For 1) I don't have any further new arguments. For 2) - To summarize, your objection is that only the elites would only care vote, thus the elites would oppres

For 1) I don't have any further new arguments. For 2) - To summarize, your objection is that only the elites would only care vote, thus the elites would oppress the masses? But if the masses noticed they were getting oppressed, wouldn't they take the time to vote? The case in which they don't care to vote is when the government is being well run, which by definition, is a good outcome. The failure case is actually that the people who have the most time to vote would end up being the lazy/idle who aren't busy working or raising a family. For 3) filtering based on net wealth is a crude measure for sure, but the goal is results in the aggregate. In general, people with a net worth above the median income are more capable, responsible, experienced and longer term thinking. Yet the wealth requirement is not so high you're filtering out all but the wealthy. The bulk of the voters will be the responsible middle class. Will it filter out some responsible people and allow in some irresponsible people? Sure - but its only a first pass filter. As for teachers, I actually wouldn't allow any government employee to vote. Its a complete conflict of interest. But if teachers were allowed to vote, they wouldn't be prevented by income alone. Sure starting teachers often make about 75% of median income. But they do move up in pay in a few years, plus they have income during the summer. A teacher who saved 10-15% a year (which is low when you include paying down a mortgage as saving) would be able to hold office when they are around 35, which is fine with me. (I also disagree that teachers are working for the betterment of society more so than anyone else. A teacher chooses the job because it provides a secure, ample paycheck and because they enjoy the pleasure of influencing other people (or to put it more crassly, the pleasures of power))