NationStates Jolt Archive

One still has to pay the taxes; though, to where they are spent, is the choice of the taxpayer.


It would be an interesting social experiment. :)

One still has to pay the taxes; though, to where they are spent, is the choice of the taxpayer.


It would be an interesting social experiment. :)
Part of the reason that direct democracy is a bad idea in practice is that it leads to the tyranny of the majority. The same would be the case in your description.

Yes

Part of the reason that direct democracy is a bad idea in practice is that it leads to the tyranny of the majority. The same would be the case in your description.


Though, the thing being, if certain services, such as sanitation, were underfunded, people would directly be affected; thence, more tax dollars would be allocated to sanitation.

We do tend to vote for where our taxes go, but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Here's what that means to the average joe American:

YOU HAVE TO WATCH YOUR REPRESENTATIVE!

We're a Republic, not a Democracy, so we don't get a vote in every little thing. We elect someone from our district to represent us. In my case, it's The Honorable Kevin Brady, a Republican whom I do not agree with most of the time, but he is who is currently in office from Texas's 8th district, so he is the one I have to deal with.

His address and phone number are public domain information and he is an accessable public servant, not some lofty King. I am able to write to him and call him whenever I bloody well feel like it.

Now, the next step is watching Congress. Find out what bills are currently being looked at by the House of Representatives. Read them carefully. If you like them, contact your Representative and say, "Hey, I like this. Let's try to make sure it passes the House." If you don't like it, say something to the opposite effect.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Eternal vigilance, not once-every-four-years vigilance.

Find your Congressman (http://www.house.gov/writerep/)

Check up on new Bills and Resolutions before Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c109query.html)

Eternal vigilance. You *do* have a voice. Use it.

Speaking of taxes, why shouldn't we vote upon to where our tax dollars go?

Because the running of a country is not supposed to be a popularity contest.

Though, the thing being, if certain services, such as sanitation, were underfunded, people would directly be affected; thence, more tax dollars would be allocated to sanitation.

But then again, it's equally possible that a sufficiently large group would vote to divert all of the money to the military and police and away from schools or infrastructure. Direct democracy leads to huge abuses if the people are not responsible with their votes or if there is a large enough segment of the population that wants something undesirable and unites behind it.

I think tyranny of the majority is a lot worse than even the most flagrant pork spending...

Speaking of taxes, why shouldn't we vote upon to where our tax dollars go?

Because the running of a country is not supposed to be a popularity contest.
Theoretically. ;)

One still has to pay the taxes; though, to where they are spent, is the choice of the taxpayer.


It would be an interesting social experiment. :)

You already choose where your tax money goes, they're called "elections".

Speaking of taxes, why shouldn't we vote upon to where our tax dollars go?

Because the running of a country is not supposed to be a popularity contest.
Fooled me.

Though, the thing being, if certain services, such as sanitation, were underfunded, people would directly be affected; thence, more tax dollars would be allocated to sanitation.
Which means we become reactive rather than proactive. Wait til the shit is running in the streets til we agree to give more money to them? And then have to wait 5 years for the new system to be up and running? Mmm-mm...Can smell that polio already.
Not that great a way to live, surely.

And what of things that we're not directly affected by, like say early-childhood education?
Only those with children use it, so why should the rest of us pay for it?
Other than that it is a public good that will benefit society as whole. But how many of us think like that?

Theoretically. ;)

Well, we have constitutions for a reason. Even the UK, in a sense.

Fooled me.

It works better when the choices given upon election are multiple and go beyond "evil and less evil."

It works better when the choices given upon election are multiple and go beyond "evil and less evil."
Shouldn't that be, "evil and not-quite-as-evil-but-still-pretty-nasty", or "evil and just-as-evil-but-hasn't-been-caught-yet-like-the-other-guy", with the obligatory "third option of a decent person no-one votes for, because that's-just-throwing-your-vote-away"

One still has to pay the taxes; though, to where they are spent, is the choice of the taxpayer.


It would be an interesting social experiment. :)

You do, if you vote on your representitives in whatever legislative bodies affect taxes in your nation.

You already choose where your tax money goes, they're called "elections".


Oh, because I don't remember voting to allocate my tax dollars to this "war on terrorism", or, Bush's "faith baised initiatives"

I do understand that it is a logistical nightmare; but, theoretically, it would be rather enjoyable. :p

Oh, because I don't remember voting to allocate my tax dollars to this "war on terrorism", or, Bush's "faith baised initiatives"

Well, actually you did vote. You lost.
The money is going that way because America's majority is comprised of a bunch of ignorant Christians and xenophobes who voted to see someone as unintelligent as (but far more corrupt than) the common man in office.

Speaking of taxes, why shouldn't we vote upon to where our tax dollars go?

Because the running of a country is not supposed to be a popularity contest.
Despite that when it's election time, it does become a popularity contest... :rolleyes:

What about people who don't pay taxes - what, if anything, do they get to vote on?

What about people who don't pay taxes - what, if anything, do they get to vote on?
When they come to vote, do a background check and have the IRS there to bust their asses.

i definately agree.

