Well if you look at major elections now, they’re all financed by companies and wealthy people via super PACs and other varying black boxes. Money still buys elections, its just not very transparent. At least in the above mentioned theory, there would be a rhyme or reason to how the votes go.
I would definitely support this system. I would like to go further and say that if you do not pay federal income tax, you should not be able to vote and have a say on how the federal government operates. I think we’re at a point where you have too many people getting refundable tax credits, not paying into the system, and voting in politicians that will continue this unsustainable gravy train, free money system.
But hey I’m not a US citizen so I can’t vote anyway.
It’s one dollar/one-vote in the economy. Perhaps there should be some area of life where those with more dollars don’t get more say in how the world works.
Is paying income tax the only way to have skin in the game? What if you are a lowly enlisted man in the armed forces fighting terror networks in Afghanistan? Are you saying you have less skin in the game of US policy (by at least half) than someone who pays 10,000 more than you in taxes?
Ok, obviously $1/vote is a bad idea. Bill Gates would just drop $10 billion into the election and force us to accept Topless Tuesday.
However, I do think there is a big problem when people can vote to increase taxes on other people without any effect on themselves. Tax increases should hit everyone - even if it’s a tiny change, the psychological effect is huge between “no change” and “some change”. If the low/high tax brackets are 15% and 40% and we want to tax the high bracket by an additional 2%, fine, but throw in 0.5% increase on the low bracket too. That 0.5% change is not going to change anyone’s life, but it makes people think about what they are doing with a tax change.
Disassociating people from costs has so many bad implications. It’s a major reason why US healthcare is so expensive, as well as increasing national debt by shoving costs to future generations.
I hate it when Republicans are right, but in this case they have a point. The NY budget which will probably pass calls for a tax decrease on those making under 300k and and increase on those above 2 mil. Why don’t they just not do anything?
You can pay congressmen and senators to write laws with loopholes for you. Then you are able to create an economic playing field that creates barriers to entry, discourages competition, creates TBTF institutions.
What you’re describing is how any legislation system tends to favor those who have the most influence over it, who then have the incentive to create rules that disproportionately benefit themselves. When you get closer to one-dollar/one-vote, that power tends to concentrate wealth and power faster. When it’s one-person/one-vote, it at least has some kind of counterveiling effect.
I think that officially licensing vote-buying is a bad idea. Even if I understand that using the political system to force your costs onto someone else is probematic. But don’t think this is a uniquely political problem - the economic system is full of attempts to force costs onto weaker or even third parties.
This is a very easy question to answer.
I am a NY lawmaker, and I need to be re-elected.
I know that there are 100 people who make less than 300k and 1 person making over 2m. Therefore, I can garner 100 votes for me and 1 against me. Whether I have made New York a better or worse place is irrelevant. What is important is that I have increased my chance of re-election.
I’m well aware. Thanks for reminding me.
You guys are conflating too many issues here.
Why tax laws are so complex - regulatory capture, that’s why. Special loopholes evrywhere. No adoption of Simpson-Bowles. Special carve-outs for every group.
Why poor should pay more in taxes - although I am to the extreme right on this issue, I get bchad’s point. This is always going to be somewhere in between “confiscate from the rich” and “treat the poor like shit”. FWIW, every third world country gives special breaks to the RICH (not the poor) and for all my resentment at illegal immigranrs filling up schools and ERs I pay for, I wonder if non-progressive taxes would make US a 3rd world country.
Why taxes should decide voting rights - why? Why not dick length or any other arbitrary measure of your endowment? Governance is not just about money but about the consent of the governed. One man one vote seems to be the most fair system without pre-judging people into who should get how much say.
If this were the case, based on a post in another thread, dumber people will have more votes. Imagine what that will do to the country!!!