Shopify CEO Tobias Lütke, whose company commands a market capitalization near $154 billion, told his social media followers this week that a tax-tiered voting system—one that would strip voting rights from anyone who pays no income tax—would be a “good system.”
That two-word endorsement, dropped into a viral thread, has reignited a debate over wealth, power, and democracy that most Americans thought was settled more than a century ago.
The proposal would invert the founding American principle of “no taxation without representation” into something closer to “no representation without taxation”—and specifically, high taxation. Reactions online split sharply: Some framed it as a provocative thought experiment about aligning fiscal responsibility with political voice, while others called it a naked attempt to legitimize plutocracy by giving billionaires and multimillionaires a formal, multiplied vote over the laws that govern everyone else.
But it also revealed that America is grappling with a political economy debate, as a frozen housing market and an entrenched wealthy baby boomer demographic have many, not just Lütke, arguing that something big needs to change
At this point, their necks practically beg for the guillotine's blade. They keep reminding us:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of . . . tyrants.
-Thomas Jefferson in November 13, 1787, letter to William Stephens Smith.
104 Comments
ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip · 158 pts · 6d
So he's in favor of stripping the voting rights of billionaires?
Waterpumpee@lemmus.org · 50 pts · 6d
i think thats his argument. make billionaires pay tax to compete for policies. basically calling bribes tax or real life p2w, which it is currently but legal.
My take is, sack all of these billionaires and idiots on an remote small little island and let them figure out how they wanna govern themselves.
tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 20 pts · 6d
Like atlas shrugged? i like it! If we use the Randian framing they'll probably eat it up!
"nooo dont leave whatever will we do without someone to boss us around noooo please dont isolate yourself on a remote island pleeeeeease"
and then just not let em back in if they try
hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 6d
The self-serving “anarcho-capitalist” whore that died dependent on Medicare and social security.
Enkrod@feddit.org · 10 pts · 6d
HEY! Don't do whores dirty like that.
Dojan@pawb.social · 7 pts · 6d
Since they shit and cum so hard over that book, I’m surprised they haven’t just done it yet. Honestly.
tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 6d
Me too, but you know, its probably because somewhere deep down they know it wouldn't work. Or maybe they did try, maybe that was exactly what epstein was trying to do on that island (+ the child raping).
Dojan@pawb.social · 6 pts · 6d
It’s rare for something to give me such a visceral reaction, but reading that last bit had me exclaim my disgust loud enough that my dog woke from his nap on the balcony to come check on me.
Eugh. We need more queen of hearts in the world.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 6d
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling
They tried and failed.
Edit: there's also SeaLand, of course. Which apparently still exists and has one whole resident:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand?wprov=sfla1
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
T. Rump is pretty much establishing the government for that timeline.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 6d
Even better, let them do it at the bottom of the fucking ocean
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
Its where they keep the sexiest children.
Yup. Trust me billionaires it is so great down there you should risk it all to get down down there!
13igTyme@piefed.social · 4 pts · 6d
That's not his argument. He, like all billionaires, think they pay too much. They still end up paying social security and Medicaid. It just ends up being less than 1% because it capped. He would still get to vote in his new proposed system.
Sabin10@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 6d
Does one vote matter if you can buy thousands?
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 45 pts · 6d
Tobias Lütke is a German born Canadian. Why is he commenting about US elections at all? He has never voted in the US.
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml · 28 pts · 6d
Because he makes money from it, capitalism and fascism have no borders.
Edit: and I'm sure he's voted with his dollars.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 6d
Because he hates democracy everywhere, and thinks the US might be the next to fall, if it hasn't already.
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 6d
Never having a history of voting in an election is insufficient to the determination of excluding a voter for ineligibility.
Australis13@fedia.io · 42 pts · 6d
Yet another reason for me to dislike Shopify.
I already hated that all the small retailers I use have migrated to it and it pushes you to set up an account so that it can connect all my purchasing habits together from what should be independent retailers.
wizbiz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 28 pts · 6d
Perfect example as to why wealthy people shouldn't exist. Why should this unelected idiot have this much social power to even propose this?
FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 6d
Yeah, billionaires should not exist
osanna@lemmy.vg · 2 pts · 6d
hell, I don't think people should have more than a few million at most. Just enough to perhaps buy ONE house and afford food. Billionaires have no place when there are people starving and barely managing to survive. They really are scum, aren't they :/
(gonna add me again, Admiral Patrick?)
Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de · 26 pts · 6d
Okay, but if you're going to do that, those who pay more in taxes as a ratio to their net wealth should have more votes.
Also fuck shopify.
TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com · 24 pts · 6d
The problem here is that we have confused "financial success" with "merit".
They are almost always mutually exclusive.
VeryInterestingTable@jlai.lu · 3 pts · 6d
I want to make an analogy with cars.
Many people think that driving fast and being rude makes them good drivers because they can control their cars and possibly display how good their reaction time is. Like F1 drivers.
A good driver actually follows the rules, prioritize other people safety. But they look slow? They are even perceived as an obstacle.
Currently following the rules is seen as weak and unsuccessful for some reason.
Financial success should prpbably be measured as how good you are with your budget, paying your taxes... Etc. Dare I say employee retention if you are a business owner.
Instead it is measured with possibly the worse data point, total value of assets.
Honestly going back with my analogy it's as if we measured how good of a driver you are based on how fast you go from A to B while ignoring everything else.
tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 5d
In the game of money the simplest performance meter you could think of is the quantity of money you have. I doubt this can be changed.
Derpenheim@lemmy.zip · 23 pts · 6d
??? The richest people wouldnt vote. They pay no income tax, famously.
4am@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 6d
I wonder if this is what he meant but somehow I doubt it
NABDad@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 6d
I think he may be onto something.
Perhaps there's some way to tie the weight of your vote to the ratio of taxes paid divided by wealth?
So, if you have billions in assets+wages, but pay less taxes than a guy earning minimum wage, your vote would essentially be completely ignored.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5d
The problem is that combines with progressive taxation to fuck over the poor. It would prioritize high income low investment people
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
I'd just cap the voting power bonus at ~1.5
If you pay taxes you should've higher voting power but not tremendously higher
raze2012@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
Even simpler for me. Everyone gets one vote. You paying into social security? You get one more vote. We could break this down further to "is more than X% compensation social security payments", but let's keep it simple.
As much as we gripe, billionaires don't influence votes as much as we think (they simply lobby whoever gets in later). Politicians influence votes and focus on the demographic who votes the most. Who happen to be the people who don't need to plan around 8 hours of work in order to get to the polls. And those who won't be around to see the fruits of their labors 20+ years later. Let's reward those who work and need to face their future.
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
Under that idea, what happens to the vote of people who make too little to pay taxes? What if they don't have taxes because they don't have a job? What if you don’t pay taxes because you're homeless and don't have an address?
NABDad@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 6d
Well clearly, for those people the only fair way to handle it is to default to a vote weight of 1.0
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 5d
That's literally the problem, United Statesians just believe money is the only thing that matters. Rape children, bomb civilians, pollute water and air --- no, that's not a problem, we can look past that. If you make lots of money you are a good person, the more the better. That's just very literally how our society aligns itself.
Like it's so absurd, oh you took a sabbatical and had zero income, no vote for you! Like did the renaissance NOT happen? What is going on in our country??
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 5d
Gotta love the prosperity gospel. It is, in fact, God that makes you rich if you're a good person. Not exploitation of labour. And God makes you poor or gives you bad health if you're a bad person.
Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 6d
The shopify CEO wants to strip voting rights from people that don't pay taxes. So, 18-20 something year olds that don't have income and get claimed as a dependent. SAH mom's that get claimed as a dependent.
Fuck Tobias Lütke with a barbed wire wrapped dildo. Germany, Canada, please come pick up your trash.
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 6d
Stah moms pay taxes, we file jointly with our partners. It would be the young adult dependents and the rich people that live on loans instead of income, so they don't have to pay tax.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 5d
It would also be people who make little enough to get a full return. That's who they really want to disenfranchise
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 5d
Yeah that's a good point
yakko@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 6d
People who don't pay taxes? Why would a billionaire want to disenfranchise billionaires? 🤔
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5d
Yeah the highly notable people Germany has been sending our way lately have largely sucked. The appreciation for Kim Petras can only go so far when we're also getting this guy and Thiel from them.
Noobnarski@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
Nobody here sent them to you. They came because they could get away with such behaviour and even get rewarded for it in the US.
UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 14 pts · 6d
Ja, I agree! People like him need to vanish. That is to say, there must not be any billionairs. They only exist because they take away value from those that work to produce it. In other words, they steal from workers, both domestic and foreign.