I think this would be a good idea. Along with your tax-returns every year you could get a form asking to fill in a number of columns with what percentage you would like to allot to each government department (the form would have the columns for defence and administration already filled in, I admit that the state knows best in those fields).

In Britain this would lead to a much higher rate of investment in schools and the NHS. I'm not sure if it work everywhere though. A panicky population may be given such a form and fill all of their percentage points in for law and order. Leading to a starving working class and a overpaid and prissy police force.

One still has to pay the taxes; though, to where they are spent, is the choice of the taxpayer.

It would be an interesting social experiment. :)
And a total disaster. We can't get people interested enough to vote in national elections, much less on individual issues, which is what voting for where your taxes go would be. The end result would be to surrender the decisions on where money would be spent to special interests who could mobilize a few thousand voters to swing voting on their particular interests. Bad idea! BAD!

One still has to pay the taxes; though, to where they are spent, is the choice of the taxpayer.


It would be an interesting social experiment. :)

Why not you ask? Because the average person is idiotic and has no idea about most things that are going on. Not that all of our leaders *coughDubyacough* have the most sense, but even the most retarded *coughBush!cough* have more idea of what is going on than the average person. Cause it isn't our job to know so obviously we can't be taking the time to find out.

We do tend to vote for where our taxes go, but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Here's what that means to the average joe American:

YOU HAVE TO WATCH YOUR REPRESENTATIVE!

We're a Republic, not a Democracy, so we don't get a vote in every little thing. We elect someone from our district to represent us. In my case, it's The Honorable Kevin Brady, a Republican whom I do not agree with most of the time, but he is who is currently in office from Texas's 8th district, so he is the one I have to deal with.

His address and phone number are public domain information and he is an accessable public servant, not some lofty King. I am able to write to him and call him whenever I bloody well feel like it.

Now, the next step is watching Congress. Find out what bills are currently being looked at by the House of Representatives. Read them carefully. If you like them, contact your Representative and say, "Hey, I like this. Let's try to make sure it passes the House." If you don't like it, say something to the opposite effect.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Eternal vigilance, not once-every-four-years vigilance.

Find your Congressman (http://www.house.gov/writerep/)

Check up on new Bills and Resolutions before Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c109query.html)

Eternal vigilance. You *do* have a voice. Use it.
Yes, exactly. It is gratifying to know that I can contact my representative's secretaries at any time and inform them of my views as they skim my letter for keywords, and to know that my voice has been heard when I recieve a form letter with a rubber-stamp signature...

Democracy rules!

When they come to vote, do a background check and have the IRS there to bust their asses.


You miss the point - 50% of people don't pay income taxes because the tax rate is essentially zero at their income. What - if anything - should they be allowed to vote for?

Part of the reason that direct democracy is a bad idea in practice is that it leads to the tyranny of the majority. The same would be the case in your description.

As opposed to an indirect democracy? Mwaha.

You miss the point - 50% of people don't pay income taxes because the tax rate is essentially zero at their income. What - if anything - should they be allowed to vote for?

What about the other taxes they pay?

One still has to pay the taxes; though, to where they are spent, is the choice of the taxpayer.


It would be an interesting social experiment. :)


I'm afraid that no sensible Democracy ( or Republic ) does democracy-a-la-carte.

And a total disaster. We can't get people interested enough to vote in national elections, much less on individual issues, which is what voting for where your taxes go would be. The end result would be to surrender the decisions on where money would be spent to special interests who could mobilize a few thousand voters to swing voting on their particular interests. Bad idea! BAD!


No, good good idea, it would certianly do something about voter apathy when people realise that if only they voted then perhaps they could really do something instead of whinge.

And if this special issuse thing happend, then a year or so of that and people would turn out to vote for their own issues. It is a very good idea, and for those people that constantly find them selves at odd with the majority, then perhaps these people would leave and seek their own brand of self governance elswhere.

You miss the point - 50% of people don't pay income taxes because the tax rate is essentially zero at their income. What - if anything - should they be allowed to vote for?


Shit then make sure that they pay a minimum tax rate, and then perhaps they could vote for better work laws, or perhaps a higer minimun wage, or any thing that would maker their lives better, and if it really is 50% as you claim then that gives them a good start to change their lives for the better huh!

Because we don't have tax "dollars".

You miss the point - 50% of people don't pay income taxes because the tax rate is essentially zero at their income.

Is income tax the only type of tax? Or do they pay other taxes, just not income tax?

Is income tax the only type of tax? Or do they pay other taxes, just not income tax?

There's sales tax, too.

There's sales tax, too.
Anything else?

Anything else?

Luxury tax is another. I'm not quite sure of all the taxes... I know that there are a lot, though.

Luxury tax is another. I'm not quite sure of all the taxes... I know that there are a lot, though.

So, really, they do pay tax.

Whereas B0zzy seemed to be implying that income tax was all, and some people paid next to none. But these people do pay tax, just not income tax.

Tell me, B0zzy, what levels of income tax did the US revolutionaries pay when they were shouting "no taxation without representation"? After all, income tax is all that matters when it comes to deciding representation.

