Would American government be better if votes were weighted by the amount of tax dollars paid?
(either in total or over a recent stretch of time, e.g. past 5 years)
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 2 more replies »
Flenflyys · 31-35, F
Interesting, I totally bought into the 98% trend. Though the cited study is in 2001, something under ten years would be neat to see too
Flenflyys · 31-35, F
Ty
InvaderNice · 26-30, M
Are you asking if that would result in a better government, or if that would be a better voting system?
As a voting system it would be terrible because it would basically give all the voting power to rich people.
If you're asking if it would result in a better government, the only way to know is by looking at history and I don't think we have such a thing on record. If I had to guess, I'd say no.
As a voting system it would be terrible because it would basically give all the voting power to rich people.
If you're asking if it would result in a better government, the only way to know is by looking at history and I don't think we have such a thing on record. If I had to guess, I'd say no.
Invisible · 26-30, M
@Heartlander: I don't see your point
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@Invisible: the point is that wealth isn't and shouldn't be the criteria for anyone's rights as a citizen. If there's anyone who deserves greater rights at the polls it's the veterans. Shouldn't' a Purple Heart entitle someone to vote twice? Shouldn't Gold Star parents get to vote 10 times? 100 times? Answer: NO. Sorry, we are all equal. regardless of what you contribute in taxes ... or blood.
Invisible · 26-30, M
@Heartlander: "We're all equal," the greatest lie.
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
Heartlander · 80-89, M
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@Invisible: they can and do work that way. Lots of states have "optional" check-off blocks on their tax forms for contributing to various state programs, such as state parks, senior programs, wildlife preservation, etc. There's also excellent examples for contribution funded programs like PBS and NPR, and numerous educational and health institutions that base their funding on contributions. IMHO, PBS is far superior to the alphabet TV networks, as is the Shriner's Burn Hospital to the VA.
Just the opposite regarding incentives. One of the reasoning behind wasteful government spending is that it's no skin off the backs of those who pay little or no income tax.
Someone in either Florida or Alaska who pays no income tax would be OK with that bridge to nowhere in Alaska because he/she has no incentive to be concerned about the need, the price, or what the taxpayers will get in return.
Another interoperation to the "optional" idea is to just let the people in Alaska both decide and pay for that bridge, and leave Joe Smuck in Florida out of the equation.
Just the opposite regarding incentives. One of the reasoning behind wasteful government spending is that it's no skin off the backs of those who pay little or no income tax.
Someone in either Florida or Alaska who pays no income tax would be OK with that bridge to nowhere in Alaska because he/she has no incentive to be concerned about the need, the price, or what the taxpayers will get in return.
Another interoperation to the "optional" idea is to just let the people in Alaska both decide and pay for that bridge, and leave Joe Smuck in Florida out of the equation.
Invisible · 26-30, M
[quote]Just the opposite regarding incentives. One of the reasoning behind wasteful government spending is that it's no skin off the backs of those who pay little or no income tax.[/quote]
Exactly! This is why I've been thinking about votes weighted by tax dollars. It gets rid of the issue of eaters voting in politicians who promise them things in return, which will later be payed for by taxpayers.
Exactly! This is why I've been thinking about votes weighted by tax dollars. It gets rid of the issue of eaters voting in politicians who promise them things in return, which will later be payed for by taxpayers.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@Invisible:That's why EVERYONE should pay income tax. Even if it's a progressive tax, start at 1% for someone earning minimum wage and draw a straight line to 25% for $250,00 or wherever. We all have skin in the game.
Invisible · 26-30, M
I'm not sure what you mean. Tax dollars [i]are[/i] a percentage of income... Or at least income tax. But I think property tax and some others should be included, too.
SW-User
Tax dollars are a percentage of [i]taxable[/i] income...not gross income. I think the effective tax rate would be a good measure...that's who really shows you who is paying the taxes and how broken of a system it is. Right now you've got people like Trump with an effective rate of 5%, Warren Buffet around 11 or 12%, and then a family with a combined income barely cracking $100k paying 18% or higher.
I guess that would fit with the plutocratic logic at work in this day and age.