1. It's fairly obvious what that would mean for representation in the USA. Second fun point is that he and his oligarch colleagues would find themselves with no votes: I guarantee I pay more income tax than this guy and anyone else in the multiple airplane owning class. Marvelous. It is of course a fairly revolting idea but one which has some interesting unintended consequences, not least that we might suddenly find the rentier class figuring out how to declare income of $500,001 instead of a loss every year.
- oldandboring 2mo agoYou are a lone voice of reason in these comments, presumably because you checks notes read the article. I will add that voting blocs do shift. In fact, in the last two US presidential elections, retirees actually broke for the Democrat. That could have something to do with Trump or be an actual trend. Additionally, these rich people do pay a lot of tax, they just do it through different parts of the tax code and at a lower overall rate (by avoiding social security and Medicare taxes by way of earning through long-term capital gains). On the other hand they also own more real estate than you (probably) in desirable locations and pay a lot of property tax they can't avoid. All that notwithstanding I sense that the root of this discussion that this guy's getting excoriated for, was exploring how to short-circuit the phenomenon wherein older people, voting at higher rates (and holding office long into their old age), secure for themselves preferential benefits at the expense of struggling younger generations. The thread took off in a strange way from there, but... I guess I like where it was trying to go at the outset.
- rubyfruit 2mo ago[dead]
- runako 2mo agoThe very rich have forgotten the lessons of the past. They have forgotten that they also live in the very same physical world as the poor. Most of them don't even live that far from the poor. Perhaps they don't consider the implications that nobody can fight a mob. If they were as smart as they want people to think, they would think about these things and perhaps shut up (at least in public!) about making things worse for the poor.
- geremiiah 2mo agoLook, I'm not even a millionaire, and I will never be a billionaire, but in an alternate reality in which I'm a centibillionaire, one of my chief aims would be to limit the political say of the electorate as much as possible, because their voting rights would be one of the biggest threats to my everything. Moreover, everyone who gains any amount of power becomes protective of it. That's basic human nature. As a conservative, I under this.
- Ekaros 2mo agoI am not against idea of only net tax payers getting single vote. Say if you use government services or receive money such as grant that is counted against your total. If you own part of corporation that gets such support that is counted again. If you or your corporation gets tax deductions or relief those are counted as double. Total everything up and if you are net payer you get to vote. If not no vote for you.
- Arubis 2mo agoTo a first approximation this creates and enforces a permanent unvoiced underclass. Without any political representation, said underclass's differentiation from actual slavery would be pretty small.
- corps_and_code 2mo agoWe tried this already in America and have decided that disallowing entire groups of people from voting is bad for democracy. What happens when the federal government passes new tax laws that prevent certain genders, racial groups, etc from having to pay income tax? Are they permanently disenfranchised? This would be a system that I think would rapidly move social progress backwards and concentrate power in the hands of a few groups.
- Ekaros 2mo agoWell you could have stronger constitutional protections. Say certain changes needing unanimous support from voters in referendum. Would lock in things, but would remove risks. And USA already disallows voting based on age. And somehow lot of people find it acceptable. Surely voting should be right from birth?
- corps_and_code 2mo agoAlright, what about laws that only levy income taxes on people making $300k or more? That's eliminates millions of Americans without targeting any protected groups. There's no bulletproof method to allow only some people to vote that wouldn't be abused to disenfranchise others. Also, surely you don't think a four year old should weigh in on who gets to represent them in Congress? We disallow voting on a minimum age, because children are still developing in all sorts of ways, there is no maximum age that takes away your right to vote when you reach it. You can't equate a minimum age to disenfranchisement.
- vrganj 2mo agoHow much more evidence do we need that there is in fact a class war going on and the rich are winning? The biggest con they ever pulled off is making working class people (and yes, that includes you, fellow tech workers!) hate unions. Unions are the only way workers can fight back - they may be able to tell individuals what to do, but they can't control the collective. This is also why they're so feverishly trying to build AI - they finally want to have workers that have no way of organizing.
- greenlimetea 2mo ago[dead]
- senordevnyc 2mo agoYeah, this one rich dude made an offhand comment! If that’s not concrete evidence of a massive conspiracy, nothing is!
- Timon3 2mo agoBecause there's literally only one comment by one rich dude! No need to look at any further evidence, case closed!
