4 ms·

He thinks ability to vote (and the number of votes you get) should be based on income. https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/business/article/shopify-ceo-draws-cr

by jawngee 2mo ago

He thinks ability to vote (and the number of votes you get) should be based on income. https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/business/article/shopify-ceo-draws-criticism-for-apparent-support-of-giving-wealthy-more-voting-power/ https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/business/article/shopify-...

ecshafer 2mo ago
Taxes paid was actually what was said.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- catlikesshrimp 2mo ago
  I may be going astray, but I can see a way to degenerate "taxes paid" to "taxes before deductions" to "income since it relates to taxes anyways"
  - p-o 2mo ago
    It doesn't have to be that complicated. Just absolute terms could have the desired effect. - 1% tax of 10 million = 100k - 20% tax of 100k = 20k Hence, the rich pays more tax.
    - catlikesshrimp 2mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_returns_of_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_returns_of_Donald_Trump "Trump paid no net federal income taxes in 11 of 18 years of the past two decades. After the refund, Trump had an average tax bill of $1.4 million per year over the 18 years.[52][176] In 2016, Trump paid only $750 in federal income tax, and in 2017, he paid another $750 in federal income tax." If there was an unequal vote, I am pretty sure rich people would want votes as heavy as possible.
win311fwg 2mo ago
If you read it again you will notice that technically he thinks that, to satisfy those who believe the wealthy don't pay tax, Canada could use a system to encourage the wealthy to claim income, where that is incentivized by being able to vote. Often the wealthy have no need for income as they already have so much wealth and can easily borrow against that wealth as cash needs present themselves. It is believed (at least as far as the thread went) that the wealthy currently don't pay tax, and thus would be unable to vote, or their vote would count for little, under the proposed since they don't have sufficient income to qualify.
- Lalabadie 2mo ago
  That would be true if he advocated for votes according to effective taxation rate or something similar. He caps his example at 800k reported income, if I remember, which is a rounding error to his income class. Instead, he makes sure to include the idea of stripping low-income people of all voting rights.
  - win311fwg 2mo ago
    > which is a rounding error to his income class. Not at all. The idea is that his class claim very little income, if any income. His income class is ~$0 (or believed to be, at least). You can certainly make an argument that the claim isn't true, that the ultra-wealthy are actually already paying huge sums in income tax, but then you cannot take the thread out of context. It was clearly directed at those who believe the wealthy pay no income tax. It literally says so. Did you skip step one and not go back to read it again? > He caps his example at 800k reported income, if I remember You are correct, approximately, but there would have been no need to remember given step one, so that was clearly ignored. Why? What is the purpose of replying without even reading the comment you are replying to?
    - Lalabadie 2mo ago
      Lutke's own post was about pension = no votes, which I identify as the thing he decided to actually spent time on. His other tweet is a Musk-like "Good idea" reply to someone else's proposal regarding tax brackets, no? I don't think memory fails me on the main points. If you think ranking the same read facts differently from you means faulty reading, I don't really owe you the labor of explaining where that fails.
throwaway-blaze 2mo ago
Maybe worth mentioning that the founding fathers in the US believed only property owners should vote.
- nullstyle 2mo ago
  Not the most important(IMO) of our founding fathers, Thomas Paine.
- summarybot 2mo ago
  Let's make everyone a property owner by default at birth
- Yokohiii 2mo ago
  Franklin also practiced air bathing instead of hygiene.
  - dragonwriter 2mo ago
    Franklin also supported universal male suffrage, wrote Pennsulvania’s 1776 constitution which adopted universal male suffrage, and condemned property requirements for the franchise, reportedly arguing: “Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars, and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers — but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass.”
- otterley 2mo ago
  They also didn't forbid slavery. It doesn't mean they were right.
  - dragonwriter 2mo ago
    “Didn’t forbid”, if referring to the framers of the Constitution, is a bit of an understatement, given that they created multiple layers of protection to prevent dismantling slavery at the federal level into the future.
dismalaf 2mo ago
[flagged]

by jawngee 2mo ago

ecshafer 2mo ago

Taxes paid was actually what was said.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
catlikesshrimp 2mo ago
I may be going astray, but I can see a way to degenerate "taxes paid" to "taxes before deductions" to "income since it relates to taxes anyways"
- p-o 2mo ago
  It doesn't have to be that complicated. Just absolute terms could have the desired effect. - 1% tax of 10 million = 100k - 20% tax of 100k = 20k Hence, the rich pays more tax.
  - catlikesshrimp 2mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_returns_of_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_returns_of_Donald_Trump "Trump paid no net federal income taxes in 11 of 18 years of the past two decades. After the refund, Trump had an average tax bill of $1.4 million per year over the 18 years.[52][176] In 2016, Trump paid only $750 in federal income tax, and in 2017, he paid another $750 in federal income tax." If there was an unequal vote, I am pretty sure rich people would want votes as heavy as possible.

win311fwg 2mo ago

If you read it again you will notice that technically he thinks that, to satisfy those who believe the wealthy don't pay tax, Canada could use a system to encourage the wealthy to claim income, where that is incentivized by being able to vote. Often the wealthy have no need for income as they already have so much wealth and can easily borrow against that wealth as cash needs present themselves. It is believed (at least as far as the thread went) that the wealthy currently don't pay tax, and thus would be unable to vote, or their vote would count for little, under the proposed since they don't have sufficient income to qualify.

Lalabadie 2mo ago
That would be true if he advocated for votes according to effective taxation rate or something similar. He caps his example at 800k reported income, if I remember, which is a rounding error to his income class. Instead, he makes sure to include the idea of stripping low-income people of all voting rights.
- win311fwg 2mo ago
  > which is a rounding error to his income class. Not at all. The idea is that his class claim very little income, if any income. His income class is ~$0 (or believed to be, at least). You can certainly make an argument that the claim isn't true, that the ultra-wealthy are actually already paying huge sums in income tax, but then you cannot take the thread out of context. It was clearly directed at those who believe the wealthy pay no income tax. It literally says so. Did you skip step one and not go back to read it again? > He caps his example at 800k reported income, if I remember You are correct, approximately, but there would have been no need to remember given step one, so that was clearly ignored. Why? What is the purpose of replying without even reading the comment you are replying to?
  - Lalabadie 2mo ago
    Lutke's own post was about pension = no votes, which I identify as the thing he decided to actually spent time on. His other tweet is a Musk-like "Good idea" reply to someone else's proposal regarding tax brackets, no? I don't think memory fails me on the main points. If you think ranking the same read facts differently from you means faulty reading, I don't really owe you the labor of explaining where that fails.

throwaway-blaze 2mo ago

Maybe worth mentioning that the founding fathers in the US believed only property owners should vote.

nullstyle 2mo ago
Not the most important(IMO) of our founding fathers, Thomas Paine.
summarybot 2mo ago
Let's make everyone a property owner by default at birth
Yokohiii 2mo ago
Franklin also practiced air bathing instead of hygiene.
- dragonwriter 2mo ago
  Franklin also supported universal male suffrage, wrote Pennsulvania’s 1776 constitution which adopted universal male suffrage, and condemned property requirements for the franchise, reportedly arguing: “Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars, and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers — but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass.”
otterley 2mo ago
They also didn't forbid slavery. It doesn't mean they were right.
- dragonwriter 2mo ago
  “Didn’t forbid”, if referring to the framers of the Constitution, is a bit of an understatement, given that they created multiple layers of protection to prevent dismantling slavery at the federal level into the future.

dismalaf 2mo ago

[flagged]