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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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?