back to article 'No representation without taxation!' urges venerable tech VC

After apologizing for his comments comparing increased taxation on the rich to the Nazi pogrom of Kristallnacht, you might have expected Tom Perkins – the pioneering venture capitalist who backed firms such as Netscape, Genentech, AOL, and Google – to moderate his tone. Not a bit of it: on Thursday night he suggested that if you …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. M Gale

    The poll tax

    Which got renamed and called "Council Tax". And that, you do pay.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The poll tax

      You obviously don't understand what the poll tax was. It was a tax on the individual paid to the local council. Council tax is a property tax and what you pay depends on the banding of your property.

      What the poll tax prevented was certain families paying less by having 5 or 6 adult people living in a house built for 3 people. Under the poll tax they all contributed but under council tax you can have people playing the system.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: The poll tax

        It also meant that somebody occupying say, Buckingham palace, and Sandringham, and Balmoral only had to pay £500 in total.

        1. P. Lee

          Re: The poll tax

          The tax was for council services, not social engineering/wealth-redistribution. Unless your house is the one generating the rubbish for the bin-men to collect, it seems reasonable to tax those who use the services. The tax system becomes overly complex when you try to make everything hit the rich harder.

          The poor are always the ones who pay relatively more of their income on non-optional items. That's why nobody wants to be one of the poor. It's generally a bad thing to be.

          The poll tax was simple to understand in concept, had a broad base and easy calculation. Despite its disastrous PR, it was actually a pretty good tax. Mrs T had just been in power for too long and had acquired too many enemies by the time it came along and it couldn't survive her. I'd swap those kinds of tax rates for what we have today.

  2. Jill Kennedy

    Yawn

    They just love to believe they are provocative and important. It's out of control. Here's a CEO who compares the 1% to Jesus:

    http://mankabros.com/blogs/chairman/2014/01/27/the-one-percent-is-more-like-jesus/

    1. Sander van der Wal
      Angel

      Re: Yawn

      That one is a spoof, I'm afraid.

      Besides, Jezus is famous for being the *only* son. So there can be at most one CEO like Jezus, and everybody else is an imposter. I propose a walking-over-water, multiplying-bread-and-fishes, turning-water-into-wine and a raising-the-dead competition.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yawn

        "Besides, Jezus is famous for being the *only* son."

        Funny, my Bible says he had 6 brothers and at least 2 sisters. Of course, the sisters don't rate names but that's old time religion for you. Not sure where female bishops fit into that world-view.

        1. Bronek Kozicki
          Coat

          Re: Yawn

          Not that it matters, but in these times and in this region of the world, anyone with any kind of blood relationship was called "brother" or "sister", prominently cousins.

          Yawn indeed.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Yawn -@Kozicki

            I'd like a couple of academic references for that.

            The reason is that it's a peculiarly Catholic teaching, not supported by any evidence. The Gospels have come down to us in Greek, and in Greek there are distinct words for brother and cousin. The "cousin" word isn't used. The brothers of Jesus also usually accompany Mary, his mother.

            I know we're treading on pink unicorn territory here, but the teaching you allude to derives from Mariolatry - the belief in the Virgin Birth and all that guff. For some/many Catholics, Mary has to be perfectly sexless, so obviously no bonking with Joseph or offspring therefrom. Thus actual Biblical scholarship has to be ignored if it suggests that she was a normal, and obviously healthy, young woman.

            If you're interested in the period and why a peripatetic preacher had such influence, you can study the Biblical narrative exactly as you could study hieroglyphs or cuneiform - and this will support the obvious interpretation that Mary was very young when she had Jesus and, like many another middle class woman of the period, she went on to have a number of children.

            I see your yawn, and regard it as evidence of lack of actual scholarship.

            1. h4rm0ny

              Re: Yawn -@Kozicki

              If you believe in the virgin birth, presumably they would be half-brothers and half-sisters.

        2. SolidSquid

          Re: Yawn

          Going to be dull just now, but he was famous for being the only son of God. His brothers and sisters would have been the sons and daughters of Joseph, and half-siblings to Jesus

  3. M Gale

    "don't pay tax, get no votes."

    I know of a few people for whom their response would be "....ok. Guess I'll save some money then."

    And a million dollars = a million votes? That's not a recipe for disaster at all.

    1. Ole Juul

      Re: "don't pay tax, get no votes."

      A parallel take would be, that since the real voting is done with your wallet, high income people shouldn't be allowed at the polls since they've already had their share of influence.

    2. OffBeatMammal

      Re: "don't pay tax, get no votes."

      given that in the US the individual vote is largely worthless, and the county is effectively governed by sponsored career politicians and the lobbyists who grease their palms it sounds like all he's proposing is formalizing the current arrangement. Oh the cynicism.

    3. cortland

      Re: "don't pay tax, get no votes."

      Saves him having to buy them.

