[MarkusQ]

Paywalled articles seem to enhance the "comment without reading, based on vibes" effect.

From the article:

"Pension recipients should have their financial futures “locked in and guaranteed,” but in return would be reclassified as “dependents” and lose the right to vote—the same way minors can’t vote. A reply from “Eric Thor,” who claimed to be a retired banking executive as well as “armchair economist and policy wonk,” proposed a sliding scale: zero votes for anyone who pays no income tax, one vote for those earning $1–100K, two votes for $100–200K, scaling up in that pattern to a hard cap of five votes for anyone earning $500K or more. The pitch was framed as fairness—reward “representation” for those who “foot the bill” through taxation."

"That was the good system that Lütke endorsed."

Most of the commenters here seem to be responding to...something other than this?

[mrwh]

And a husband who works and his wife who doesn't, should she get a vote? The commentators here are responding exactly to the spirit of what was said, there's no confusion on what's really being implied here. Namely, the destruction of the entire basis of democracy, which is one person one vote.

Another way to express the general disgust: that proposal is saying, "we're going to take away your power, but we'll still look after you, pinky promise!"

[fhdkweig]

I've already heard discussions in the last year that married women shouldn't vote. Their husbands would cast two votes. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22household+voting%22

[MarkusQ]

> the entire basis of democracy, which is one person one vote

This is a relatively recent innovation; most democracies throughout history have not had this property, so it's hardly the "entire basis" of the concept.

It is, however, an interesting and possibly worth goal. The obvious problem (which has been noted by many previously) is that when the people making the decisions are not the ones paying for it the system is unstable (e.g. "three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner", also "eventually you run out of other people's money").

This is a serious issue and possibly the biggest present threat to our current system. It's worth considering various possible solutions and thinking about what might work and what would likely lead to ruin.

If discussing these issue triggers "disgust" you may want to question if you are actually thinking about what is being said or just reacting emotionally.

[nozzlegear]

The billionaires are the sheep, and people with less than $100k in annual income are the wolves in this contrived scenario?

> This is a serious issue and possibly the biggest present threat to our current system

Is it?

[nozzlegear]

No I think most commenters are responding to that. It's a shitty take from a shitty billionaire.