|
Well, I see two possible arguments against this article:
First of all, this system would be pretty unfair, in the sense that it would give more political power to richer people, and it actually wouldn't give any power to people that doesn't pay taxes. In some way, it is not democratic (or it is less democratic than our current tax system)
2) In second place, we already have this. ;-) Current tax systems have benefits for people who make donations, so in some way you are already choosing who do you want to pay to. As a clearer example, look how the CNN guy chosed to pay its taxes to the United Nations instead of the American Goverment.
We already have fundations that manage people's donations, and some fundations make contributions to smaller ones.
So I would say that what you are actually suggesting is just giving stronger benefits to donations, or even making them obligatory.
Good idea, i like it. ;-)
Angel
|
[View]
While this is one possible outcome of the system, in most cases it is not practical to track each individual's tax contribution at the local level (because sales and use tax is a major revenue source for local governments). Because of this, it will be easier to sum all of the taxes, divide them by the number of registered voters, and give each voter an averaged amount of money to control.
Even if you applied this to income tax, which is trackable, it would be a nightmare to couple a peer to peer disbursement system with the existing income tax collection systems. It would be far easier to calculate an average per capita amount, and have people vote on that instead.
This is much easier to do, and it is fair because everybody is voting on the use of the same amount of money. Hence, every registered voter has the same voting power.
Brian McConnell