4 ms·

Weight votes based on amount of taxes paid (e.g. in the last few years). Haven't thought this through, just a random idea.

by comboy 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago
Maybe you should think it through...
- comboy 10y ago
  That's not a very constructive criticism. In theory those who provide most money can decide the most how is it going to be spent. In practice I'm assuming taxes provide funds only for a very small part of a country spendings.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    I can see a case in which they have some sort of moral claim to control spending, but that is limited, as one example, by the fact that a government decides a lot more than spending. It's also a bad idea when you want to make good (as in maximize individual happiness) decisions, since the "10%" who'd end up with 90% of the political power have neither the knowledge nor (in some cases) the interest to help a majority of society. Even they would actually not have to gain much from controlling spending (except by lowering taxes) as the super-richs' happiness is more or less independent of gov spending: private schools, private jets, private healthcare. Oh, it's also a completely stupid & undemocratic idea, which led to my glib initial criticism.
Shengbo 10y ago
That would heavily favor the high-income voters though.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Only if they are not tax dodgers...
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Even if they are the best tax dodger in the universe they'll still have considerably more voting power than anyone else.
laumars 10y ago
In an indirect way that happens in some politics. Parties and political figures need funding, they get that funding from organisations and individuals with deep pockets. Even if politicians argue that their policies aren't influenced by donations, donors aren't going to fund someone who promotes policies which the donors don't agree with. And given how expensive it is to run an election campaign, politicians with unpopular policies a (amongst the wealthy and big businesses) will either risk exposure due to poor funding, thus potentially lose votes, or "soften" their policies to appeal to the deeper pockets. Either scenario results in a subtle bias towards big money. I wouldn't like to speculate on how significant this bias might be though, nor would I know how to level that particular playing field. Maybe everyone donates into a central pot and campaigners all get an equal share of the pot?

Weight votes based on amount of taxes paid (e.g. in the last few years). Haven't thought this through, just a random idea.

by comboy 10y ago

Weight votes based on amount of taxes paid (e.g. in the last few years). Haven't thought this through, just a random idea.

matt4077 10y ago

Maybe you should think it through...

comboy 10y ago
That's not a very constructive criticism. In theory those who provide most money can decide the most how is it going to be spent. In practice I'm assuming taxes provide funds only for a very small part of a country spendings.
- matt4077 10y ago
  I can see a case in which they have some sort of moral claim to control spending, but that is limited, as one example, by the fact that a government decides a lot more than spending. It's also a bad idea when you want to make good (as in maximize individual happiness) decisions, since the "10%" who'd end up with 90% of the political power have neither the knowledge nor (in some cases) the interest to help a majority of society. Even they would actually not have to gain much from controlling spending (except by lowering taxes) as the super-richs' happiness is more or less independent of gov spending: private schools, private jets, private healthcare. Oh, it's also a completely stupid & undemocratic idea, which led to my glib initial criticism.

Shengbo 10y ago

That would heavily favor the high-income voters though.

digi_owl 10y ago
Only if they are not tax dodgers...
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Even if they are the best tax dodger in the universe they'll still have considerably more voting power than anyone else.

laumars 10y ago

In an indirect way that happens in some politics. Parties and political figures need funding, they get that funding from organisations and individuals with deep pockets. Even if politicians argue that their policies aren't influenced by donations, donors aren't going to fund someone who promotes policies which the donors don't agree with. And given how expensive it is to run an election campaign, politicians with unpopular policies a (amongst the wealthy and big businesses) will either risk exposure due to poor funding, thus potentially lose votes, or "soften" their policies to appeal to the deeper pockets. Either scenario results in a subtle bias towards big money. I wouldn't like to speculate on how significant this bias might be though, nor would I know how to level that particular playing field. Maybe everyone donates into a central pot and campaigners all get an equal share of the pot?