We're speaking similar things with different conclusions. I was implying that people with income ARE invested in society and its long-term evolution, in its general majority. If tax negatives couldn't vote today with today's populations, most pressing political issues would get fixed.
In all cases, the idea is to filter out the non-responsibles. As in, let the useful decide. The useful, the responsible: the assets. Those who contribute in tax more than they take is a better measure because it includes all the ways people can be useful, while land ownership and veterancy are merely two arbitrary criteria. The 20-something with a steady job deserves his voice.
Nah, most people are misinformed.