NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I decided to incorporate two ideas into one poll...

Taxation

This has been seen in a certain issue in NS, but I just want to see what everyone else thinks. What if you could choose where your taxes go without going through Congress? We sit here and debate about all of these things, but no matter what you say, your money is always going to support something your against or not sufficiently support someting you are for. It also furthers democracy: if the government is not receiving enough money for something, then obviously the people don't support it.

On the other hand, some people think the bureaucracy in the US (and possibly other countries) is too complex to divide up into tax sectors. Also, since there is a two-way split in the US, how can we be sure anything will get the proper funding? There's also the idea that people could choose a program that somehow puts the money back in their pockets, which leaves the government with NO money.


Voting

Should we get rid of the electoral colleges? The electoral colleges prevent everyone from getting a voice. A state could be split 51-49, and all of a sudden, that 49% doesn't have a voice. Ridding the electoral vote and having just the popular vote would also create a greater voter turnout in normally strongly left- and right-wing states, since now the vote is based on an individual basis instead of a state basis. When looking back on past elections, the popular vote could've been really close, but the electoral votes are a mile apart.

On the other hand (who am I, Tevye?), the smaller states would feel less powerful, since now they don't have their three votes in the election. This would create a feeling of a lack of voice and would decrease voter turnout in smaller states.

Well, you could also split the electoral vote, which would be a compromise.


So, post with your thoughts, and don't forget to vote on the poll.

I think that the electoral system is outdated, and the popular vote is the only one should count.

Okay, I decided to incorporate two ideas into one poll...

Taxation

This has been seen in a certain issue in NS, but I just want to see what everyone else thinks. What if you could choose where your taxes go? We sit here and debate about al of these things, but no matter what you say, your money is always going to support something your against or not sufficiently support someting you are for. It also furthers democracy: if the government is not receiving enough money for something, then obviously the people don't support it.
We already decide, sort of. The people making tax laws are elected. You could argue they are not really representative of their constituents, but that's a voting problem, not a taxation one.

well, i meant more along the lines of without going through Congress. Like, on your tax forms, you check a bunch of boxes saying where your money will go towards.

well, i meant more along the lines of without going through Congress. Like, on your tax forms, you check a bunch of boxes saying where your money will go towards.
I don't think that would work. First, there would have to be a lot of boxes, unless they were grouped into larger categories. But even then, I suspect people would choose to fund programs that benefited themselves without considering the needs of the country as a whole.

Okay, I decided to incorporate two ideas into one poll...

Taxation

This has been seen in a certain issue in NS, but I just want to see what everyone else thinks. What if you could choose where your taxes go without going through Congress? We sit here and debate about all of these things, but no matter what you say, your money is always going to support something your against or not sufficiently support someting you are for. It also furthers democracy: if the government is not receiving enough money for something, then obviously the people don't support it.

Since everything government does has to be implemented by spending money, you're effectively giving people voting power proportional to how much tax they pay.

Which is interesting, but a lot more radical than I think you realize.

I don't think that would work. First, there would have to be a lot of boxes, unless they were grouped into larger categories. But even then, I suspect people would choose to fund programs that benefited themselves without considering the needs of the country as a whole.

Combined with the point I just made -- the rich would get richer. A lot richer! Kleptocracy.

I don't think that would work. First, there would have to be a lot of boxes, unless they were grouped into larger categories. But even then, I suspect people would choose to fund programs that benefited themselves without considering the needs of the country as a whole.

I don't think most politicians think about the needs of their country as a whole either..

I don't think most politicians think about the needs of their country as a whole either..
I think they at least think in the big picture. Even someone who is just hosing pork back home at least has to consider what the people in all the other states want and work with that. Individual taxpayers do not.

Oh stop with the whole "the politicians don't care about us!". I'll tell you something, the average House of Representatives member makes not that much more than I do, and I don't have to spend every two years convincing my bosses not to fire me.

As much as it's become passe to talk about our government like they "just don't care", the fact is the best and the brightest in our government do care, they care a whole lot. They might disagree as to what's best, but they do care. They must, caring is the only reason ANYONE would do that job. Why do it when you could do SO much better in the private sector?

well, i meant more along the lines of without going through Congress. Like, on your tax forms, you check a bunch of boxes saying where your money will go towards.