  4. dorsetknob
    Megaphone

    238 YEARS OF HISTORY

    How does this fit in with the main Argument of the Founding Fathers of the 13 colony's

    was not their main reason for Revolt against the "British Crown and empire""

    NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

    not

    NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 238 YEARS OF HISTORY

      I don't believe they were choosing to pay tax.

    2. Alan 43

      Re: 238 YEARS OF HISTORY

      UK council elections were rate payers only until 1946 or so and indeed continued in Northern Ireland until 1969 which created the one man one vote civil rights movement (it was already one man one vote for Westminster and Northern Ireland Assembly votes). If you didn`t pay rates you didn`t get a vote - so only the head of the household got a vote and if you owned a business or multiple businesses and paid rates for them you could actually have several votes...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 238 YEARS OF HISTORY

        I forget when it stopped, but at one time the universities of Oxford and Cambridge had their own MPs, so if you were an MA in residence you got two votes.

        Since the entire Front Bench on both sides consists largely of Oxbridge graduates, it really was a bit redundant.

    3. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: 238 YEARS OF HISTORY

      The USA Founding Fathers would be considered terrorist commies these by the very country they founded.

      Ironic, ain't it?

      1. Rich 11

        Re: 238 YEARS OF HISTORY

        <blockquote>The USA Founding Fathers would be considered terrorist commies these by the very country they founded.</blockquote>

        They wouldn't be considered True Christians, either. And that's only the ones who actually were Christians, rather than agnostics or deists.

  5. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
    Stop

    Which taxes, though?

    Everyone pays sales taxes, for example - a flat tax that affects poorer people more than the rich.

    The fact that so few people can earn enough to fall into even the lowest income tax bracket should be a source of shame for the 1%, anyway.

    Giving out dimes indeed!

    1. Slawek

      Re: Which taxes, though?

      All pay sales tax, but some from money government handed out - so they are net receivers. If share of such people (and that actually should include all government workers) reaches 50%, very bad things will follow.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Perkins said that if he were 20 today, he would move to Australia..."

    It's never too late to follow your dreams, asshole.

    1. Denarius
      Devil

      No representation without taxation! urges venerable tech VC

      @DavidW et al: He would be welcome here, at least to the corporate drones that are the glove puppets that run the place (into the ground). Current gov busy cutting taxes to rich, increasing costs to everyone else. While they are at it, the last 30 years of gov policy has taken the country from having some industry and first world status to at best, second world status as a foreign owned farm and mining pit. A bit more of free trade and economic rationalism and 3rd world status wont be far. Or severe social dislocation which is the same thing. Perhaps he would like to befriend an inherited wealthy person who can't understand why Australians don't want to work for $2 a day. BTW, I thought much of western government crisis was due to the wealthy NOT paying any taxes. Or in some countries, no-one pays taxes. Greece for instance.

      The root issue is that no-one is having a discussion on, note, discussion, is how much governments should poke into private lives. The second issue is the belief that companies are more than a legal fiction, but persons with rights, not concessions allowed by the parliament. An Oz High Court decision recently which is very disquieting stated that company funding of politicians is a free speech issue. That way is entrenched oligarchy IMNSHO.

      1. willi0000000

        Re: No representation without taxation! urges venerable tech VC

        yeah, you might want to stay away (very far away) from those "corporations are people, my friend" and the money = speech people. can't understand why someone with a lot of money would like to think that they are fungible.

        for us in the US it seems like we're going to have to wait for a new supreme court majority because elections are completely bought and paid for under the present interpretation of The Constitution of The United States (some may have heard of it, few have read it).

        don't worry... yet! i don't think anyone else in the civilized world has seen one fine little piece of legislation we have seen. it seems that some "business leaders" proposed legislation to allow businesses a vote in local elections "because businesses have a stake in how the community is governed."

        wouldn't that be just special though. first that, then statewide elections, then proportional representation based on number of employees (or profits). then national elections and the adoption of employee ID's as the only valid form of voter ID. [hell, lets go all the way] then a two-tiered employee ID system with only one level valid for voting.

        yeah, sounds ludicrous doesn't it.

        ok, i might be a little paranoid. if i am, only i suffer. if i'm not . . .

    2. Neil of Qld

      No way

      We don't want him

    3. John Hughes

      Ow. Ignorance heaped on Idiocy.

      The fool doesn't appear to know that Americans pay US income tax even if they live abroad.

    4. MrDamage Silver badge
      Trollface

      I'll be sure to tell him that the siren that sounds at the beaches are just a signal for the locals to get out of the water so the tourists and newcomers can have a swim in our pristine waters.

  7. Frankee Llonnygog

    And for every dollar of tax you evade

    you get -10 votes which are redistributed to the poor.

    Seriously, Perkins's ideal system already exists. It's called lobbying

  8. phil dude
    Pint

    exeptions prove the rule?