Yes, exactly. It is gratifying to know that I can contact my representative's secretaries at any time and inform them of my views as they skim my letter for keywords, and to know that my voice has been heard when I recieve a form letter with a rubber-stamp signature...


There's the rub. You have to have a *bunch* of people do it. It can't be just one voice.

If everyone who said, "One person can't make a difference" all got together, a difference would be made.

One still has to pay the taxes; though, to where they are spent, is the choice of the taxpayer.


It would be an interesting social experiment. :)

In some cases these votes already take place... they are called "School Budgets" and atleast in my county 6 out of 10 times the fail (mainly because no one comes to vote cept the rich ppl). Such is the problem with voting... ppl barely even come out to vote for the presidency, are you really going to be running to the polls every time tax dollars are going to be reallocated to a new social program ?

Because it would give less power to the government, and we cant have that.

Oh and alot of people would think its socialist, and we cant have that either.

..because you're probably not informed.

Is it your job to keep up with international and domestic affairs? Is it your job to know the budgeting requirements and estimates on what it will cost to solve various problems and prevent other ones? Is it your job to look over all the information on current sociological trends to see where people are using services, what happens if those services aren't properly funded, and determine what the appropriate funding level is? Is it your job to read expert and academic reports on issues you don't really care about but might affect a bunch of people you don't personally know?

No? Do you do that in your spare time then?

No? Then you're probably not informed well enough to be making those types of decisions.

That's why we have a government, so that people can get on with the business of their lives, and those in government have the job of getting all that information together and hopefully using it to draft good polices and budgets based on all of that info that they spend 8-15 hours/day collecting and interpreting.

It's kind of the same reason why you generally don't take your car into a mechanic and then tell him exactly what needs to be fixed, what parts to order to do it, and the tools and procedures he'll need to follow to get it done.

Here's what happens in the government of the USA (theoretically):

We elect the best and brightest of us to lead us to a better future based on how they handle problems, what stances they take on things that matter to us, and overall how smart they are. From those people, we have a type of showdown every two(ish) years where they compete to be the smartest and most capable person for the office. We flourish through the progress of having the best possible person for the leadership positions of our country.

Here's what happens in the government of the USA (reality):

We elect the most affable person we can find, not usually basing their character on their trustworthiness or intelligence, rather, what they (say) they feel about the single most important thing to us as individuals, and this varies from taxes to gay marriage to war - we, of course, have no way to make sure they're truthful about how they feel about these things, and because of that there's always the possibility of turncoat under the guise of rhetoric. Because of that, there's no guarenteed safety net of general intelligence behind their campaign slogans that we clung to, which would keep us from being led astray - if the person wasn't who he made himself out to be, at the very least we would want him to be the smartest person for the job regardless of political stance - but this doesn't usually happen. We go in a downward spiral of toilet water as we elect and re-elect the same idiots in a different mask.

One still has to pay the taxes; though, to where they are spent, is the choice of the taxpayer.

People would end up just spending where the news is at the time. Less glamorous government programmes, like roads, santitation, and subsidies to business and the arts would be underfunded.

Why? Because I don't want to live in hell, that's why.

People would end up just spending where the news is at the time. Less glamorous government programmes, like roads, santitation, and subsidies to business and the arts would be underfunded.


Yes you are right this would probably happen for a while. Until such a time that people cottoned onto the state of the roads, and local businesses and sanitation, and then they would vote for these things. Yeah baby I say give the power to the people.

Yes you are right this would probably happen for a while. Until such a time that people cottoned onto the state of the roads, and local businesses and sanitation, and then they would vote for these things. Yeah baby I say give the power to the people.

The power is in the people. If enough of them mail their senator about something, the senator will take notice and want to address the problem to appease them, if only to be able to get re-elected.

The power is in the people. If enough of them mail their senator about something, the senator will take notice and want to address the problem to appease them, if only to be able to get re-elected.


Heh do you honestly belive this? Instead of the reality which is more along the lines of the Senator will do it if there is enough money to be made out of it?

Shit then make sure that they pay a minimum tax rate, and then perhaps they could vote for better work laws, or perhaps a higer minimun wage, or any thing that would maker their lives better, and if it really is 50% as you claim then that gives them a good start to change their lives for the better huh!

It is 50% - here ya go;
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls

Is income tax the only type of tax? Or do they pay other taxes, just not income tax?

The vast majority of them pay virtually zero federal taxes of any sort. Any amount paid is more than refunded by the earned income tax credit.

There's sales tax, too.

That is a local tax - not a federal tax. (in the US) I see no problem with allowing those who pay sales tax to vote on local issues.

So, really, they do pay tax.

Whereas B0zzy seemed to be implying that income tax was all, and some people paid next to none. But these people do pay tax, just not income tax.

Tell me, B0zzy, what levels of income tax did the US revolutionaries pay when they were shouting "no taxation without representation"? After all, income tax is all that matters when it comes to deciding representation.
As I pointed out - the earned income credit more than refunds all federal taxes paid and most local and state taxes as well. So really- your point is moot.

Why? Because I don't want to live in hell, that's why.
Then pay tithe, not tax. :)