3 ms·

I think allowing to specify what percent of your tax goes into what 'pre-canned' list of causes, would allow a way for folks to influence the politicians outsid

I think allowing to specify what percent of your tax goes into what 'pre-canned' list of causes, would allow a way for folks to influence the politicians outside of the 'election process', and, without, full blown on-line-referendum surveys for all the issues. Clearly, the above would bias some of the decision making power away from low-income populous, however this can be addressed by some form of weighting and thresholds.

gizmo686 9y ago
The problem is, I, and the typical taxpayer, is not qualified to make an informed decision about budget allocations. When I want to know where to spend my tax dollar, It is not sufficient to know how I value the causes, but rather how I value them relative to their existing budget allocations, and how useful additional money would be to them. For instance, I may value national defense and our military in the abstract. However, if I look at the actual budget, think we overspend and that the marginal value of an additional dollar is small because of diminishing returns. In contrast, I am sure that there are government programs that provide me great benefit but that I do not know or think about. This proposal would require every government cause to engage in large scale marketing, which is wastefully expensive, and would likely result in inefficient allocations. >Clearly, the above would bias some of the decision making power away from low-income populous, however this can be addressed by some form of weighting and thresholds. We could avoid this problem entirely by giving every voter an equal slice of the government budget to allocate.
- 75dvtwin 9y ago
  I think, my recommendation, would create more informed voter base. Mostly because lobbyist would have to reach out to the voters, rather than to the politicians. Additionally, perhaps, letting a voter to 'forego' his/her right for the allocation could be allowed. This way you can choose to forego the right, while others would keep it.
  - pyroinferno 9y ago
    So we're opening a whole new floodgate of lobbyist propaganda?
    - frabbit 9y ago
      Lobbyists currently do not even need to use propaganda. They just need to provide a sufficient monetary reward to the smaller number of people's "representatives". It is much easier to bribe/suborn a few people than the entire electorate.
- winstonewert 9y ago
  Actually, I think that some people would specialize in providing good allocations for people to use. After all some people specialize in providing good stocks to pick, or good collections of parts to build a computer out of, or good combinations of ingredients to make a recipe. So I think that people would have no problem finding someone who they trust who has taken the time to identify the best places to spend government money without a huge large scale marketing scheme being necessary.

gizmo686 9y ago

The problem is, I, and the typical taxpayer, is not qualified to make an informed decision about budget allocations. When I want to know where to spend my tax dollar, It is not sufficient to know how I value the causes, but rather how I value them relative to their existing budget allocations, and how useful additional money would be to them. For instance, I may value national defense and our military in the abstract. However, if I look at the actual budget, think we overspend and that the marginal value of an additional dollar is small because of diminishing returns. In contrast, I am sure that there are government programs that provide me great benefit but that I do not know or think about. This proposal would require every government cause to engage in large scale marketing, which is wastefully expensive, and would likely result in inefficient allocations. >Clearly, the above would bias some of the decision making power away from low-income populous, however this can be addressed by some form of weighting and thresholds. We could avoid this problem entirely by giving every voter an equal slice of the government budget to allocate.

75dvtwin 9y ago
I think, my recommendation, would create more informed voter base. Mostly because lobbyist would have to reach out to the voters, rather than to the politicians. Additionally, perhaps, letting a voter to 'forego' his/her right for the allocation could be allowed. This way you can choose to forego the right, while others would keep it.
- pyroinferno 9y ago
  So we're opening a whole new floodgate of lobbyist propaganda?
  - frabbit 9y ago
    Lobbyists currently do not even need to use propaganda. They just need to provide a sufficient monetary reward to the smaller number of people's "representatives". It is much easier to bribe/suborn a few people than the entire electorate.
winstonewert 9y ago
Actually, I think that some people would specialize in providing good allocations for people to use. After all some people specialize in providing good stocks to pick, or good collections of parts to build a computer out of, or good combinations of ingredients to make a recipe. So I think that people would have no problem finding someone who they trust who has taken the time to identify the best places to spend government money without a huge large scale marketing scheme being necessary.