    The general problem is that politics has obscured the social mission.

    By saying that I mean, if you believe that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a goal worth aiming for....

    In the USA the supreme court passed the completely potty rule, the corporations are like persons. This is clearly wrong.

    In the USA it would appear the tools are all there, just some tweaking is required. This is my first stab having not had lunch, just got back from my 7k run....

    How about banning all corporate lobbying? Entirely? Instead, all donations to political candidates must be ONLY from citizens (and permanent residents), with the maximum amount being the national median income for the previous 5 years.

    Corporations can only lobby in public, by advertisements to the voting public. By that I mean what we have now, but make it the ONLY mechanism. No "fund raisers", "fact finding missions" etc...

    Citizens can band together to form lobby groups (same rules, only funds from citizens etc), and they can directly represent issues to elected representatives.

    Finally, term limits all the way through using the incremental principle. i.e. need majority first time, +10% second, +20% third etc..

    The whole thing about taxation is simply that it is too complex. Only those that can afford to avoid it don't pay it. Everyone else has no/little choice....

    OK must get some food...

    P.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Linked to the right to vote

    The poll tax was linked to the right to vote.

    The list of payers was harvested from the electoral rolls. After it was introduced a lot of people dissipared from the electoral rolls and so couldn't vote, the fact that these poorest members of society were likely to vote against the tories was, of course, an unfortunate and unforeseen side-effect

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Linked to the right to vote

      We were just talking about Gerry Mander and his missus, Shirley Porter two days ago. Last I heard she was out in Israel being rich.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Linked to the right to vote

        Certainly not - she is a political refugee in Israel being protected form a facist regime that wanted to persecute her for her religous beliefs. Why else hasn't she been extradited?

  10. Bladeforce

    Well lets face it

    Thatcher ripped Britain in two and America is already doing it's fair share in that regard

  11. DNTP

    I'm glad that this wealthy parasite may cease to spread his plague in a few years since his suggestion is basically a personal attack on my lifestyle and ethics.

    I work for a nonprofit. Our goal is to help people get diagnostic healthcare and advance science. Over the last seven years I've turned down three offers to work for other companies, which would have paid a much higher salary for easier hours. So Perkins is basically saying that I should have %30 less voting power since I am trying to work for society and not a CEO.

    So screw him and his ilk. They already have access to an army of mercenary lawyers and lobbyists, which is buying votes in all but name. I feel like I've gotten a fair bit of luck and it's my choice to pay it back, but that bastard got more than %99 of us and just wants to keep taking.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bring back the Feudal system

    Perkins obviously believes in the divin right of kings etc. What he seems to be advocating is the old-fashioned feudal system. Sounds like a great idea if you are a rich man! Of course, he could be pulling our collective legs, but the last guy to do that really well ended up founding Scientology!

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: Bring back the Feudal system

      Bring it back?

      Oh we're already there my friend and have been for decades.

  13. RTNavy

    Citizenship

    How about you can't become a citizen unless you have served the "Republic" in some fashion (Military, Medical Corps, Diplomatic Corps etc) and you can't get a license to have Children until AFTER your service is complete!

    How many of you are old enough to "remember" who Authored this concept?

    Of course you can still "live" if you have your own resources without Citizenship, you just don't get any say of Government's management.

    1. Jim O'Reilly

      Re: Citizenship

      You must be a Heinlein fan! That was "Starship Troopers"

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Alien

        Re: Citizenship

        Yeah, Starship Troopers, and I vote Perkins is the first out of the ship when we invade Klendathu....

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          Re: Citizenship

          "Yeah, Starship Troopers, and I vote Perkins is the first out of the ship when we invade Klendathu...."

          Not going to happen...

          Guys like that never volunteer for something dangerous.

    2. John Hughes

      Re: Citizenship

      "How many of you are old enough to "remember" who Authored this concept?"

      Some idiot who had obviously never met a French Fonctionaire.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is Perkins trying to provoke violence?

    He seems to be the exact type of person that is at the core of the people's negative sentiment of the super-rich.

    He is far more like the Nazi than those who denounce him.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      "He is far more like the Nazi than those who denounce him."

      "He is far more like the Nazi than those he denounces"

      TFTFY

      True.

      The National Socialist party got a fair share of its funds from big private donors. IIRC Tiesen (steel) and Krupp (arms) were somewhat prominent, as a way of stopping Germany going Communist (then as now the old "Reds under the bed" routine working a treat to get the cash flowing).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "He is far more like the Nazi than those who denounce him."

        Thyssen. I'm not that Jewish, but I still hate travelling on a Thyssen lift or escalator.

        The joke of course was that the industrialists then found that they had Nazis on the board who needed paying, and they were supplied with slave labour who they were forbidden to train or allow into the shelters, thus greatly reducing efficiency. They had forgotten how in the past kings would invite in armies of mercenaries to do their dity work, only to find their kingdoms taken away by those same mercenaries - as happened so often with the Praetorian Guard.