- vrganj 2mo agoYeah ignore the Oracle CEO saying everyone will be on their best behavior because AI surveillance will keep people in check [0]. Or Thiel saying that "democracy and freedom are no longer compatible". I wonder who's freedom to do what he's talking about? Surely he's concerned about the little man? [1] Or Elon Musk cutting USAID and causing all sorts of death and destruction around the world [2] while enriching himself from government coffers. [3] Or Marc Andreessen calling the concept of "social responsibility" an "enemy of progress". [4] Sure wonder what his idea of progress is! I'm sure it's great for everyone given that it's opposed to even the notion of social responsibility! And that's just in our little tech world! If you venture out a bit further, you'll find many more gems, like Tim Gurner complaining that workers have gotten "arrogant" and continuing to say: "We need to see pain in the economy. We need to remind people that they work for the employer, not the other way around." [5] Sure, it's all just one rich dude making an offhand comment. Or maybe all of them making offhand comments all the time? [0] https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/16/oracle-ceo-larry-ellison-says-that-ai-will-someday-track-your-every-move/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/16/oracle-ceo-larry-ellison-s... [1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/07/elon-musk-doge-cuts-usaid-ebola https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/07/elon-musk... [3] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/06/13/business/musk-trillionaire-government-tesla-spacex https://edition.cnn.com/2026/06/13/business/musk-trillionair... [4] https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/ https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/ [5] https://x.com/kenklippenstein/status/1701658625280704599 https://x.com/kenklippenstein/status/1701658625280704599
- chriscrisby 2mo ago50% of Americans think taxes are too high, the other 50% think taxes need to be higher so they’ll get a larger refund. It’s not a sustainable system. A better solution would be to change tax law so a “payer” can’t receive a larger refund than what they paid. No more credits, only deductions.
- kennywinker 2mo agoThe majority of americans think their taxes need to be lower, and the taxes for the rich need to be higher.
- chriscrisby 2mo agoMajority of Americans pay little to no taxes.
- kennywinker 2mo agoBy percentage of income, or by dollar value? By dollar value, that seems possible. By % of income? Does not seem possible.
- chriscrisby 2mo agoTop 50% of taxpayers paid about 97% of all federal individual income taxes. Therefore bottom 50% pay nothing or next to nothing.
- kennywinker 2mo agoSo you’re counting by dollar amount. Because find me a person who thinks 25% of their income is “next to nothing” Meanwhile, a tax avoiding billionaire will double their net worth and take out an asset-backed loan of 100mil to live off and then pay ~0% of that in taxes.
- chriscrisby 2mo ago
- bluelimetea 2mo ago[dead]
- Arubis 2mo agoPresumably because they don't believe that saying so publicly will result in unacceptable consequences.
- jrockway 2mo agoRich people don't have enough power? He must not understand what levers he can already pull to get what he wants.
- MarkusQ 2mo agoPaywalled articles seem to enhance the "comment without reading, based on vibes" effect. From the article: "Pension recipients should have their financial futures “locked in and guaranteed,” but in return would be reclassified as “dependents” and lose the right to vote—the same way minors can’t vote. A reply from “Eric Thor,” who claimed to be a retired banking executive as well as “armchair economist and policy wonk,” proposed a sliding scale: zero votes for anyone who pays no income tax, one vote for those earning $1–100K, two votes for $100–200K, scaling up in that pattern to a hard cap of five votes for anyone earning $500K or more. The pitch was framed as fairness—reward “representation” for those who “foot the bill” through taxation." "That was the good system that Lütke endorsed." Most of the commenters here seem to be responding to...something other than this?
- nozzlegear 2mo agoNo I think most commenters are responding to that. It's a shitty take from a shitty billionaire.
- mrwh 2mo agoAnd a husband who works and his wife who doesn't, should she get a vote? The commentators here are responding exactly to the spirit of what was said, there's no confusion on what's really being implied here. Namely, the destruction of the entire basis of democracy, which is one person one vote. Another way to express the general disgust: that proposal is saying, "we're going to take away your power, but we'll still look after you, pinky promise!"