By law or by guillotine - those bastards need to go.
desmosthenes@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 6d
that blood tank needs tyrant blood refilling
some_designer_dude@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 6d
A “good system” would never allow billionaires to exist, and would entail a solution for the ones that already do.
Archimedes@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 6d
But everyone pays taxes, even the unemployed. Every purchase has taxes on it. For this proposal to work as he wants, the entire tax burden will have to be transferred to the income tax. Enjoy the tax hike and labor crisis.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 5d
captain logical you got em.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 12 pts · 6d
There is no war but the Class War.
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 6d
I agree. Working class produces and every other class lives off of them.
Dogiedog64@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 5d
Because he's a Fascist worth $154B. Mystery solved.
zbyte64@awful.systems · 2 pts · 5d
Other ledgers have him under worthless
JoMiran@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 6d
This leads to the old "lead based voting system".
phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 6d
Oh, you mean the citizen's veto?
GreenBeard@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 6d
Third box reform, if you will.
Zier@fedia.io · 9 pts · 6d
I would like to "vote" for a system where businesses pay a minimum of 35% tax, no exceptions or deductions.
foggy@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 6d
Because they want to run the company towns of the 2000s.
PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 6d
Universal suffrage was a mistake. Maybe a confederation of workers councils would be better.
raze2012@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5d
Nah you're think backwards. Who votes and influences policy the most? Old people. Why? They have time to go to townhalls (which are often scheduled during the work week times), they have time to line up at the polls. Politicians famously only listen to calls and many haven't updated their communications for the 21st century to take in new forms of communication.
So there's two clear solutions here.
That's the bare minimum.
PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 5d
You are assuming that the outcome of American democracy reflects the will of the people and that voters react to politicians not meeting their needs by voting them out. That is absolutely not the case. Universal Healthcare is consistently the most important issue to voters, but no politician, not even the Democrats has ever lost their election for refusing to endorse Universal Healthcare. Additionally no politician has ever lost their job because they gave tax breaks to corporations even though there is no case where giving a tax break to Amazon, et al, improves any of their constituents lives.
Back to Healthcare, Obama Care made the insurance industry hugely rich, reduced the quality of care across all demographics, and caused the absolute healthcare crisis we are in today and yet every single idiot liberal will call it a win even if the outcomes were worse for everyone.
This goes a bit more into detail. https://www.politico.com/story/2009/12/liberals-why-didnt-obama-fight-030648
But the important part is that even though the bill did not do any of things it sought to do, Obama got to declare victory and the voters rewarded him for it. (not that they had a choice.)
raze2012@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
Yes, the old people do. You see the issue coming back up? If you piss off Gen Z, it doesn't matter if they are 25% of the population (made up numbers) if only 20% of them vote. Boomers being 15% but voting 70% of the time has more numbers.
They don't need to. Republicans can kick the can down the road and say "we'll think of something" and that's good enough for a campaign. They try to cut healthcare, and even this abomination of an administration gets flak.
But yes, I get what you're saying. Campaign trails are rarely about the most eloquently explained policy plans. It's much more superficial and that's how we get Trump. There's unfortunately this weird cognitive dissonance between what someone talks about and what someone in office does. And thars why approval ratings almost always start highest and slowly declines.
I suppose my most charitable interpretation here is that Boomers still think we live in a time where congress isn't constantly in gridlock, and a time where politicians would occasionally try to run bills that help the people. But newer generations only see broken promises and compromised bribe holders.
Because it was watered down by conservatives and lobbied further by Healthcare. Yes. It's not a great plan, but it's the most that could get passed in 30 years.
This goes beyond my point because I'm not talking about how well executed plans are. I'm talking about who those people got into the position to begin with. You're complaining about policy makers and I'm saying "who put them there"
Do you honestly believe that if every millennial voted in the 2010s that no results (local, state, national) would have changed? And thus it would have changed the effectiveness of policy?
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
So long as there are councils for those unable to work for any number of reasons. At the very least a disabled council and a reserve labor force (unemployed but willing to work) council
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 5d
Because the rich think they're better than us and have stopped fearing us
xenomor@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 6d
Does anyone have tips for how to identify (and avoid) sites that use shopify?
Jaysyn@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 6d
He yearns for the urn.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 6d
What
GreenBeard@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 6d
He's asking for a Mario Party.