  15. Herby

    We get into problems when.....

    ...only a minority actually PAYS taxes. Then the others can by their votes get the "wealthy" to pay even more. Pretty soon the "wealthy" don't want to be "wealthy" much more and join the majority who just want to feed at the trough. It turns into a vicious cycle that ends up ruining us all. Unfortunately we are very close to this point here in the USA, sad to say.

    So, yes, if you DO pay (income) taxes (however small) and were given the right to vote based on that fact, it might make a difference. Running things on "other peoples money" is just fine until it runs out!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: We get into problems when.....

      But that's not the case. Only half of people pay income taxes, but everyone with a job pays SS/FICA taxes. Everyone with or without a job pays sales and other excise taxes. Everyone except the homeless pays property taxes (renters don't pay it directly, but some of the rent they pay to their landlords is used to pay property taxes)

      I guess Perkins is mostly retired for venture capitalism now so he feels he can speak his mind without worrying what guys in the startups he's funding like Andressen and Zuckerberg will think of his extremist views.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: We get into problems when.....

        You must be middle-class or better, and wearing blinders, since you don't seem to be aware that if you don't make enough, you get back all of the income taxes that you paid.

    2. John Hughes

      Re: We get into problems when.....

      ... only a minority makes enough money to owe taxes.

      If you want more people to pay income tax start by paying them a living wage, not the ludicrously low wages they get now, so low that employers teach their workers how to apply for food stamps.

    3. ecofeco Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: We get into problems when.....

      Only a minority pays taxes?

      Total bullcrap FUD.

      In the US, the only time you get all your taxes slightly more than paid back (and trust me, it is slight) is when you are so damn dirt fucking poor you are either homeless or on your way there shortly or rooming with 10 other people in a 2 bed apt.

      And while HALF (that's right, half) of the US workforce makes $500 a week or less, most of them do pay income taxes and get very little in the way of a refund. And woe unto you if you make $600+ a week. From there on up you get nothing back without a house and kids or very special circumstances like illness or home business loss/deductions or the incentive du jour.

      None of which you can afford in the first place until you hit the $900+ a week income.

      You have either never been that poor or you are talking out of your... hat.

      1. Swarthy

        Re: We get into problems when.....

        In the US, the only time you get all your taxes slightly more than paid back (and trust me, it is slight) is when you are so damn dirt fucking poor you are either homeless or on your way there shortly or rooming with 10 other people in a 2 bed apt.

        Or have a annual income of $32,800 with more than three kids, as was the case of a former supervisor of mine. He actually got a 'refund' that exceeded his tax withholdings by $5K.

        Given that the median income of the US is ~$44,400, the 'Only a minority pay taxes' is an overstatement, but so is your stance that only the "dirt poor" do not.

    4. Franklin

      Re: We get into problems when.....

      "Pretty soon the "wealthy" don't want to be "wealthy" much more and join the majority who just want to feed at the trough."

      Riiiiight. Well, I guess that explains the long lines of rich people burning all their money so they can become poor and feed at the trough, then. I was wondering about that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: We get into problems when.....

        It's all right, just regurgitation of Ayn Rand, read by the same people who think The Art of War will help with their MBA.

  16. disgruntled yank

    Wait, what?

    "He also recommended Norway, which had harvested its oil revenues into a trillion-dollar capital wealth fund."

    He who can roll Thomas Jefferson, Margaret Thatcher, and the Norwegian Labour Party into one political agenda was wasting his time in venture capital. Surely Kleiner Perkins was just trying to set a visionary free for his true vocation.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    First stop the illegal immigrants from voting

    He is out of touch. Every time we get a bill passed mandating voter ID so that only people allowed to vote actually vote, we get called racists and the courts find it is a violation of the Civil Rights act.

    The war on the 1% is to raise money for people are here illegally and still vote and get social services and medical care and welfare etc ....

    AC because I don't need Obama's IRS on my rear end anymore than they already are.

    1. willi0000000

      Re: First stop the illegal immigrants from voting

      big stink now in Ohio about voter fraud and the need for voter ID.

      last election something like 130+ cases of suspected voter fraud referred for investigation.

      something like 5+ million voted in that election.

      ONE conviction!!!!! [yes, i know Sir Pterry's views on 5 exclamation points] or maybe it was one prosecution (i'm old and can't remember everything).

      i'm quite sure that disenfranchising thousands of qualified voters will be worth it to stop that one person. particularly of they tend to vote mostly for your opponents.

      [or maybe it's all those illegals on local boards of registration that are covering up for their friends]

    2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: First stop the illegal immigrants from voting

      As Warren Buffett put it, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

      So much for the war on the 1%.