- MarkusQ 2mo ago> the entire basis of democracy, which is one person one vote This is a relatively recent innovation; most democracies throughout history have not had this property, so it's hardly the "entire basis" of the concept. It is, however, an interesting and possibly worth goal. The obvious problem (which has been noted by many previously) is that when the people making the decisions are not the ones paying for it the system is unstable (e.g. "three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner", also "eventually you run out of other people's money"). This is a serious issue and possibly the biggest present threat to our current system. It's worth considering various possible solutions and thinking about what might work and what would likely lead to ruin. If discussing these issue triggers "disgust" you may want to question if you are actually thinking about what is being said or just reacting emotionally.
- biophysboy 2mo agoPeople need to stop conflating evil intentions with evil capacity. It is done regularly with Elon, Thiel, etc. As arrogant as they may be on X, they are drooling imbeciles when it comes to politics. Remember Blake Masters? Remember the Wisconsin supreme court election? How is the admin they endorsed doing? Has Lutke thought about how high-income individuals in metro areas vote? They have failed again and again. There is no reason to believe Lutke's worthless dreams will go unchallenged if they are ever attempted in the first place.
- FLeXMurphy 2mo agoWith the recent trend of flagging pg's articles, it might be time for the HN community to evaluate if they want to continue giving attention, eyeballs and time to something like HN, and YC by proxy. The hostility - not from HN posters but from the rich class, is not something to be taken lightly, and being on HN shows indirect support for unrestrained toxicity. Maybe a lift and shift to elsewhere (Lobste.rs etc) is in order? And make no mistake: on paper this would not really "do" anything, but walking away is a strong symbolic gesture all the same.
- polotics 2mo agoConsidering the current gerrymandering, all sorts of regulatory capture, and a two-party system that's captured most voter's sense of identity and packaged it for abuse... I think this discussion is extremely theoretical.
- opengrass 2mo ago[flagged]
- Traster 2mo agoYes absolutely, famously American cities run crack dens using municipal taxes.
- mothballed 2mo agoThe Cabrini Green of yesteryear comes to mind. Some of the 60s-90s era public housing were straight up high-rise sniper dens.
- sigilsack 2mo ago[dead]
- MSFT_Edging 2mo agoThis statement is borderline sociopathic. Social programs, buses, and trains enable any of that development at all. When you cut after school programs and social hangouts, kids get into trouble. Buses and trains multiply the economic potential of an area. If all you have are the vague class of "home owners", who do you have in your grocery stores? Who fixes your roof? Certainly not you. All you'd have is an armed quasi-military of cops protecting your depreciating homes from the mobs of scorned citizens waiting to burn your shit down.
- cogogo 2mo agoThis is hilarious in that many very rich people pay zero income tax today. In this system “all of a sudden” all these people would be paying taxes on exactly 500k. Near zero for them anyway but with an explicit albeit BS claim of funding the majority of government expense. From a bit of quick research the top 1% of earners are about 40% of the tax base. Everyone gets screwed in this system but especially those paying a good amount of taxes and getting fewer votes like the 200-400k range. Or maybe not especially. This just an outright terrible idea.
- mamonster 2mo agoMakes sense. The biggest sin an American can commit is being poor. Welcome to Calvinism.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2mo agoI think this is one of the cases where someone is just so rich that more money stops resulting in any meaningful additional quality of life. Then the only way to increase their quality-of-life differential (relative, not absolute value is the key metric here), is to make other people's lives worse.
- nness 2mo agoIt seems like billionaires somehow develop a deep resentment and drive to change the world, whilst not spending any of their money to do it. (I wrote before remembering that lobbying exists.)
- panny 2mo agoHear me out... Why don't we tax stocks like we do homes with a property tax? Why am I paying property tax on the majority of my net worth, but billionaires are not? Also, I know all about the buy/borrow/die strategy and I have an idea for that too. Let's tax all loans as income. They are, in fact, income. "B-but they have to be paid back!" That's income again, the bank should pay tax on it.
- toader 2mo agoAh, a German Canadian endorsing changes to the U.S. taxation system.
- OutOfHere 2mo agoThe problem with allowing only the rich to vote is that they're inherently exploitative of the poor. It's a veiled attempt to want to return to an approximation of slavery.
