3 ms·
To the contrary, that's the entire premise of government regulation and spending. Most people aren't going to voluntarily send money to the FDA, Social Securit
by crazygringo 2y ago
To the contrary, that's the entire premise of government regulation and spending.
Most people aren't going to voluntarily send money to the FDA, Social Security, or Medicare, or the courts, or the military, out of the goodness of their hearts. Left to their own devices, they'll freeload. But we all agree these things are important (as evidenced by how we vote), so we pay for them with mandatory taxes.
So your idea that something is nonsensical "if the vast majority aren’t willing to use their wallets to back this or that" doesn't hold water at all. Most people won't use their wallets to back anything, if it's left up to them as individuals.
- schmookeeg 2y agoI've always thought the solution to this was to fix a tax rate, but let the people apportion the spending themselves, to discover what they find important without letting them claw back the taxes, which I agree would be the default. Seems like it would shut down entire swaths of "I don't wanna pay for your <x>" bitterness and resentment.
- lolc 2y agoThis individual apportionment always seems neat when I think about it, until I realize the vote would not be per person anymore, but per tax paid. I want to force rich people to contribute to welfare. They might be inclined to just fund the police to protect their property.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoYeah, maybe in some ideal world where people never have more than one political priority at the same time…