Shopify CEO voting rights post draws criticism over tax-tiered proposal

Shopify CEO Tobias Lütke’s voting rights comments have drawn scrutiny after he endorsed a tax-tiered ballot proposal in a social media thread, Fortune reported. The issue matters because the plan he praised would deny votes to people who pay no income tax while giving higher earners multiple votes.

Fortune reported that Lütke, whose company has a market value near $154 billion, replied “good system” to a proposal posted on X that linked voting power to income-tax payments. Shopify did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment.

What did the Shopify CEO say about voting rights?

The exchange began after Lütke suggested that pension recipients could have their finances “locked in and guaranteed” but be treated as dependents and lose voting rights, similar to minors, according to Fortune. A reply from an X user named Eric Thor then proposed a scale in which people paying no income tax would get no vote, earners from $1 to $100,000 would get one vote, and higher income bands would receive more votes up to a cap of five.

Lütke’s “good system” response referred to that proposal, Fortune reported. The plan was presented by its author as a fairness measure for people who pay taxes, but critics online described it as a way to give the wealthy more formal political power.

Under the proposal described by Fortune, people who owe no net federal income tax could lose the vote. That group could include retirees living on Social Security or pension income, students, caregivers, disabled people and low-wage workers whose deductions or credits eliminate their income-tax liability.

What is tax-based voting?

Tax-based voting ties the right to vote, or the weight of a vote, to taxes paid or wealth held. Fortune described it as a version of census suffrage or property-qualified voting, systems used in parts of 19th-century Europe and the early United States.

Those voting rules were later dismantled through universal suffrage movements, Fortune reported. Such systems limited political power to taxpayers or property owners and excluded many workers, women and minorities from voting on laws that affected them.

How housing politics entered the debate

Fortune reported that the thread began in the context of complaints about the housing market. Jordan Grimes had criticized current housing conditions, and San Francisco Chronicle reporter Laura Waxmann had reported on opposition by residents of San Francisco’s Marina district to a proposed waterfront project with 22- and 18-story buildings.

The broader discussion touched on the political influence of older homeowners. Fortune cited Yale professor Samuel Moyn, who has used the term “oldigarchy” and argued in his book Gerontocracy in America for lowering the voting age to give younger people more political weight.

Why Shopify’s governance history is part of the backlash

Fortune also pointed to Lütke’s role inside Shopify. In 2022, Shopify shareholders approved a Founder Share arrangement that guarantees Lütke at least 40% of the company’s voting power regardless of how much equity he owns, according to Fortune.

A Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance post cited by Fortune said governance critics viewed the structure as a way to entrench control by separating voting power from ownership level. Fortune also reported that proxy advisory firm Glass Lewis flagged the arrangement as controversial before the shareholder vote.

The result is a sharper political argument around Lütke’s post: critics are connecting his support for a tax-weighted voting idea with a corporate structure that already gives him unusually strong voting power at Shopify, according to Fortune.

This story draws on original reporting from Fortune.