- rayiner 2mo agoThe article criticizes “taking us back to the 19th century,” but ironically dropping property qualifications for voting was an innovation of the Jacksonian era of the 1820s-1850s. There is a tendency to all efforts to generalize the franchise together, but that’s illogical. Just because race and sex are illegitimate qualifiers for voting doesn’t mean that all qualifiers for voting are necessarily illegitimate. Are we asserting that psychological science has taught us nothing in 200 years relevant to our evaluation of whether someone who can't hold down a job at a grocery store should be steering democracy to the same degree as a doctor or scientist? (And note this is an argument against interest here, since I belong to what’s clearly now the dumber party.)
- rainsford 2mo agoThe fundamental problem is that almost any qualifiers you add that dictate voting rights gives those with voting rights a powerful incentive to run the country according to their own interests while ensuring those qualifiers continue to only apply to their in-group. Would I rather live in a country run by scientists than deadbeats? Probably. But that's based on the idea that we live in a reasonably free society with social mobility where the difference between scientist and deadbeat is at least partially down to intelligence and work ethic. Hand all the power to the "scientists" though and it's not obvious that distinction would continue to be true past a few generations, because later generations of "scientist" didn't come up through the same free and equal society. I buy that the first generation of all-powerful scientists legitimately will want to turn the grocery store bagger into a future scientist. History suggests later generations will have no such interest.
- blini-kot 2mo agowhy indeed one must wonder? any ideas?
- amanaplanacanal 2mo agoOh 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 go along with it.
- imzadi 2mo agoThe Catan system
- bad_username 2mo ago[flagged]
- dqv 2mo agoOh yeah, uh, sure it's hate speech. It's wealthism. One of the worst forms of prejudice. The wealthy live in constant fear for something that's not even their fault... they didn't choose to be wealthy, they were just born that way. If you're seeing this violent sentiment spill over to HN, just imagine how the general population is starting to feel about billionaires.
- baseballdork 2mo agoHate speech applies to particular characteristics that essentially never include "having lots of money".
- jst1fthsdys 2mo agoDo you think the billionaires pushing policy that causes millions to suffer are doing hate speech too?
- ndsipa_pomu 2mo agoRather than a fixed amount of net worth, I'd rather it was linked to something like the minimum wage (e.g. minimum wage x 10 million) or the net worth of the poorest 10%. There should be some mechanism to prevent runaway wealth hoarders from stealing power and resources from the rest of us.
- sigilsack 2mo ago[flagged]
- Traster 2mo agoIt is interesting to hear how openly some CEOs will just say outright stupid things. Like ok, so you re-do the voting system to give rich people more votes than poor people. Fine. It's done. What's the first order of business amongst the electorate at the next election. Well Elon Musk now has 10 times as many votes as Tobias Lütke, why would Musk not just vote to change the system again, handing more power to himself? And on the basis of what principle would you oppose him? It's just fundamentally a stupid thing to say, and the fact he says it in public strongly indicates that he's lost contact with anyone who will challenge him on this stuff.
- barddoo 2mo agobased, solid opinion
- noncoml 2mo agoI bet you that if their dear leader suggested this, most of the people would vote to have their voting rights be taken away.
- tlogan 2mo agoIt might actually be a better idea to require a short, in-person civic knowledge test every two years as a condition for voting. If you fail, you can take it again, but you cannot vote until you pass. I’m only half joking.
- forinti 2mo agoVoting should always be universal. The moment you exclude someone, you add the possibility of excluding more people.
- erics32 2mo agoJournalism is terrible nowadays - Tobi was commenting on the Canadian political system, not American.
- rawgabbit 2mo agoGovernment 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.
- adolph 2mo ago1. 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.
- amanaplanacanal 2mo agoOne note about the headline. He didn't say anything about Americans. That was injected by the editor.
- tmaly 2mo agoI think there is a bigger issue here. Charging people for their fundamental rights. It happens in many different ways. Look at all these people that just want to live and they can't even do that without having to pay to exists. It is getting to be like that movie "In Time" where there is a clock you have to keep funding or you expire.
- speak_plainly 2mo ago[dead]
- tpoacher 2mo agoShouldn't it be the reverse? The vote of people who earn less (and are therefore more disadvantaged in society and rely on fair laws the most) should count more. Tax and "money paid to the system" is a red herring only an entitled super rich person would think is relevant.
- beej71 2mo agoI have a different idea. How about we weight your vote by your fiscal commonality with the average American? No?
