|
Post by RacerX on May 8, 2003 22:25:20 GMT -5
I'm looking for input from EVERYONE, so don't cop out and say "I don't live there, I couldn't give you an opinion.", becuase I have a strange feeling that EVERYBODY pays TAXES!
Wuff, the dreaded word ALL hard working, money earning people hate to hear...LOL.
OK, here's a thought:
Times change. Privacy is going through some REAL big changes. I NEVER imagined cameras in PUBLIC, watching your every move. (I'd consider myself a law abiding citizen, but still find this camera craze offensive, especially in England where they seem to be all over...but that's a different post.) Anyway, back to the privacy stuff...
I get this feeling that voting is no longer a "private" thing, that everyone should keep secret. Sure, it's a right (privledge) to vote. But this day and age, it seems alot of people are very vocal about their politics. The losers wear it like a badge of honor.
I remember seeing tons of bumper stickers that said "It's NOT my fault, I didn't vote for the Clintons" when Bill & Hillary were President.
I see a few of the same, now that Bush is Pres.
So, I'm wondering outloud, if it's no longer such a big secret of who we vote for, then why can't we start putting our money where our mouths are?
We already HAVE to pre-register in the Preliminarys, and it HAS to be done by party. It's not very likely that people cross over, so once they've registered "Republican"...or "Democrat"...or "Liberal Party"...or "Green Party"...I find it very UNLIKELY that anyone will cross over and change their vote.
Especially in the two main parties...they're very much like oil & water and don't mix.
So, what I'm proposing is simple. Since we already have to register under one party or another, why not ALSO register WHOM we vote for in the Presidential election? THEN...
(more in a minute)
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on May 8, 2003 22:37:21 GMT -5
THEN...
When the jack-ass YOU voted for raises TAXES...then you pay'em! Of course this would work BOTH ways. When they jack-ass you voted for LOWERS taxes, then your taxes get lowered.
As for those whom DID NOT vote for the candidate, then they do NOT participate in the raising or lowering of their taxes.
Likewise, any dumbass that did NOT vote period, would be required to have their taxes raised if the current administration raised taxes, BUT would NOT be able to benefit if the current administration lowered taxes. Thus an incentive for EVERYONE to get off their lazy, unappreciative arses, and go vote!
So, an example of this would be the past two Presidents:
When Clinton raised the Taxes, then ALL those people whom voted for him would reep the benefits and get to paying HIGHER taxes. While those whom did NOT vote for him would remain at the same tax rate prior to them being raised.
Likewise, when Bush gave a tax refund last year, the only people who should have received this refund should be those who voted for him. AND again, when Bush cuts the tax rate, they should be the ones who benefit from this.
As for tose who chose NOT to vote, they would receive NO tax refund, and likewise NO reduced taxes.
I'm betting if this were done (which I feel it could be done quite easily via the IRS) then more people would vote, more CANDIDATES would be held RESPONSIBLE for their BULLSH*T they shovel, and things would change pretty quickly when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Remember George "Not W" Bush's (Dubya's father...LOL) famous line: No new taxes! LOL, yeah, right...LOL!
Just thinking out loud, and very interested in what others think about this concept. I've thought this way since I was in highschool. Originally, I figured it could never work because voting here is treated so "sacridly"...but now days this could easily be incorporated because people don't seem to feel their vote is so "secretly private" anymore.
Give me some feed back, RacerX
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on May 8, 2003 22:49:42 GMT -5
Oh yeah, here's another concept too, which bothered me when I first considered this concept, but then I easily figured a way around it.
If the President raises taxes, he'd have to calculate how much money he's bucking for, and do so understanding that only those who voted for him would pay the new tax rate. So this could cause a two fold llike hit on those that voted for him. Instead of EVERYONE paying a small portion, it'd be approximately half the population paying a double portion...to make up for those that didn't vote for him who aren't having to pay a tax increase.
(Is this making sense?...LOL) Anyway, it wouldn't always be "half paying double", becuase some Presidents get serious public majority, like Reagan did in the 80's. If taxes were increased under this concept back then, roughly 70% (almost 3/4) would be paying a higher tax, thus easing (or spreading out) the burden on those getting higher taxes.
