The Radford-Perkins Rule?

Well Tom Perkins, take a bow. As if your Wall Street Journal letter wasn’t silly enough, you’ve now raised the bar for all subsequent arrogant rich folk to meet. Comparing criticism of the American 1% with the Nazi attacks on Jews is outrageous enough, but suggesting you ought to get more votes because you pay more taxes?

I know that it was all supposed to be a great big clever, a so terribly clever, joke. I know you were just trying to get a laugh from your Commonwealth Club buddies out there in San Francisco.

But really: the more you pay in taxes the more votes you get?

I love the idea!

My progressive friends are cringing right now, so let me explain.

I totally agree. The amount of taxes you contribute to the common good of society ought to get you a proportionate voice in the distribution of those taxes. I think we call it an incentive. The more desire you express to help society, via those taxes, the more your voice ought to be heard when we spend all that money.

I have just one amendment to make to your suggestion. The number of votes ought to be related not to the gross tax amount, it ought to relate to level of all taxes as a percentage of gross income. And by income I mean we include everything. Sorry Tom, everything. Stuff like carried interest and capital gains count. Oh, and the taxes have to be all taxes, not just taxes on income. So things like payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes have to be added in as well.

This new formula will make votes relate to the proportionate effort to contribute and will thus modify and sharpen your brilliant suggestion. It will reveal those who really, truly, make a contribution.

And it will most likely mean you get fewer votes than the guys who sweep those San Francisco streets you drive around on.

You see Tom, the last few decades have seen an extraordinary effort by people like you to withdraw your contribution. You worked hard and successfully to get our progressive tax structure flattened and made more regressive. You managed to redistribute income upwards without accepting the social burden and responsibility that such an effort should bring. You won that fight. Congratulations! You revealed just how committed to society you are. That’s why I love your terrific idea. We know you are an anti-social fool, now we have a way to limit to electoral damage you can do.

May I call this the Radford-Perkins Rule?

Perhaps the joke’s on you.