Why should someone who pays no tax and lives off of money from the state have the same voting power as someone who pays...

Because economic status represents acheivement. Money represents achievment. Someone who has achieved more should be respected more.

Someone who is respected more should be able to have more power than a faggot neet.

>A pays £100 in tax
>B receives £100 in subsidies
>C receives £100 in subsidies

If they all have the same amount of votes, B and C will vote for higher subsidies, which will damage the economy and increase taxes on A. A is being punished for being successful, B and C are being awarded for being burdensome. End result? A broken economy, disenfranchised rich who move production abroad, and a growing underclass who expect a free lunch.

If B and C have no votes, and A has 10 votes, A will be encouraged to continue paying taxes and developing his local area, while also voting against handing out subsidies. B and C will be able to work at a company funded by A. End result? A rapidly growing economy with capitalists who are focusing on development for the people. Millions of jobs are created, the economy booms, and people who don't want work are on their own.

>Posts a retarded analogy

Not an argument

only white male landowners please

...

>voting power
>implying a vote confers power
L0L fgt pls
owning the candidate confers power,
everything else is smoke and mirrors

What about those who are born with wealth, and those born into poor families? Disenabling people to vote based on economic status is begging for a class divide, and exploitation of the poor from the rich.

You do realise that's photoshoped right?

Yes it was, stupid

Saying "not an argument" doesn't magically make an argument stop being one

You're not bright and should quit interjecting your retardation

>financial achievement is my only goal in life

Good goy.

No representation without taxation

>born with wealth
giving someone who doesn't know how to handle money obscene amounts of wealth will result in them wasting it all or otherwise losing most of it

...

its same as saying "why arent we giving powers to those who only want positive things in life?"

because people are idiots and forget the basics of safe world

and you basis on who is successful and who is not is way off from what it actually is. delusion of reality will lead you to kill yourself once the reality comes for you. and good that you kill yourself you imbecile, you didnt deserve any good things in the first place

This probably happens less than one percent of the time. It is a convenient way to think around this problem, but it is no more than a fanciful ideal. Unfortunately, there is no solution to this problem. It would be nice if every voter was highly-educated and paid taxes, but it cannot be enforced without significantly infringing on what should be a fundamental human right.

...

>parasites at the top deserve extra voting power

8/10
great shitbait

I think you're both pulling conclusions out of your asses.

Show me statistically where either is true.

Why work when the government uses your tax for immigrants and abos.

Well, you're right about us pulling statistics out of our asses, but it doesn't matter. First off, there's no way that people born with obscene wealth waste it the majority of the time. Secondly, it doesn't matter if it was true, because my point still stands that discriminating based on economic status will only ensure that wealthy's interests are protected, and noone else's.

time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/
Happens a lot more often than you think
Also
theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/how-black-middle-class-kids-become-black-lower-class-adults/384613/
Happens to googles a lot more often too

Contrary to popular belief
Keeping wealth is indeed rare easy for people who never experienced hardship

It shouldn't, contributing to the state should be linked to the right to vote.

Because why should women be left out?