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)
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Heartlander · 80-89, M
Invisible · 26-30, M
Why do you think optional taxes would be a good idea? I can see it disappearing rather quickly. A tax becomes optional, so naturally fewer people pay it. As a result, the tax must be increased in order to provide the service, and even more people choose not to pay. Repeat ad infinitum until no one can pay the exorbitant tax and/or no service can be provided.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@Invisible: Optional taxes would pay for optional expenses, not the essentials. If enough people want it badly enough they should be willing to pay the tax. It's a bit unfair for a taxpayer in Florida to pay federal taxes for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska.
The idea is to put spending in closer alignment to what the people want and are willing to pay for. For that bridge to nowhere, fund it by a mix of optional and usage taxes.
The idea is to put spending in closer alignment to what the people want and are willing to pay for. For that bridge to nowhere, fund it by a mix of optional and usage taxes.
Invisible · 26-30, M
[quote]It's a bit unfair for a taxpayer in Florida to pay federal taxes for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. [/quote]
Nonsense. That's not how taxes work.
[quote]If enough people want it badly enough they should be willing to pay the tax.[/quote]
People aren't going to be incentivized to contribute to things when they could decide not to and get essentially the same result. This is why socialism leads to widespread forced poverty.
Nonsense. That's not how taxes work.
[quote]If enough people want it badly enough they should be willing to pay the tax.[/quote]
People aren't going to be incentivized to contribute to things when they could decide not to and get essentially the same result. This is why socialism leads to widespread forced poverty.
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.