OK, I hope this is all making sense. I'm opinionated and sometimes pig-headed when it comes to people being responsible for their actions, so give me feed back & show me the error of my ways...
Thanks & later, RacerX
|
|
|
Post by JWK on May 9, 2003 0:59:41 GMT -5
Just one thought- Would not the issue of taxes become the major playing card in the presidential campaigns? People would vote for whoever(candidate) said they would lower taxes, and not pay so much attention to foreign policy and other issues. No-one likes being hit in the wallet. Also- what would happen if the candidate promised to lower taxes on the poor. Say then something influenced this candidate(say like a war effort) upon assuming the presidency(after the poor turned out in droves to vote him in) and they put taxes up... The poor would suffer whilst the rich sat pretty(they diddn't vote for that candidate because lower taxes on the poor surely meant higher taxes on the rich) The Republicans and Democrats really are not so far removed from each other in terms of political standings(as say The socialist party, the RPR, the national front and the UDF are in France[bad example perhaps, but it was all i could think of off the rtop of my head]) that to punish one for voting one way when they could reasonably easily be swayed to vote the other(if the system you speak of were implemented) would be a bit harsh. But then again i really don't know very much at all about American politics(or taxes for that matter! I've never really had to deal with taxes in any big way[living at home...still ]) So perhaps somebody else is better positioned to answer this But in concept it is a good idea, i think i believe as strongly as you in holding people accountable for their actions, but i was just trying to point out possible flaws.
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on May 9, 2003 1:14:46 GMT -5
JWK...You said "...point out possible flaws." That's what I'm looking for! Anyway, I might not have made my examples too clear...I could have worded them much better, after re-reading it...LOL. Especially the 'claculating" part. The Pres wouldn't have to calculate the amount via only those whom voted for him, he'd also get to count on those whom didn't vote to get to pay taxes as well. When you look at the amount of people in this ountry that don't vote, it's really enough to piss you off...LOL, so i figured this would get two birds with one stone. It's make people vote, and it'd make'em vote more responsibly. They'd get more involved, want to know more about the candidates & their PREVIOUS track records of whether or not they're a spend thrift or a pork barrelled cash cow, and also hold the Pres responsible. I could care aless what the S.O.B. promises during election time, but when it's crunch time, if he raises'em & you voted for him (or didn't vote) then you should pay-up! People would then see these pinheads for what they really are. Generally speaking, Dems love to throw the money around and NEVER be held accountable for it. Repubs like to cut spending & keep a tight grip on the bucks. "W"...well, I don't know how to figure him out. He spends like a Dem & cuts like a repub...LOL, almost as if he's trying to appease both sides. OK, I'm rambling. Looking for more input... Thanks, Rx
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on May 9, 2003 2:06:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on May 9, 2003 6:44:26 GMT -5
Interesting concept Racer, but one I doubt could ever work.
First of all, as JWK says, nobody likes to be hit in the wallet. As such, a candidate states that he will lower taxes, but the rest of his program sucks, a certain number of people will be driven to vote for him only to have their taxes lowered. The country can then be driven down the drain because they are incapable of dealing with the other responsabilities that comes with leading a country. I think it totally wrong to have taxes, or money, decided the results of an election.
As an example, I hate paying taxes, and consider myself very much a capitalist when it comes to monetary issues. I believe in the freedom to work harder and more than my neighbour in order to make more money for myself. Yes I like money. At the same time, I disagree with the majority of the right wing political ideas. So where does that place me? Yes I know, a socio-anarchist banker.
Another thing would be that all those who do not vote are tax exempt. I think this might help show how much people really care about politics, or rather where each individual's priorities are.
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on May 9, 2003 7:54:33 GMT -5
Sure. All those who voted for Bush should pay lower taxes.
Of course, they should also receive state provided services in consequence: no clean water, no roads, no phone, no education, no culture, no clean air.
Hey, waite a minute: that's just what they're getting!!!
Poetic Justice!!!
S...