      1. willi0000000
        Boffin

        Re: First stop the illegal immigrants from voting

        it's only a war if both sides fight.

        what we have now is technically called a slaughter.

  18. ewozza
    Thumb Up

    New Barbarian Manifesto

    I first saw "No Representation without Taxation" in "The New Barbarian Manifesto", a book written over a decade ago by a London School of Economics Professor.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Barbarian-Manifesto-Information/dp/0749435054

    His point was very simple. If the number of voters consuming government money outnumber the people providing government money, then Democracy will fail. Consumers of government money have no stake in the productive side of the economy, they will simply vote themselves more and more benefits, regardless of the damage to economic productivity.

    As a solution, he suggest the future might embrace altered forms of democracy, such as no representation without taxation.

    Very interesting book, it was written over a decade ago, yet it hasn't aged - it could have been written yesterday.

    1. LaeMing
      Facepalm

      Re: New Barbarian Manifesto

      Sounds just like corporate managers voting themselves bigger and bigger pay rises. But that is obviously not going to damage the corporate sector in any way.

    2. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      Re: New Barbarian Manifesto

      Alan B'Stard proposed it ten years even earlier!

    3. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: New Barbarian Manifesto

      All very well, except government money isn't like household money - the government can create money whenever it feels like it (quantitative easing, anyone?).

      The true consumers of government money are in fact the banks, and they no longer have any need for a "productive" side in order to generate cash, which is why the private sector is struggling.

      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Re: New Barbarian Manifesto

        "the government can create money whenever it feels like it (quantitative easing, anyone?)."

        Depends what you mean by "money". If you're referring to the folding paper that has no value unless someone agrees to accept it for goods or services, then yeah, the government can print as much of that as it likes. Have a look at Robert Mugabe's patch for a view of how that one goes in the end.

        If, however, you are using the term in the more generic sense of "wealth" or "buying power", then the government can't print a single penny. All it can do is issue more notes to cover the country's existing wealth. Implicitly, this merely transfers wealth from the bank accounts of anyone with savings (or a pension) into the hands of whoever is lucky enough to receive the new notes (usually some friend of the politician printing the cash).

        "Quantitive Easing" is "Steal a little from everyone, and hope no-one notices". After you've totally broken the economy by bailing out reckless idiots who bet everything and lost, stealing the savings of those who were too smart or too poor to gamble in the first place may be the only strategy open to you, but it doesn't "create" anything.

    4. Franklin

      Re: New Barbarian Manifesto

      "His point was very simple. If the number of voters consuming government money outnumber the people providing government money, then Democracy will fail. Consumers of government money have no stake in the productive side of the economy, they will simply vote themselves more and more benefits..."

      How does he explain corporations voting themselves corporate welfare and tax breaks, I wonder? We talk about the poor consuming government money, but we don't talk about all the corporations doing the same.

      Well, some folks do, I reckon, but it's always "they DESERVE that government money, because they MAKE JOBS!" Never mind, of course, that they aren't making jobs as an act of charity--they're making jobs because they have to in order to make more money.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: New Barbarian Manifesto

        Those are the two sides of the same coin.

        The people who rely on benefits vote themselves more benefits, while the corporations lobby for more benefits (so they can pay the staff less) and tax breaks.

        And the idiots in charge give it to them both.

        It works beautifully until suddenly, it doesn't and everybody is screwed.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    Perkins is an old loon...

    So voting power should be proportional to income? There are certainly problems with the sustainability of current entitlement programs in the U.S., but I don't see how disenfranchising a large number of poor and super-enfranchising the rich is sustainable either. You'd eventually have a revolution, and then it really would be Kristallnacht for the rich.

    This guy really does give the rich a bad name.

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: Perkins is an old loon...

      This guy really does give the rich a bad name.

      I don't think you are giving the rest of the rich enough credit.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How the rich don't pay property tax ..

    "Tom Perkins – the pioneering venture capitalist .. suggested that if you don't pay income or property tax, you shouldn't be able to vote."

    Can we hide the beneficial owner of such a property, in a PO Box registered to a holding company, incorporated in Jersey, for-and-on-behalf of Trustees who are related to directors of a major City bank, who live in and actually are the real beneficial owners of the property .

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What a moron

    So this idiot wants a system that will inevitably reinforce itself, producing an increasingly small, increasingly powerful voter class?

    I love liberty, but I could never call myself a libertarian due to those who've made libertarian a dirty word (and meaning just about anything but liberty other than their own).

  22. Don Jefe

    No. It hasn't spoiled, they smell like that when they're new too

    A couple of points I would like to touch on, but first is to correct an error in the story. Perkins is 820 years old, not 82.