- surgical_fire 2mo agoExcept everyone pays taxes. It's in everything that is bought at any given time. Obviously this asshole does not mean it like that. What he means is that only rich assholes like him should get to vote. If we are in the phase of just spitballing shit that should be considered unacceptable in a society where we are meant to coexist, I would spitball the idea that the time for his neck to meet the guillotine is long overdue.
- kenanfyi 2mo agoHe‘s been hanging out with his friends quite a lot lately I assume. Same brain farts over and over again.
- dkuntz2 2mo agothe why is quite easy, because we are not worthy of having a say in our own governance according to them, so that they may better exploit us
- yomismoaqui 2mo agoTIL about epistemic trespassing: It occurs when an expert in one field passes judgment or makes confident claims in another field where they lack true competence or formal training.
- slowmovintarget 2mo agoI wonder if he posts from the toilet like Elon. You should have skin in the game to vote (citizenship as a minimum in national elections, for example). It used to be that owning property was that gate (land, specifically, not income). So how do you get an electorate that isn't just interested in voting themselves free stuff? I honestly don't know. Raising children properly is a sign you're invested in the future, but holy cow would I not want a government test for that. Let's stick with citizenship... If you really want to fix the electorate, you need to fix education, and re-socialize values of merit (individual responsibility, liberty over ease...). Not an easy or simple proposition. A principled society is superior to a ruled society, we just don't like to pay what's needed for the former and land in the latter as a local minima.
- sleight42 2mo agoI remember meeting (then) Tobi at an inspiring "punk" Ruby event in 2007 in Toronto, RubyFringe, and thinking he seemed like a mildly spoken decent guy. How times have changed.
- tsoukase 2mo agoThe beyond-3-SDs right side of the bell curve makes the rules and plays with them. It controls policy and law, shapes public opinions and enjoys capitalism. The only correct POV is theirs: there is no middle and lower class (having 1000 or 5000 more wealth than someone categorizes both of them as subordinate anyway), only the elite and the plebes.
- pavel_lishin 2mo ago> A reply from “Eric Thor,” who claimed to be a retired banking executive as well as “armchair economist and policy wonk,” proposed a sliding scale: zero votes for anyone who pays no income tax, one vote for those earning $1–100K, two votes for $100–200K, scaling up in that pattern to a hard cap of five votes for anyone earning $500K or more. hell yeah, dude, I LOVE that I can lose my health insurance if my manager's manager decides he doesn't like the cut of my jib. Why shouldn't I lose my right to vote, too?
- ChoGGi 2mo agoI'd say "eat the rich", but he probably tastes like shit. Best to bury him by the side of the road. Down vote me all you want, how does that billionaire taste sliding down your throat?
- senordevnyc 2mo ago[flagged]
- consumer451 2mo agoThe eventual flagging of this post makes me so sad for our civilization, of which this website is a HUGE part. I believe there was a very interesting conversation happening here.
- senordevnyc 2mo ago[flagged]
- consumer451 2mo agoI appreciate the reply. However, there is a lot more than blah blah happening here, in the hundreds of comments. Here was my best effort, which I believe is entirely fair: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49091321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49091321 I believe that many people understood the subtext of TFA, and contributed to a genuinely interesting thread, given our increasingly low-trust political and business environment.
- unknownfuture 2mo agoThing about offhand comments from random guys like Lutke is a) they're born of the cultural pool in which he's swimming, which is made up of many other very influential rich guys, and b) they have the power and influence to actually make their ideas happen. One only need look at Peter Thiel's private rich club for assholes and the ideas they're circulating or the absurdities espoused by the effective altruists that birthed guys like Sam Bankman Fried to realize that it's worth paying attention to wild, off the cuff comments by folks like Lutke. His ideas might be more prevalent than you realize.
- senordevnyc 2mo agoThe fact that you think Thiel’s dumb little conference is some kind of conspiracy theory shadow group tells me all I need to know about what you know about any of this.
- unknownfuture 2mo ago
- nickelcitymario 2mo agoIt's an interesting idea only if you've never studied how democracy came to be. The best definition of democracy that I've ever heard is that democracy is war by other means. When you take away someone's right to vote, or make their vote less important than someone else's, you take away the only non-violent means they have to affect change. Democracy is an agreement to put aside our weapons and resolve conflict peacefully. Take that away and you end up with violent revolution.