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on May 9, 2003 7:56:18 GMT -5
In reading the heading of this thread, it struck me that taxes is the anagram of Texas....
|
|
|
Post by worthless on May 9, 2003 8:13:57 GMT -5
Interesting theory, and I like the way you think, but I'm afraid I am going to disagree. I would hate to be held accountable for the actions of ANY politician. I consider myself a "conscientious" voter (I don't just show up and pull the levers). I research and investigate candidates' histories and stances on issues that are of importance to me. You have to admit that politicians seem to rarely do what they promise in their campaign speeches. Very rarely. People have the right not to vote, if they'd like. It's a foolish move, IMO, but they have that right. Personally, I would like to see our Congress and Senate have the same salary as the average public elementary school teacher or local fireman. But that's another topic.
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on May 9, 2003 8:27:07 GMT -5
RacerX,
Your idea as it stands wouldn't work for reasons mentioned above... it would be self destructive on the economy and political structure.
However, one thought I've had in the past is similar:
Graduated taxes... You choose what level you get taxed... Kinda like belonging to a discount club at your local Sams club... you can pay extra to get more services... or pay less and get less services...
"Choose Your Own Taxes"... LOL...
Everyone has to pay the base rate... the essentials that build up the bulk of our taxes...
...but make funding for things like government owned sports complex's, library's, trash pickup...etc...etc...etc part of an optional tax.
You only get the "Gold-Club" government benefits if you pay the "Extra" taxes.
For me, I rarely go to library's, government owned sports complexes etc..etc... and the trash pickup I could do myself (I pass a dump on my way to work)...
For those that want the government to fund such things let them pay the extra taxes... for those of us that think such things should be privatized... or we don't want to use them... let us pay less taxes and not have access to them!
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on May 9, 2003 8:51:41 GMT -5
and the trash pickup I could do myself (I pass a dump on my way to work)... That site was paid with taxes money. If you don't want to pay taxes, I suggest you dump your things in YOUR own back yard. BTW: when you say "on your way to work", you surely don't mean using the taxe payer's roads. Srrh
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on May 9, 2003 9:24:00 GMT -5
Srrh,
I have no problem paying taxes to pay for roads and public dumps... However, I do have a problem with paying taxes for services I can do without... Such as rubbish collection.
Everyone makes use of a dump and almost everyone roads... But most people are capable of taking their trash to the dump themselves... there is no reason why I should pay taxes for someone to take it for me... that should be a public choice.
Trash collection should be run by private businesses... as should library's, museum's... and any non- necessities...
I can't begin to understand why something as menial as trash collection is a government ran business- yet necessities such as health is a private enterprise... WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY SOMEONE ELSE to take my trash to the dump when I (and almost everyone else) can do it myself?
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on May 9, 2003 9:37:04 GMT -5
...should be run by private businesses... as should library's, museum's...and any non-necessities... Library and museums are non necessities? As opposed to what? Jails, police stations and army baracks? That's intersting. For me education and culture are sine qua non conditions for a healthy, democratic and free society. S....
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on May 9, 2003 9:49:32 GMT -5
Library's could be MUCH better managed by private businessess than they currently are...
Libraries are achaic and will disappear within a few decades- there is no reason why someone who is paying hundreds of tax dollars a year on a library can't get the same information by paying a much smaller sum and visiting an internet cafe (if they had no internet access themselves) to get the same information.
I see no reason a private business could not run a profitable business by digitizing the contents of a library (ensuring all books will be in all libraries) and selling "per use" visits to the library.
As for checking books out- I see no reason why a "PDA" like instrument on loan from the library couldn't contain the information needed...
It would save every tax payer $100's per year.
As for museums- if they can't be supported by a private institution- there is obviously no call for them- or they are located where they are not wanted/needed.
People should only pay for what they want/use. Only necessities should be in our taxes... Defense, Health, and security.
Heck- even going back to road maintenance- there is no reason that could be taken out of our taxes and assigned to private companies (per county)... Each private companies contract with maintaining our roads lasts 2 years- if we don't like 'em or they charge too much... vote for another company to take over maintaining our roads... We'ld pay less than we do in taxes now- get better service- and have a choice when it came to our roads... AND BETTER MAINTAINED ROADS!
|
|