    A lot of people make that mistake so don't feel bad El Reg. Most people think the Catholic Church, as one of its first missions, was to destroy the copies of the spell that grants quasi-immortality if you inhale enough of your own shit. A few copies remained extant however. Perkins has one, Dick Cheney has several copies and Bush MkII and Tony Blair share one. Normally that sharing but wouldn't work. But since combining Bush MkII and Blair's intellect is still below the threshold for sentience, the spell thinks it is working for just one person. Wizards of old seriously misunderestimated how stupid Humans could actually be.

    Anyway, Perkins advanced age is partially to blame for his continued support of a landed voting class, bottom up tax structures (fiefs) and indentured servitude. It took ages, but his people finally got him to stop appending 'Owner of 13000 Slaves and a 200 man gang plow' to his signature. They told him the witch that lives in the picture box couldn't write small enough to fit all of his titles so he had to pick between that and 'Arbiter of Suffering'. That sounds more robust, plus if he got more slaves or a bigger plow the witch in the picture box would have to edit all the pre populated letterhead she keeps with her in the picture box. Apparently she's part of some kind of peasant bargaining collective and is due her full wages even if it is her fault she failed to correctly predict how many slaves there would be in the future.

    Anyway, none of that is very relevant to this story. What is extremely relevant however, is that Perkins has such well developed talking points because he's been doing those things to others for a long time. You want to hear a very unique noise? Go somewhere that big finance types are gathered and say 'I recently heard Perkins' and the rest of your statement will be lost in the din created by hundreds of people simultaneously rolling their eyes. It works with academic finance groups too, but everybody knows what retching sounds like, so it's not as much fun.

    I'm not going to bother with the details of how hypocrisy engines work. Suffice it to say, the practice was banned centuries ago for good reasons. In an era when setting people on fire to verify they weren't demons from Hell (thus fireproof) was a best practice and the only way to make sure your wife wasn't sleeping around was to lash them to a chair and huck them in the river (only whores can float) hypocrisy engines were completely unacceptable. They are rarely made anymore, forgotten parts of a past era. But if you want to look into the overall concept it isn't hard to do. Take any term of victimization Perkins uses (persecution for example) and look through the thousands and thousands of pages of law suits, regulatory manipulation, policy modifications and interviews with past partners and you can plainly see that persecution is only persecution if he isn't doing it. I'm serious, look up any public statement he has ever made and the overwhelming majority include some manner of reference to how he is being victimized, and only through sheer force of will was he able to succeed.

    The best analogues I can think of are backwards Voldemort and Vogons. I say backwards Voldemort because people aren't afraid of his power, they're afraid he'll want to hang out if he hears his name. It's not that he's mean or dumb, far from it actually. The thing is, nobody can relate to 800 year old Scandinavian conversational protocols. Even if everybody was willing to learn the rituals, where do you even go to get the finger bones from the left hand of an untouched maiden of childbearing age? Is it even legal to have those? Who do you even ask if that's legal?

    The Vogon comparison is spot on though. If you want a close approximation to listening to him explain how indentured servitude was beneficial to society as a whole and how it enabled unskilled workers to find gainful employment if they were willing to sacrifice a few years salary to learn valuable skills, here's what you do. Get an LP (only vinyl, other formats won't work) of Thatcher's first speech as Prime Minister, a live stoat, 1kg of cotton candy, a 5-Pack of Dutch Master cigars, a handful of thumbtacks and a propane powered rotary hammer drill and run, naked, into a pet store, with all those things and scream about angels raping your dog while you bash your head through some aquariums. The only thing you'd be missing is the fact Perkins always has the most atrocious snack foods at every event he attends. I still can't decide if that is something he arranges, for some reason, or if it is a function of putting 800 year old, magically imbued desiccant in the same building as once living appetizers. I have suspicions, but the only way to verify them with certainty is for Y'Groth The Appeaser of Balance to weigh Perkins on the Scales of Withering against the Tears of Stricken Children. The payment demanded for that service is simply not justified by my curiosity.

    It could be worse though. The universe, somehow, almost never puts too much power into an individual. Thatcher was cunning, brutal and hyper aggressive, but she was dumber than a bag of hammers. Just so dumb. I'm quite certain she ever realized fractions were part of the regular number system and not a game poor kids play. She also had no vision and couldn't see anything in context. Probably would have been a fantastic short order cook though.

    Perkins now, he is very smart. He has vision and sees things in their realistic, shifting context and can position things in anticipation of where they will be. He also has access to ancient lost wisdom and is patient (perk of being nearly immortal). But he has no cunning or brutality (cuntality?). The kind of person who hires cunning. He is aggressive, but it's a change the locks while you're out or borrow your car and park it on the steps of a synagogue after spray painting swastikas all over it kind of aggressive.

    So, yeah, it could be a lot worse if a Thatkins was ever created, but so far so good!

    At any rate. Perkins greatest, non-magical, power is that he is willing to say, publicly, what lots of politicians and wealthy people think but lie about thinking. Politicians, in a democracy, nearly always lose their mandate when some statement they made forces them to backpedal and before you know it have walked out the door they came in, they're just going in reverse. But Perkins is willing to say really divisive things, and act as a punching bag as people lambast him while his pals sneak in get what they wanted.

