Re:Declining trust in government is denting democracy (2017)
by daenz on Saturday June 19, 2021 @11:01AM
(#27561007)
It would be cool if you had to pay $X in taxes, but there were different sliders for allocating where your taxes went (10% to infra, 20% to green initiatives, etc). That way people can support things that they believe in, and they feel more invested in the outcomes.
Re:Declining trust in government is denting democracy (2017)
by anoncake on Saturday June 19, 2021 @11:38AM
(#27561418)
Sounds good at first, but it's actually deeply anti-democratic: You're giving people more influence on the state depending on their income and wealth. That's like wealth-based suffrage.
Re:Declining trust in government is denting democracy (2017)
by daenz on Saturday June 19, 2021 @11:45AM
(#27561492)
Makes sense. The percentage that you have to freely allocate could be a function of the amount being allocated. For example, someone with $1M income has only 20% of their taxes for free allocation, while someone with $50k income can freely allocate 100%.
Re:Declining trust in government is denting democracy (2017)
by chii on Sunday June 20, 2021 @01:17AM
(#27567318)
So in other words, it's OK if the rich get less representation, because they're rich? But it's not OK if the poor gets less representation - because of political correctness?
Re:Declining trust in government is denting democracy (2017)
by anoncake on Sunday June 20, 2021 @01:26AM
(#27567361)
Unless taxes are regressive, the rich still get more representation in that example.
Re:Declining trust in government is denting democracy (2017)
by mistermann on Saturday June 19, 2021 @11:25AM
(#27561290)
It would also be cool if people had long, complex, ongoing conversations (and meta-conversations) about feasible improvements like this to the design of our governments. Petty polarizing arguments arguments are soon much more appealing though. :(
Re:Declining trust in government is denting democracy (2017)
by mistermann on Sunday June 20, 2021 @04:09PM
(#27573454)
Hmmmm, -2.
From this, would it be logical to conclude that at least three people believe that this is not a good idea?
However in response to your point and in fairness to OP you can’t in the overwhelming majority of places decide where your money goes. It’s just pooled and used for whatever government wants to do with it. This is what most people have a problem with.
Personally I can see the merit in having some shared system but it should voluntarily always. Compelling people’s money through state sanctioned force which includes fines and imprisonment is sick. It promotes a parasitic relationship with government where people don’t feel part of it. Instead they feel smothered by it.