I've often considered the virtues of the plan outlined in kgbsquirrel's post . . . it really ticks me off that some parasite has the SAME say in how .gov spends MY tax dollars as I do.
Rich guys who use "loopholes" to avoid paying tax will dilute the value of their vote by doing so. People who are on the dole - welfare, food stamps, etc., and pay no taxes at all would get NO vote; I mean, why should people who contribute nothing - NOTHING! - have a say in how things are run?
The only real problem I see is that some of the "47%" really shouldn't be disenfranchised; the senior citizen who retired after WORKING for over 4 decades has, IMHO, EARNED a vote. Same for the low-ranking enlisted man in the military with a family who may pay little or no tax on his meager pay - would anyone say he's not contributing to his country?
The last paragraph shows the flaws. As an E1, I would essentially have no vote. If that ever happens, **** you (collectively, not any one person) and **** this country. In addition to sales taxes, income taxes, fees, tolls, FEAT, gasoline tax, excise taxes, tobacco taxes, I'd be very honked off about paying for a system that gave me absolutely no voice in it. I'd have even more right to be honked off than the folks who signed the Declaration of Independence.
No direct income tax payment != paying no taxes.
OTOH, if you had the Senate elected by some "tax dollars equal representation" and the House by popular vote, you'd avoid most of the problems. I just don't think it'd be worth it, when you could return to the original purpose of the Senate by the states electing the Senators instead of some Byzantine "purchasing votes" system.
As de Selby pointed out, there are inherent problems with being able to directly buy power. A judge once sat me down, and gave me a length of string. On one side of the string is illegal, the other is legal. He told me to pull it as tautly as I possibly could. He grabbed the middle of the string, and could still work it back and forth a bit. THAT is the real purpose of lawyers and courts. That fuzzy grey area. He told me the string was determined by the law itself, the prevailing attitude of the Court system, and society itself. Often in unspoken ways that no one consciously decides. Now, which way the string flexes is determined by circumstances, intelligence/skill and lastly, flat out money/power.
You need two out of three to be very likely to win in court. Of the three, money is the biggest because it can provide the rest. If you can hire a good lawyer that can provide intelligence and murkiness in the circumstances, you will never get the death penalty unless you are REALLY outside that flex space. Even then, it's unlikely.
Now, folks that say money can buy anything are also wrong. It provides advantage, but not an absolute one. You can blow millions on lawyers and still lose, if you are WAY outside of that flex space. Or you're stupid and the circumstances are bad.
Same goes with politics. Heck, Whitman spent $144 million trying to buy the California governor election. Some elections are just plain decided before the ballot box is open. Things are too far outside the flex space. Within that flex space, ayep. Circumstances, intelligence/skill and money do matter. And again, money can, but does not always, buy the other two. And money is not necessarily the best determination of a person's ability to make good political decisions.
While I agree, it's less than optimal that a person with poor decision making abilities that is a significant net tax loss (say a stereotypical "welfare queen" or dodgy CEO on corporate welfare) has an equal vote. But the alternatives tend to be much much worse.
"
Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"
- Robert Heinlein