    I'm not sure how to fix it, but teaching students about actual business couldn't hurt. People generally have incredibly misinformed visions of how business operates. Until Joe Public understands how things really work, they will be vulnerable to people like Perkins and Thatcher. People who

    1. Intractable Potsherd

      Re: No. It hasn't spoiled, they smell like that when they're new too

      That's one of your best, DJ! Shame you ran out of words at the end ... or was that the Spell of Oblivion hitting you?

    2. h4rm0ny

      Re: No. It hasn't spoiled, they smell like that when they're new too

      A beautiful, beautiful piece of craftsmanship. Swift would be pleased to have written that.

  23. Lars Silver badge
    Happy

    Funny guy

    Or perhaps just stupid. Moving to Norway and becoming a "socialist", funny guy, does he not know that Norway is a Nordic country with social security like education and health care, labor unions and a progressive taxation. Perhaps he knows how things should be but is just unable to understand how to "get" it.

  24. Fazal Majid

    Perkins is merely describing how the US political system works in practice, if not in theory.

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Exactly ^

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    1 $ 1 Vote is Great...

    If your name is 'Benny the Buck' or 'Old Yeller'

    Tom Perkins would be outvoted everyday of the week, how many dollars can Tom bring to the table, Old Yeller could double it (QE to infinity)

  26. Identity
    Headmaster

    pedantry alert!

    The poll tax has nothing to do with elections. It is basically a tax on existence, as it comes from

    "Middle English (in the sense ‘head’): perhaps of Low German origin. The original sense was ‘head,’ and hence ‘an individual person among a number,’ from which developed the sense ‘number of people ascertained by counting of heads’ and then ‘counting of heads or of votes’ (17th cent)."

    Of course, Perkins only nominally has a head...

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Payroll taxes = Income taxes

    If your only source of income is a payroll check, then the taxes you pay as a "payroll" tax are your income tax. This is a bureacratic sleight of hand. We would never charge a working man income tax! The hell you say. You charge us tax on our payroll so what is the difference? Er...ah...well..

    It's like Nancy Pelosi saying, "We have to pass it before we can tell you what's in it." The United States government taxes everyone's income all the time, but the taxes are carefully hidden by sly language and crafty bookkeeping.

    Having said all of this, I must say that I can empathize with Mister Perkins senitments. What he does nor realize is that the definition of "wealthy" has gotten steadily smaller over the years. Nowadays, what was once considered "midldle class" is called "wealthy." The sad truth of the matter is, that it simply is not possible for people to become wealthy over time in the United States. Why? Because we insist on inflating our currency and then insist on taxing the living daylights out of everyone who makes as much as two-thin dimes a month. All of this is done in the name of "fairness." Personally, I can't see what is fair about it at all. Just because anohter man is wealthy does not mean that you cannot become wealthy on your own. Given the right environment, everyone would have the opportunity to become wealthy, but there is no way to legislate self-discipline and prudence. That is up to the individual citizen to establish for himself.

    1. Andrew Norton

      Re: Payroll taxes = Income taxes

      "It's like Nancy Pelosi saying, "We have to pass it before we can tell you what's in it." "

      ARRGGH. One of my pet peeves is the misquoting and misunderstanding around this.

      Read it in context, then understand that what she's saying is WHAT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

      She was asked what would be in the final bill, she doesn't know. You know why? Because until it's gone through the House (where she is) and the Senate, we won't know what's in the final bill. We couldn't look at the effects of the bill until we have the final bill, thanks to Amendments. Especially as the bill in question had an Olympic swimming pool load of proposed amendments.

      So, you have to pass the bill [out of the house] to know what's in it [for the senate]. Please hand back your citizenship, and your voting privileges, until you've read the Constitution, and passed a citizenship test, is that better?

  28. John Savard

    Won't Fly

    Some Southern states had, in the past, poll taxes, instituted for the specific purpose of preventing black people from voting. This history ensures that no poll tax will be acceptable in the U.S. today.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Won't Fly

      Before the poll taxes and for the first 80 years of American history, Southerners did have extra votes in proportional to their wealth. Slaves counted as 3/5 of a citizen for the purpose of members in the House of Representatives, so a plantation owner with 50 slaves controlled 30 votes.

      1. Don Jefe

        Re: Won't Fly

        The 3/5 rule had nothing to do with the South, not exclusively anyway. That was national practice you know. There were simply stunning numbers of slaves north of Virginia.

        There were no 'good guys' in our Civil War. Don't buy into that crap. There were plenty of good individuals, but as groups, everybody involved was just a huge piece of shit. Just awful people.