Then you use Congress* to put a box on that list saying "give it back to me" ... everyone ticks that from simple self-interest ... and you've left government with no money at all.

Which sounds like a neat way to implement anarchy** but in practice would probably lead to a military dictatorship, or one of the other undesirable government types that arise to fill such a vacuum.

*I don't live in the US, but any other representative parliament would work similarly.
** Quite a few anarchists here. The word is not used perjoratively.

If people are granted the ability to choose which government deparment gets their tax income, then most people will support programs that will give them some immediate benefit. The result? Important long-term programs, like scientific research, will be neglected. Honestly, I see little good in such a tax policy.

Oh stop with the whole "the politicians don't care about us!". I'll tell you something, the average House of Representatives member makes not that much more than I do, and I don't have to spend every two years convincing my bosses not to fire me.

As much as it's become passe to talk about our government like they "just don't care", the fact is the best and the brightest in our government do care, they care a whole lot. They might disagree as to what's best, but they do care. They must, caring is the only reason ANYONE would do that job. Why do it when you could do SO much better in the private sector?

Oh I don't know, I think people like the power to influence things nationwide, the bribery that we hear about every ten seconds on the news, the drug scandels that they get out of just 'cause they're Representatives (Or Senators). While I do admit I rag on them much more then most of them deserve, the fact still remains that many of them are only there to line their own pockets, or to get their State a lot of 'Pork' as it is known. Like 'the bridge to nowhere' if anyone remembers that.

I can't say much on the electoral college other than it's a strange bureaucratic process, but you seem to think popular votes are perfect. They're not people vote twice, don't get their votes counted, the U.S.'s voting system is very archaic.

As for voting on your taxes, Rynyl...do you know what kind of a bureaucratic mess our already red-tapped government would become?! As was stated earlier, there would be a whole bunch of fields to send money too. You can't seem to grasp that society is very complex we have programs that monitor programs which regulate other programs. No citizen would have all that information stored in their head.

We have a federal government in the U.S. for a reason. SO we don't have to do that crap. What your asking for is more along the lines of a mass democracy, which is good in many ways, but ineffective for a country as large and populous as ours.

I also concur that it'll only stratify society even more.

Oh I don't know, I think people like the power to influence things nationwide, the bribery that we hear about every ten seconds on the news

There are almost 600 active US congress people right now. How many can you name that were caught taking bribes?

2? 3? 6? that's...what...one percent?

or to get their State a lot of 'Pork' as it is known

You mean people elected to benefit the state they represent try to benefit the state they represent? Those bastards

Also all forms of government are corrupt friends. If people weren't corrupt we wouldn't need governments to protect our freedoms and rights would we?

It would be a disaster. Uncoordinated spending by hundreds of millions of people? Completely unworkable.

And it would favor the people who pay more tax over the people who do not, which rather ruins the point of progressive taxation.

To add to Neo Art's statement: not only that but you seem to forget the IRS, the treasury department, etc. We have a system people that help us regulate and curb government corruption

Oh stop with the whole "the politicians don't care about us!". I'll tell you something, the average House of Representatives member makes not that much more than I do, and I don't have to spend every two years convincing my bosses not to fire me.

As much as it's become passe to talk about our government like they "just don't care", the fact is the best and the brightest in our government do care, they care a whole lot. They might disagree as to what's best, but they do care. They must, caring is the only reason ANYONE would do that job. Why do it when you could do SO much better in the private sector?

Bravo!

Let's also acknowledge that, while there might be some deadwood in safe seats, politicians need to compete hard with each other to get on committees or into party leadership, and often work insanely long hours.

Yes, politicians do care, that's why we elect them. If they're corrupt we kick them out. The American people are the harshest employers in the world. Do your job right or we fire you. Funny how democracy works...

Bravo!

Let's also acknowledge that, while there might be some deadwood in safe seats, politicians need to compete hard with each other to get on committees or into party leadership, and often work insanely long hours.
Our district just removed some deadwood which had been there for a long time. I am satisfied.
And you bring up another good point: even if a politician in his heart of hearts does not care about the country as a whole, he has to at least work hard at acting like he cares if he wants re-election, and that comes out to the same thing.

