3 ms·
But then the rich would just choose to use their money in a way that only benefits them, while in reality, it might be better for the entire economy if for exam
by gyaniv 8y ago
But then the rich would just choose to use their money in a way that only benefits them, while in reality, it might be better for the entire economy if for example more of the money goes to the unemployed.
Another issue that I see is that many people are very uninformed (or wrong) and if we let them choose directly where the money goes, it might be wasted.
In the current system the way it should work (in my opinion) is that people vote based on the issues and values important to them and their elected then move the money based on researching and better understanding how to do it best (since that's the elected officials job, and they have time for that, unlike some of the population).
- dwd 8y agoI think the reason these types of proposals come up is that the rich and powerful already control where the money goes in order to best benefit themselves. And most of it is buried in laws, subsidies and tax breaks that are not as obvious as running a social services program.
- elamje 8y agoI agree that many are uninformed, and money will get wasted. It seems like it will always be “wasted” depending on which side you are looking at it from. E.g. One might consider war a complete waste, and another considers it the best use of money. I don’t agree that elected officials do a great job moving money to where voters want it. I think a viable solution is to have referendums(voting directly on an issue, rather than for a person to represent you) about public issues.