St Edmundan Antarctic
24-11-2006, 20:20
Here’s an idea that I’ve been thinking about for a few months, and have just got around to typing out…
[name]No Representation without Taxation?
[description]The recent publication of a book called “Who Pays For Government?”, written by an internationally-famous economist by the name of Miles Freeman, has triggered a public debate about voting rights.
[validity]Elections are held, private enterprise is legal, and income tax exists but is below 100%, (possibly) "not classified as an ‘Anarchy’".
[option]“Look, it’s simple,” says your financial advisor @@RANDOMNAME@@. “What the government does costs money, and that money has to be raised through taxes, so people who don’t pay any taxes shouldn’t have any say in choosing the government either. We should set a threshold level of taxes that people have to pay in order to qualify for the vote, and then if anybody who’s been contributing less than that to the Treasury wants to get onto the electoral lists they’ll have to work hard enough that the taxes on their earnings will be over that level… which will mean the rest of us have to pay less tax, overall, too.”
[effect]poor people are turned away from the polling booths
[stats]moderate decrease in Political Freedom; mild decreases in Income Tax, spending on Welfare, and Unemployment; and the ‘Politically Apathetic’ rating would presumably be affected slightly too although I could see arguments for it going in either direction (Maybe it gets more extreme, increasing if it’s already above the mid-point but decreasing if it’s already below that level? Is that possible within the coding?)
[option]“No, no, a thousand times no!” notorious labour-rights activist ‘Red’ @@RANDOMNAME@@ protests: “If some people aren’t earning much then that isn’t their fault, it’s because of how the capitalist economic system works, and they shouldn’t be punished for it like this: The government should provide a job for anybody who can't find suitable work otherwise, and pay them a decent wage for doing it, instead. Admittedly that might cost a bit, but it’s the fairest way of dealing with the situation and you could easily find the extra cash by taxing the rich — who only got their wealth by exploiting the workers, anyway — at a higher rate.”
[effect]public works programmes are expanding
[stats]moderate (or significant?) decrease in Economic Freedom, not just because of this decision in itself but because it would almost certainly be symptomatic of a swing to the Left that involved other restrictions too; mild (or significant?) decrease in Unemployment; moderate (or even stronger?) increases in Income Tax (which should now be “and much higher for the rich”, if that wasn’t already the case) and in spending on Welfare.
[option]“Freeman has the right idea,” says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a spokesman for the Millionaires’ Club, “but he doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. The value of every person’s vote should be based on much they contribute to the country’s Treasury, so those of us who pay a lot more each than the average pleb does should be allowed a lot more say in choosing the government too in order to balance that fact.”
[effect]legislation is increasingly biased to favour the rich
[stats]mild (or significant?) decrease in Political Freedom; equivalent increase in Economic Freedom; mild increase in Government Corruption, mild (or significant?) increase in Rich/Poor Inequality; and the ‘Politically Apathetic’ rating should probably also change (but in which direction?) too.
[option]“Why keep having elections any more, couldn’t you do an even better job of running the country if you didn’t have to worry about the risk of losing office? ” your cousin @@RANDOMNAME@@ wonders. “And, for that matter, why should anybody outside of our own family and friends have more money than us? You should declare yourself as ‘President for Life’ and abolish the legislature, then raise taxes a lot and seize the assets of anybody who complains. I suppose you’d have to spend more on the police in order to keep the rest of the country under control, but just think of what you — and those of us in your inner circle, too, of course — could do with all that extra power and money!”
[effect]democracy and free enterprise are being suppressed at gunpoint
[stats]strong decrease in Political Freedom; significant decrease in Economic Freedom; significant increases in Income Tax and Government Corruption; strong increase in spending on Law & Order; significant or strong decrease in Happiness. ‘Politically Apathetic’ rating also changes by quite a bit, one way or the other?
What do you think of it? Not the morality (or otherwise) of the differing options, I mean, but its overall concept and composition?
[name]No Representation without Taxation?
[description]The recent publication of a book called “Who Pays For Government?”, written by an internationally-famous economist by the name of Miles Freeman, has triggered a public debate about voting rights.
[validity]Elections are held, private enterprise is legal, and income tax exists but is below 100%, (possibly) "not classified as an ‘Anarchy’".
[option]“Look, it’s simple,” says your financial advisor @@RANDOMNAME@@. “What the government does costs money, and that money has to be raised through taxes, so people who don’t pay any taxes shouldn’t have any say in choosing the government either. We should set a threshold level of taxes that people have to pay in order to qualify for the vote, and then if anybody who’s been contributing less than that to the Treasury wants to get onto the electoral lists they’ll have to work hard enough that the taxes on their earnings will be over that level… which will mean the rest of us have to pay less tax, overall, too.”
[effect]poor people are turned away from the polling booths
[stats]moderate decrease in Political Freedom; mild decreases in Income Tax, spending on Welfare, and Unemployment; and the ‘Politically Apathetic’ rating would presumably be affected slightly too although I could see arguments for it going in either direction (Maybe it gets more extreme, increasing if it’s already above the mid-point but decreasing if it’s already below that level? Is that possible within the coding?)
[option]“No, no, a thousand times no!” notorious labour-rights activist ‘Red’ @@RANDOMNAME@@ protests: “If some people aren’t earning much then that isn’t their fault, it’s because of how the capitalist economic system works, and they shouldn’t be punished for it like this: The government should provide a job for anybody who can't find suitable work otherwise, and pay them a decent wage for doing it, instead. Admittedly that might cost a bit, but it’s the fairest way of dealing with the situation and you could easily find the extra cash by taxing the rich — who only got their wealth by exploiting the workers, anyway — at a higher rate.”
[effect]public works programmes are expanding
[stats]moderate (or significant?) decrease in Economic Freedom, not just because of this decision in itself but because it would almost certainly be symptomatic of a swing to the Left that involved other restrictions too; mild (or significant?) decrease in Unemployment; moderate (or even stronger?) increases in Income Tax (which should now be “and much higher for the rich”, if that wasn’t already the case) and in spending on Welfare.
[option]“Freeman has the right idea,” says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a spokesman for the Millionaires’ Club, “but he doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. The value of every person’s vote should be based on much they contribute to the country’s Treasury, so those of us who pay a lot more each than the average pleb does should be allowed a lot more say in choosing the government too in order to balance that fact.”
[effect]legislation is increasingly biased to favour the rich
[stats]mild (or significant?) decrease in Political Freedom; equivalent increase in Economic Freedom; mild increase in Government Corruption, mild (or significant?) increase in Rich/Poor Inequality; and the ‘Politically Apathetic’ rating should probably also change (but in which direction?) too.
[option]“Why keep having elections any more, couldn’t you do an even better job of running the country if you didn’t have to worry about the risk of losing office? ” your cousin @@RANDOMNAME@@ wonders. “And, for that matter, why should anybody outside of our own family and friends have more money than us? You should declare yourself as ‘President for Life’ and abolish the legislature, then raise taxes a lot and seize the assets of anybody who complains. I suppose you’d have to spend more on the police in order to keep the rest of the country under control, but just think of what you — and those of us in your inner circle, too, of course — could do with all that extra power and money!”
[effect]democracy and free enterprise are being suppressed at gunpoint
[stats]strong decrease in Political Freedom; significant decrease in Economic Freedom; significant increases in Income Tax and Government Corruption; strong increase in spending on Law & Order; significant or strong decrease in Happiness. ‘Politically Apathetic’ rating also changes by quite a bit, one way or the other?
What do you think of it? Not the morality (or otherwise) of the differing options, I mean, but its overall concept and composition?