Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
A proposal endorsed by Shopify’s billionaire CEO to weight or restrict voting rights based on how much income tax a person pays has triggered a broader debate about money, power, and democracy. Commenters argue that tying the franchise to tax contributions would entrench oligarchic rule, echo historic poll taxes, and effectively disenfranchise the poor and many retirees, even as some explore it as a thought experiment about “net taxpayers” and government spending. The exchange widens into concerns about the growing political radicalization of tech elites, the outsized influence of extreme wealth, and whether limiting voting rights risks pushing societies toward authoritarianism and even violent conflict.
Reaction to tax‑weighted voting idea
- Many see the proposal (fewer or no votes for people paying no income tax; more votes for higher earners) as inherently anti‑democratic and “gross,” because it ties political power to wealth rather than equal personhood.
- Some consider it interesting as a thought experiment, especially around retirees and “net taxpayers,” but still a non‑starter for any real democracy.
- A few argue it might actually hurt current right‑wing coalitions (e.g., many non–income‑tax payers are retirees and rural poor), but others respond that any real system would be designed to avoid disenfranchising the powerful.
Democracy, rights, and history
- Strong defense of “one person, one vote” as the core of modern democracy; removing votes is framed as a gateway to totalitarianism or eventual violence.
- Others note historical democracies often had property or tax requirements, but critics reply that those systems produced severe abuses (poll taxes, racial exclusions).
- Some argue that distinguishing who can vote is philosophically discussable; others say given history of abuse, such distinctions should be treated as off‑limits in practice.
Power, wealth, and class conflict
- Broad sentiment that extreme wealth already buys disproportionate political influence via lobbying, donations, propaganda, and control of media/platforms.
- Many frame the proposal as part of a broader “class war” in which the rich seek to formalize their existing dominance and weaken the middle and working classes.
- Some call for stronger taxation of wealth, inheritance, or unrealized gains; others suggest the opposite—limiting benefits to non‑contributors—but are challenged on creating a permanent disenfranchised underclass.
Practical and edge‑case concerns
- Questions about what counts as “paying tax”: income vs. payroll, sales, property, and corporate taxes.
- Noted that many ultra‑rich report little or no taxable income and could trivially restructure to qualify for minimal “tax‑payer” voting thresholds.
- Concerns about easy abuse: governments or employers could manipulate tax status (e.g., exempting certain groups) to silently strip voting rights.
Views on tech billionaires and platforms
- Frequent claims that extreme wealth attracts or amplifies sociopathic, elitist tendencies; money plus social media gives outsized reach to bad ideas.
- Some stress that many rich people stay quiet and philanthropic, but the loudest extremists dominate perception.
- A few suggest quitting or competing with the CEO’s company as a response; others see this as mostly symbolic.