Comments on: Citizen Choice in Tax Distribution; Future Government Branding

By: USA / Starling

USA / Starling — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:35:36 +0000

I see your point about advertising / media and the presence of corruption. However, I think that a new referendum type system would be incrementally to noticeably better, at least after a painful adjustment period. Reason being, right now everything is bottlenecked and compromised by generalty. Every single issue is binarily decided in advance in a red / blue emotionally tainted grudge match.
But our talents are more realistically understood as specialty. If our government matches that, then our talents can be matched to appropriate issues. People could still be nearly single-issue voters, but now their power could be communicated with more accountability and precision in the agencies.
The reason I say this is – look at media now. We bemoan the corruption, but there is actually plenty of quality as well. Pop magazines and radio are crap, but they are the fast food, and serve generalty. However, books and niche magazines show higher quality and specialty, and the authors’ success relies upon not disappointing the expectation of accuracy by their specialty readership. It’s similar with institutions. Institutions studying glacier science, for instance, don’t want to ruin their reputation and lose supporters by making a claim earlier than they are absolutely sure, even if they really think they have found million-year-old ice in tropical-latitude mountain ice domes. They are not playing to the generalty, so they don’t try to please fundies who don’t believe anything is over 10k years old anyway. They are just careful not to become legitimate targets for critique of accuracy, thereby maintaining and gaining subscribers in the long term. In specialty, it is about quality and long-term vision. In generalty, it is about the short-term bottom line. If our voting power is more connected to specialty and less diluted by generalty, then the quality goes up. I think that is what agency referendum would do. If there is a bunch of agencies that someone is ignorant / suspicious of, they are free to deny all funding to them, leaving the support to those who are passionate. The harm is less than if they were forced to deliberately vote against them by consequence of voting for the other of 2 binary choices.
Ultimately, let’s not forget, we are the leader. Magazines and politicians are simply serving our demand. Some of them are motivated to try to convince us into ignorance, but at the end of the day it is our responsibility to vote responsibly. In a complex world, there are easier ways, and there are harder ways, to expect that kind of responsibility. There are plenty of issues that I am ignorant of. But my ignorance may be only as consequential as the choices I am denied.
As an aside… to the degree that our political power is privatizing (partly due to red defunding!) then it becomes even more important how we vote every day – with our pocketbook! Well, it’s not yet structured to make really good use of that yet, but for a look at what the future might hold, look at the organic food movement. Here is a whole movement of people paying MORE for a product because they care about quality, and they did it in spite of advertising, legislation, and basic availability. But their incentives were as subtle as the future of the environment and their health. And now, all of the government, private industry, and the media, are having to acknowledge and follow THEM! Imagine how much better, or how many more issues, could be improved by adjusting the power structure to favor our specialty leadership even more!

By: USA / Vardune

USA / Vardune — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:00:53 +0000

Interesting tax proposal that I have thought about in the past.

Some of the problems I see in this is that every agency would need to advertise somehow so they would get funded. If you think that media would play a fair hand in this, think again. They have their own agenda to grind and it is not disseminating all useful information.

A large tax payer could manipulate the system to give his company a tax break of all the tax dollars he put in, more if other people are foolish enough to help him out. The idea of government subsidies to me is just a path to corruption and abuse.

Could have wide swings in funding of agencies from year to year due to what is the latest fad in government funding. 42 billion dollars to fund a swamp to protect a un-endangered duck or mosquito because of a brilliant ad campaign may not be such a hot idea in the end as well. Not to say this does not happen with a representative government that we have in many parts of the world now.

By: USA / Roy G

USA / Roy G — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 05:36:44 +0000

That MP situation would make a good Balk in itself Martin – quite a scandal.

Reminds me of the U.S. House of Representatives check-kiting scandal, circa 1992. The Party of the Incumbency, knows no borders apparently…

By: UK / Martin

UK / Martin — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:41:18 +0000

Brits may well want that direct option to govern themselves. We’ve seen an expenses scandal widespread amongst MP’s (Member of Parliament)

They’ve been caught out using taxes for personal items as for example, in excess of £15,000 for home improvements by both Gerald Kaufman and Margaret Moran. Other abuses pertain to travel and payments to firms they have ownership in.

Some have agreed to repay the expenses whilst others are steadfastly refusing to do so! It has occurred during a Labour government which has clearly grown fat in the britches and not accountable to the working class UK’ers it claims to represent. A link follows on here,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses

By: USA / Roy G

USA / Roy G — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:54:09 +0000

Welcome back Pat. Of course any scenario that has taxpayers calling the shots on how their funds are spent would get resisted by politicians. Hard to see how any such system would ever pass since they would have to vote to cede control of it.

But actually politicians should favor it, since it would insulate them from all the criticism they now take over their spending choices. “Hey, it’s not my fault. The voter did it…”

In fact, if you could have government by referendum on everything – and given SSL browser technology & proper checks against system rigging, it should be possible – well, why do we need a Congress or Parliament anymore?

…DirectDemocracy.gov, anyone? ;^)

By: Canada / Pat Morin

Canada / Pat Morin — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:44:36 +0000

You might also have a system such as the voting on property tax, on the national level. Any expenditures over certain amounts or which benefits just one or two states or provinces, could be put to referendum. Of course then you might have to hear those political commercials nonstop!

By: USA / Roy G

USA / Roy G — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:02:44 +0000

Welcome to Balkingpoints Starling. Good Balk – and what could be more global than taxes? ;^)

I have a cousin who leans Libertarian, whom I’ve discussed this very concept of voluntary taxation with. He is more of the belief that taxes should all be voluntary, ala carte, and paid for altruistic reasons.
You become a responsible member of society by paying in to it.
(…welchers to be shamed on the WWW ;^)

Assuming the funds necessary to stave off anarchy can only come from a compulsory system, I countered that maybe some type of ala carte menu of government programs to support, could be offered on mandatory tax rates as you suggest above.

It has one important feature in it, in which I completely agree with Starling; it induces a measure of democracy back into government spending. People would only get the government which they checked the boxes for – not more, not less. It probably makes you an instant participant and advocate in your home nation, not a bystanding whiner or sleepwalker.

So that makes it (potentially…) a quite progressive idea.

Assuming further that you would still need guaranteed levels of funding for things like social safety-net programs, infrastructure and defense – then perhaps Obama should look at offering choice for the increase in rates in the U.S., which will happen when the “Trickle-Down” tax reductions on the upper crust by Bush in 2001, expire.

If you prospered during the Reagan/Bush era – minority that you are – yes, your obligation is going up in 2011. But you can direct the funds. Check as desired;

a) defense
b) safety-net
c) roads
d) police
e) schools
f) waste, fraud, and pork… ;^)