You mean people elected to benefit the state they represent try to benefit the state they represent? Those bastards

You mean like the bridge to nowhere? How dare they not spend 398 million dollars on a bridge to an island of fifty people! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge)

(Hey those 50 people matter to dontcha know?) lol

The bridge to nowhere was repealed remember? True, the government passed legislation that was erroneous, but mind you if the American public was voting for public funding...they still would've supported this. It's an earmark,hidden beneath a larger plan!
I reiterate my point of the populous has almost no way of voting for each and every single little detail in our society it's why we have a bureaucratic system, not a perfect one mind you, but one that has worked and one that can change if the public notices that it has gone awry.

At least the government is, you know, paid to know and analyze the effects of a bill.

(Hey those 50 people matter to dontcha know?) lol

The bridge to nowhere was repealed remember? True, the government passed legislation that was erroneous, but mind you if the American public was voting for public funding...they still would've supported this. It's an earmark,hidden beneath a larger plan!
I reiterate my point of the populous has almost no way of voting for each and every single little detail in our society it's why we have a bureaucratic system, not a perfect one mind you, but one that has worked and one that can change if the public notices that it has gone awry.

At least the government is, you know, paid to know and analyze the effects of a bill.

It was repealed after it became a national embarrassment, and Alaska didn't give the money back.

Well yeah...if it was effective we wouldn't have to repeal it would we? True, the government makes mistakes, lots, but do you honestly think that general public will make any better calls of judgment?

As for Alaska not returning funds, well that's more Alaska's state government's problem than our federal government's

You mean like the bridge to nowhere? How dare they not spend 398 million dollars on a bridge to an island of fifty people! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge)

This, or any example you could give of bad policy, can be used by the political opponents of whoever did it.

The only exception to the rule is policy which the government is permitted to keep secret -- secret agencies, military secrets. These should be minimized because they are a danger to the process, with or without a committee to oversee them.

Cutting military spending is very hard largely because of its secret aspects. All the department of defence has to say is "we need that money and we can't tell you why."

(Hey those 50 people matter to dontcha know?) lol

It was pork. The people of the state don't just get a bridge to nowhere, they get a share of the money spent to build it.

Government simply cannot help being part of the economy. Anyone who spends money is part of the economy.

Yes, politicians do care, that's why we elect them. If they're corrupt we kick them out. The American people are the harshest employers in the world. Do your job right or we fire you. Funny how democracy works...

Americans are not the harshest employers in the world. Try going to a country where there are sweat shops, high unemployment rates and no real idea of workers rights with the added bonus of unions being illegal. They exist. America may not be perfect but it is far better than most of Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

You mean like the bridge to nowhere? How dare they not spend 398 million dollars on a bridge to an island of fifty people! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge)
That 398 million would have helped a good chunk of the Alaskan economy. That would be money spent in state employing state residents.

Yeah, it was a bit of a waste, and yes, it didn't make a whole lot of sense, it DID however benefit Alaska (Or would have), which is what the representatives are supposed to be doing in the first place, providing the 'voice' of their people.

That 398 million would have helped a good chunk of the Alaskan economy. That would be money spent in state employing state residents.

SOME of it would. For instance, the materials are not necessarily produced within the state, some materials would even be imported. Workers who came to the state to work on the bridge would spend some of their wages while there, but might take some back away with them too.

I'm not even going to try to estimate that, but certainly the money doesn't ALL go into the state's economy.

Yeah, it was a bit of a waste, and yes, it didn't make a whole lot of sense, it DID however benefit Alaska (Or would have), which is what the representatives are supposed to be doing in the first place, providing the 'voice' of their people.

The same could be said of the eponymous pork barrel. The representative brings a barrel of salted pork to town, and when you come to hear him speak you can take away some pork. The money you would otherwise spend on meat that week is made available to spend on other goods and services in your community.

My point is that "it's good for the economy" is not enough justification. Not when you can have the same effect and actually build something more useful.