        But poll taxes were common, and it wasn't only African slaves who were effected. Look into why West Virginia is its own state. It used to be part of Virginia, but poll taxes prevented even most white people from voting. It's really interesting stuff, and not one bit of it is straight pro/anti-slavery. That came along after the South had already left the Union. You should check it out.

        But our history of poll taxes only means there's little chance for them if they target black people (or Native Americans) specifically. That still leaves a bunch of colors on the table, and wealth, education and heritage, job, the possibilities are endless. Don't think for a second those things couldn't get traction here. Racism isn't as bad as it used to be, but it's still a real problem and classism and quasi-religious social concepts are very real things causing very real problems.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Won't Fly

          You might want to read the 24th amendment, ratified in 1964.

          "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

  29. ecofeco Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    Most of the wealth?

    Well, yes it did... for a very small group of people.

    As for his "apology" he basically said he was sorry and then danced around why he still actually thinks he was right.

    I find it incredible beyond belief that the obscenely wealthy have never heard of Marie Antoinette.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Most of the wealth? -@ecofeco

      That is unfair to Marie Antoinette.

      To recap:

      The price of bread in Paris was controlled, but the price of brioche was not. So the bakers tried to make and sell as much brioche as possible as it made more profit. This led to bread shortages.

      So a law was passed that if the bakers did not bake enough bread, brioche must be sold to the poor at the price of bread.

      When Marie Antoinette was told there was a bread shortage, she replied "let them eat brioche", i.e. enforce the law. She knew the score.

      But the Royals had too much bad PR, and the story was misrepresented.

  30. CheesyTheClown

    Worked well for Rome

    By giving patricians a much higher voting weight than plebeians, it worked great for Rome.

    Oh... Maybe someone should look up Milo and Claudios, pretty sure that wouldn't happen again.

  31. sisk

    This idea is so colossally stupid I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest it. The fact that American elections can be bought is part of the problem, and he wants to make buying elections a more direct process. Just pay a million dollars and get a million votes. Idiot.

    Besides we have people screaming bloody murder over the rather obvious idea of having to show proof of citizenship when you go to vote. Can you imagine the outcry if the powers that be tried to implement this?

    1. Don Jefe

      Yes it is stupid. But there's a key step that's been omitted here. Money isn't as important to our politics as many think. Yes, money, and lots of it, is involved but that's basically to cover expenses while you're doing whatever it is you're supposed to be doing.

      See, anybody here in DC who can actually help you already has quite a bit of money. Sure, money is nice, but getting into US politics for money is really, really dumb. The money, even the full on illegal money, isn't that great. You can make a lot more money here doing just about anything that isn't politics and make it a lot easier as well. Plus, you can't get in trouble for doing cocaine off the breasts of prostitutes if you're not in politics.

      Every single day here in DC there are lunches and dinners and events that no amount of money will get you into. To get in you've got to have influence and power, which does not, surprisingly to many, automatically come with wealth. In fact, probably the best way to accumulate wealth, and keep it, is to stay out of politics in this city. You can go to the events and such, just don't pick sides on any issues.

      I always choose Jim Beam's side and ignore all the crap. Look at Bill Gates, he didn't get involved with actual political maneuvering until he left MS. His position is now unassailable so he can piss people off and nothing can happen. Same with Page and Brin, they don't come here to get involved, they send people to do that (rather, Schmidt sends people). Only a fool would come here and think money can protect them. It won't. I know for a fact there is a pool at a bar here where people are betting on when Zuckerberg and/or Facebook get raided by the Feds for 'something'. He's a fucking idiot for being here.

      All that to say, Perkins has very little to offer US politics because he has no power. He only understands money, so a money driven system would suit him very well. Honestly, I don't think anyone of note in US politics would be remotely interested in a system like Perkins is babbling about. Such a system would undermine the foundations all these power hungry asshats love so much.

  32. redpaul1

    re: Won't Fly

    @ John Savard. Not just unacceptable. Unconstitutional:

    Amendment XXIV

    Section 1.

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

    Section 2.

    The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/modern/jb_modern_polltax_1.html

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: re: Won't Fly

      Yeah. Wouldn't it be neat if the guys in charge actually cared what was in the Constitution? I think it would. It would help with that mess in North Carolina where students living in university dorms can't vote there, even if that is their official place of residence because neither the students nor the school pay real estate tax on those structures.

      There is a key part of our legal system that a lot of people miss. If you manage to cram some legislation through the system it goes into effect until such time as the appropriate court(s) address the matter. Sometimes a court will fast track something (Bush MkII v Gore vote counts for example) but normally it takes quite a while to be heard.

      Legislation that makes it more difficult to vote has its own funny little system. The year of a big election a shitload of new laws are passed that keep 'undesirable elements' from screwing up the vote. They cram them through, and if all goes well, it remains in effect until after the election then they just drop their support for it. Same thing four years later. Again and again and again. It sucks.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like