Wow @amlam way to look at women just as holes.... Very sexist of you.

*laughs*

a statistcal study done in New Zealand showed that while most men paid more in than they took out, women took like $200k more than they put in

*over a lifetime

I mean women would take out a lot less if they didn’t marry the state. But as long as women vote for the option then I guess that’ll happen

Fuck I think I’m being red pilled

@Agent Smith That happens all around the world (as i'm sure you know), but that just some of the only data we have on it.

yup

don't get me wrong - this also means that men on disability/unemployment benefits also don't get to vote

@amlam Just don't go as far as Blonde, she gets annoying with it sometimes lol

I mean I’m all for tax payers getting more of a vote. You contribute more to the system you should get more of a say. Everyone is subject to the laws of the state so everyone gets a vote for that but not everyone is contributing the funds so those that do should get more say

I guess that’s what lobbying is for though

And campaign donations

Still doesn’t quite make up for it though because you have to spend extra money

You should just be entitled to more vote based on how much you pay in taxes

that would be bad actually amlam

@amlam I'm not really sure that system works well, (i hate to put it like this), but that will be making a tier citizen system.

the rich could theoretically get even richer that way

oh, and @amlam, if those holes are above the waterline, they don't leak

You would have to have a government restricted for it to work. No special favors just deciding where the money goes

honestly we need to get all money out of politics...but that is a pipe dream

When politicians spend money, there will be money in politics

I don't really have a problem with money in politics.

For me it depends where the money comes from.

I find it hard to square the idea that a welfare recipient and a guy who paid 500 grand in taxes get exactly the same vote though. I don’t know what to do about it but that seems retarded

also, most people who would be net taxpayers also think about caring for their dependents so they won't be as cold blooded as feminists think the patriarchy is

I mean it also seems stupid that people with much higher IQs don’t get more of a vote but that’s racist of me to say

Well then, Cochella is just a GOP fundraiser https://www.spin.com/2019/01/coachella-owner-philip-anschutz-political-donations/

Actually, this gets brought up every year and there's always a new crop of kids to flake out on Twitter about it.

That’s fucking hilarious

Taking hippy money and giving it to The Man!

This is why I only eat chik-fil-a

And drink Yuengling

the dude is a multi-billionaire. it's not like it has to come from ticket sales

Tru

heh i know, was just playing

it will will of course trigger the shit out of hippies that don't understand how money works

the article said it's coming out of his personal money

@amlam - 1 vote per net taxpayer is enough or as mentioned elsewhere, votes get too skewed by the rich and powerful

@amlam So, its also kind of a retarded system that we have such poor people in our country with all the wealth we have (just making a point). The problem is how we go about changing these things, you can't just punish the rich for being successful, and reward all of the less fortunate as that will make everything worst. So our system is to give people as much freedom as we can allow (while "trying" to have limited safety systems for the worst off).

So to add this to voting, if you make a persons vote matter more because of their wealth or IQ, you are making an unequal system, which is always flawed as a persons life shouldn't just be valued on money and intelligence.
So what we have is a even playing field (not always), so everyone has an equal CHANCE at being heard. If you take that way, people on the bottom start to make the system unstable. And for the crazy leftist, who thinks this system is also flawed because it just give the rich more power, as they can spend more to be heard, its true. But they are still following the same rules we all do using their freedom. Just because someone has more money doesn't mean he gets to speak more or less (till they start to shut people out of this process).

I’m not opposed to 1-vote-per-net-taxpayer in theory but I feel it’s execution could potentially make things worse. Would you be presented a *voucher* to vote upon completion of your income taxes and/or expand the IRS to have agents at polling stations background checking potential voters. Also, there’s plenty of ‘net positive income taxpayers’ who don’t vote and all net ‘negative income taxpayers’ still pay taxes in one form or another. Would we have to implement a system that takes into account and tabulates ones sales tax, property tax, whatever-the-fuck tax? Do you really want the IRS or some other gov't agency involved in elections at all? Because that’s what we’d be asking for.