Eiri@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 6d
Is he trying to radicalize people? Damn, that's just comic book evil.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 6d
When we claw back power, and there are social programs to cover healthcare, college, day care, etc., it will be necessary to harshly punish Sociopathic Oligarchs for their ongoing crimes (they won't be able to stop, they are mentally ill, they can't help themselves), up to, and including full confiscation of their wealth, leaving them penniless, homeless, and naked.
They will not be eligible for those social programs. They can live on the streets, and eat pigeons.
wolfpack86@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 5d
How about no vote if your net worth is above 100m and you pay less than 25% in tax annually
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 5d
I've always liked the idea of once you hit $999,999,999 net worth, everything above that is 100% taxed and you get a little trophy that says "Congratulations on Winning Capitalism" and you get your name of the wall of a local bar.
wolfpack86@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
I don't hate this, but my main concern has always been I don't think people who own companies should be forced to sell their shares in what they built.
Maybe there are other fixes like taxing loans against equity as if the shares were sold (at whatever rate, like you propose)... That way you can hold more than a billion in net worth, but you can't really access it.
dantheclamman@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 5d
Technofeudalism is real.
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 6d
I'm reading this as taking power away from the ruling class, not giving it. Rich people don't live on income, they live on loans guaranteed against their companies and off shore wealth right? They purposely keep low to no income, so they don't have to pay income tax. This way, if they do that, it will take away their vote.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 6d
Tax wealth, not work.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 6d
Most "nouveau rich" want to keep their wealth forever and will burn everything down to make it possible. The "I got mine!" is strong with this group. The "old money rich" will eventually extract that wealth from them over time because they are "players" and this is old hat to them.
Radical_Socialist_t00t@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 5d
Because thats how the rich see the 99.8% that isn't them, duh.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 5 pts · 6d
Whatever. That guy is a never nude.
lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
Dozens of us!
cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 6d
A what?
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 6d
For reference
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 5d
Because the Ouroborus of capitalism has eaten around to the point it can see the back of its own head, and now it only has two solutions left.
maximize short term profits at the expense of everything else, and secure their position via buying governments/overthrowing governments/becoming government, in order to secure the constant flow of money and goods upwards to them.
Jubei_K_08@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 6d
I think most of us would be willing to try this if the more money you had, the further you are kept from politics.
rozodru@piefed.world · 4 pts · 6d
wouldn't matter. these dudes don't pay income tax anyways and Lutke is a fucking moron, always has been.
Remember kids, there's a reason you shouldn't use Ruby on Rails. Lutke is one half of the reason, DHH is the other.
aproposnix@piefed.social · 4 pts · 6d
Why? Because he's a "CEO". Capitalism, including surveillance capitalism, will not save us.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 5d
Because he's a piece of shit
Bluedragon012@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 5d
So when we gonna start tracking the movements of these evil people so it easier for people to Luigi them?
AshMan85@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 6d
because oligarchs and nazis go hand in hand
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 6d
Why is a big dick acting like a dick?
13igTyme@piefed.social · 3 pts · 6d
Yeah, because most people are fucking stupid.
Manjushri@piefed.social · 4 pts · 6d
No. Most people on the internet are bot farms and shills paid to astroturf.
13igTyme@piefed.social · 5 pts · 6d
Both can be true.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 6d
You might be right, because I'm dumb enough to not know if I'm a bot according to many of these cloudflare verifications.
Checks box...spins.... Error, fuck it I didn't care that much anyways.
13igTyme@piefed.social · 2 pts · 6d
I have to use Zoom, Teams, Google meet, or Webex when talking with clients. The amount of captchas I've failed is unsettling.
lizzzy@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 6d
To rob the poor of quality of life
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 6d
LOL, why?
Because all of these assholes think they are just going to fuck off to Galt's Gulch or whatever.
lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
Wild thing to say while living in a flammable house
Abyssian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
"Why did a $154 billion CEO just endorse stripping most Americans of voting rights—and taking us back to the 19th century?"
'Cause the ultra wealthy don't see the rest of us as being real people, and they should be (legally) killed.
steveLeo@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 5d
What is “sociopathy”
SoloCritical@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
The finest trait a CEO in a capitalist world could have,
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 5d
"pine"?
As in "their necks pined for the guillotine"
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5d
Woops! Forgot a word. Ty!
leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 6d
brah can't maffs so he just avoided big numbers.
the better suggestion is "no voting rights for people that don't pay their fair share"
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 6d
Ah, there's the razor in the apple. All too predictable and boring to blame a certain age demographic now.