427
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) by Sunflier@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] raze2012@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

voters react to politicians not meeting their needs by voting them out.

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.

no politician, not even the Democrats has ever lost their election for refusing to endorse Universal Healthcare.

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.

yet every single idiot liberal will call it a win even if the outcomes were worse for everyone.

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?

this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2026
427 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30591 readers
2005 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS