Representation from taxes paid

Why don't we have legislative and government representation directly correlate with the amount of taxes paid by the voter?

For example, Richie McRichson has a 100 voting power, from the large amount of taxes he has to pay, this gives him 2 representatives.

While the entire village of Smallmound only has 50 voting power, because they pay half the amount of taxes, thus they only get one representative.

This would incentivize people to pay more taxes if they want more privileges, while also giving the ability to trade in less taxes for less representation.

Go back to 1800 user, you don't belong here

What happened in 1800?

So you want Bill Gates and George Soros to basically own you?

What if Bill Gates proceeds to pass a law that says you also have to pay a 'fee' that doesn't give your more voting power?

Because buying votes makes you third world

Because dats racist and sexist
But actually good because it stops populists
Honestly take voting back to middle class humans, and the world would be so much better
T. Monarcuck

IP ban on burgers when
Seriously democracy is overrated, if 'people' means all humans in your borders

umm... i hope you mean proportionality(though that gives a lot of room for abuse, as well)

Oh wait, you are talking in dollars.
You are gonna make entire persons and cities(because americans dont bitch enough about swing states already) go full dictatorRemember that whole statistic about 60 people having more wealth than half the planet?
Yeah, you are gonna make an incredibly broken thing.

Having wealth and paying lots of taxes don't correlate. Actually, the more resources someone has, the more they know how to hide them.
It isn't buying votes, it's the opposite, buying representation.
This ultimately means, that the taxes people pay, more likely come back directly to them, via public services and goods.
For wealthy corporates, it would mean that they could force the government to be more cooperative with them, for example by helping them penetrate into foreign markets.

Then go with monarchism, not this

>It isn't buying votes, it's the opposite, buying representation.

Do you have a logic malfunction?
In vote buying, the representative pays the voters money, in order to get elected, then reap the benefits for themselves.
In representative buying, the voters allocate their own resources into a common pool, which gets managed by a person collectively decided upon by the voters.
The power of resource allocation directly correlates with the amount of resources pooled by each individual.

>The power of resource allocation directly correlates with the amount of resources pooled by each individual.

Allowing him to favor himself and his own ability to acquire resources, giving him even more power to do so, until he owns everything.

>Actually, the more resources someone has, the more they know how to hide them.
Ah, so i wont be ruled by faggots that hide their wealth in the Cayman Islands, ill be ruled by Bills Gates and Lebron James.
That warms my heart.
>This ultimately means, that the taxes people pay, more likely come back directly to them, via public services and goods.
Which means they will more entrenched and crony as time goes on.
Forget russian oligarchs, this is on a whole new level.
Its an idea that becomes worse with every passing moment.
>For wealthy corporates, it would mean that they could force the government to be more cooperative with them, for example by helping them penetrate into foreign markets.
So you turn the entire planet into some United Fruit/East India Company megacorp playground?

There are plenty of other competitors, who try to get the government to favour them instead.
Bill Gates is a stand-up guy, don't hate.
>So you turn the entire planet into some United Fruit/East India Company megacorp playground?
Imagine how much tax revenue they would generate for their home nation.

>Bill Gates is a stand-up guy, don't hate.
Hes being doing literal monopoly producing actions since day one.
>Imagine how much tax revenue they would generate for their home nation.
Which, consisting, they would funnel back into themselves, indirectly.
How would this be of any use to me?

OP has to be the dumbest motherfucker alive on this earth right about now.

Sure, while not go ahead and make sure that only women get to vote regarding abortions and only people going to school to vote on school policies.

Make it fair so the more years you have left in school, the more votes you're getting.

The problem is that the richest portion of the population could easily survive, and even thrive, all while giving literally 99 percent of their money in taxes. The common man could not and stil live above poverty.

For example, Richie Pennybags brings home 1 billion a year. He decides he wants to get votes and throws 999 million at taxes for voting power. He still has a million a year to live large on. Broke McDirtfarmer takes home 30,000 a year. Dirt farmer can only pay 5,000 on top of other expenses toward taxes, and that's assuming he wants to pay the taxes to get a vote. Richie can own about 200,000 people's lives if he wants.

I agree that your representation should be proportional to your worth, but your scenario would be pretty insane.

>vote to remove all taxes on the poor
>then vote to exclude non-taxpayers from all public resources

sounds gr8 2bh