Printable View
I'd like it better if the very budget was determined by the people. Taxes are paid and we do so because the government provides various services. People must pay a set amount but what that total goes to is determined by the person paying. That would move the democracy closer to a democracy as opposed to a straight republic. Politicians would be relegated more to the level of accountants instead of powerfull governors of many peoples lives.
Benefits recived by the taxpayer would be determined by the taxes he/she pays.
Good call!
So... rich people would get the most? The people that need it the least?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
I see tons of problems with your ideas on how the people decide where their taxes go to (I know, I know), for example, yea I wouldnt like my money going to the military, but what would happen to this (or any other) country without a military?
It just wouldn't work, dude.
I deleted that because I wasn't myself clear on the exact way to go about that but one thing I would be certian about it that it would be base on percentages of amount due and not overall sums.
And naturally there are some cogs that are not in place. Perhaps a preset amount is already given to nesesities like defence, education and health care.
...and now I look stupid =(
But wait... if the people would decide how their taxes were spent, you'd be giving more power to the rich, since they'd be paying more taxes.
Humm, that is true. 1 very rich person pays such and such for one program while thousands of lower class could pay for another and that program would still be funded less. I get that. Then again, with the distrobution of wealth being so uneven the 1% of the population would be contending with the other 99% of the people. The 1% of the population would account for 85% - 90% or so of all tax dollars - perhaps less (simply by cutting the overall amount taxed). There's still an inequality but I sometimes find it hard to give enough voice to the lower - middle class without taking away the rights of the upper class simply because they've earned a wealth. The idea might not work, no matter the tweaking one might do. But I would like it if I decided where my taxes went somehow.
Maybe its better to leave that uncertainty in, after all if you knew and decided where your taxes went you couldn't say "I pay this crook's salary!" or "my tax dollars are paying for that stupid shuttle" when you got mad at the government.
The general portfolio idea is really good, but would obviously need some tweaking. I think tracers idea would be favorable, with a set floor amount going to each portfolio, and then the public decide where the rest goes (say, 20%). I don't think the public should have full control over where their tax goes, as alot of us don't understand how important certain things are. For instance, people who say shit like "I don't want my money going to dole bludgers!" are ultimately raising social inequality and increasing crime and unrest.
What do you's think of a leader? personally, I'd prefer a committee type leadership full of publicly voted people that actually work together, but realistically, they'd just bicker constantly, so I guess a figure head is necessary.
actually, if you look at the very rich, they often pay less tax due to really talented accountants, so in reality the middle class may finally get their say.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Well, the figure head could just be voted in the same way as the American president is. But with the portfolio system, he would really have no clout, and would be well... just a figure head.Quote:
Originally Posted by arjue
The upper house (senate) would not change, which is where the bickering is and always be. The portfolio system would just change the lower house.
EDIT: Er... in Australia (since I was talking to arjue).