Tax Reform
-
What do you think? We pay taxes and politician always seem to give lip service to this "direct democracy" idea. But it seems to me if they really were interested in this concept they would do one little thing. When we fill out our tax forms and pay out a goodly portion of our income to the common good, there should be some way of dividing that money to area where we want it to go. Technology has allowed great strides in the processing of data - I say it is time to let it work for us.
You would extend mob rule into mob budgeting? Necessary but unpopular things would go unfunded. Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
-
You would extend mob rule into mob budgeting? Necessary but unpopular things would go unfunded. Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
What do you think democracy is? The word Democracy is Greek for "Will of the People". I don't think anything would go unfunded - some randomly vote. YOu would phase it in a little at a time - start out with 10% of the budget democraticly apportioned, then 15%, and as people become more familiar with their own govenment, then gradually increase it.
-
What do you think democracy is? The word Democracy is Greek for "Will of the People". I don't think anything would go unfunded - some randomly vote. YOu would phase it in a little at a time - start out with 10% of the budget democraticly apportioned, then 15%, and as people become more familiar with their own govenment, then gradually increase it.
-
Is this the real Chris Losinger?
Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven Milton
-
Is this the real Chris Losinger?
Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven Milton
Boy: Do not try and identify the real Chris Losinger. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth. Neo: What truth? Boy: There is no real Chris Losinger. Neo: There is no real Chris Losinger? Boy: Then you'll see that it is not the real Chris Losinger that you see, it is only yourself. Software | Cleek
-
What do you think? We pay taxes and politician always seem to give lip service to this "direct democracy" idea. But it seems to me if they really were interested in this concept they would do one little thing. When we fill out our tax forms and pay out a goodly portion of our income to the common good, there should be some way of dividing that money to area where we want it to go. Technology has allowed great strides in the processing of data - I say it is time to let it work for us.
One person tends to be smart. A bunch of people tend to be dumb. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
You would extend mob rule into mob budgeting? Necessary but unpopular things would go unfunded. Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
Rob Graham wrote: Necessary but unpopular things would go unfunded. Like??? I would think it would even out and distribute things fairly evenly given the demands of society. For instance: Young parents may vote to increase spending on education to ensure the best for their offspring. While a sales-rep that drives all day may vote for more spending on roads and transport. Meanwhile pensioners would most likely vote for increased health care spending, and Sci-fi fans would vote for increased research on scientific ideas and so on. If for instance no-one votes for a sufficient amount to be spent on, say, the fire brigade then the next time round people would modify their vote to compensate. Effectively a feedback loop is created which would even everything out and then no-one can blame polititians any more. I quite like Jeff's idea that to start with the proportion democratically assigned is smaller amounts (say 10%) which then gradually increases. This would give time for the feed back loop to set up without the first few years being too disruptive.
-
Boy: Do not try and identify the real Chris Losinger. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth. Neo: What truth? Boy: There is no real Chris Losinger. Neo: There is no real Chris Losinger? Boy: Then you'll see that it is not the real Chris Losinger that you see, it is only yourself. Software | Cleek
May I have your attention please? May I have your attention please? Will the real Chris Losinger please stand up? I repeat, will the real Chris Losinger please stand up? We're gonna have a problem here.. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
One person tends to be smart. A bunch of people tend to be dumb. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: One person tends to be smart. A bunch of people tend to be dumb I can't say I agree with that. If that were the case then we would be better off living in a totalitarian regime. Which, personally, I wouldn't enjoy.
-
What do you think? We pay taxes and politician always seem to give lip service to this "direct democracy" idea. But it seems to me if they really were interested in this concept they would do one little thing. When we fill out our tax forms and pay out a goodly portion of our income to the common good, there should be some way of dividing that money to area where we want it to go. Technology has allowed great strides in the processing of data - I say it is time to let it work for us.
Too complicated. First you have to think where your money is spent. Of course you'll want your funds spent in your hometown, which means areas that do not pay alot of taxes, get the less say. On top of that its a little more than just 5% of my taxes to education, in what aspect, what grade, what shcool, and for what exactly. I mean it would take a well-educated, well-informed america for this idea to even have a chance. As we all hope people are going to do the right thing, we cannot rely our countrys budget on it. The budget has got to be thousands of pages long, expenses stemming from countless programs and state financing. However I do wish that americans could have more of a say in their choice of canidates. Besides th primaries, we're basically forced to chose between 2 men, and its starting to divide us. Perhaps men could be chosen from every district, and then eliminated thru process of elimination, who knows. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
-
Rob Graham wrote: Necessary but unpopular things would go unfunded. Like??? I would think it would even out and distribute things fairly evenly given the demands of society. For instance: Young parents may vote to increase spending on education to ensure the best for their offspring. While a sales-rep that drives all day may vote for more spending on roads and transport. Meanwhile pensioners would most likely vote for increased health care spending, and Sci-fi fans would vote for increased research on scientific ideas and so on. If for instance no-one votes for a sufficient amount to be spent on, say, the fire brigade then the next time round people would modify their vote to compensate. Effectively a feedback loop is created which would even everything out and then no-one can blame polititians any more. I quite like Jeff's idea that to start with the proportion democratically assigned is smaller amounts (say 10%) which then gradually increases. This would give time for the feed back loop to set up without the first few years being too disruptive.
It sounds persuasive, but I still feel the 'popularity contest' aspect would end up being damaging. How long a feedback loop would be needed if too few funds were voted for sewer maintenance, for example - by the time the impact is felt, the cost of overhaul is huge, and the disruption painful. I would prefer something like the 'local option' sales tax we have in my state: a portion of the total tax would be for specific projects proposed by the government (with input from the citizenry, and perhaps by ballot initiative). The project must be clearly delinineated and cannot last more than 2 election cycles without being renewed. If a majority approves, the project gets funded,and everyone pays a penny or two more for a couple of years. No majority and the tax rate drops back to the 'base' level until the next election cycle. The total amount of optional tax increase is limited, so multiple projects require splitting the amount at election time. I've only seen a very few years when the tax stayed at the base, and it seems to work relatively well. Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
-
It sounds persuasive, but I still feel the 'popularity contest' aspect would end up being damaging. How long a feedback loop would be needed if too few funds were voted for sewer maintenance, for example - by the time the impact is felt, the cost of overhaul is huge, and the disruption painful. I would prefer something like the 'local option' sales tax we have in my state: a portion of the total tax would be for specific projects proposed by the government (with input from the citizenry, and perhaps by ballot initiative). The project must be clearly delinineated and cannot last more than 2 election cycles without being renewed. If a majority approves, the project gets funded,and everyone pays a penny or two more for a couple of years. No majority and the tax rate drops back to the 'base' level until the next election cycle. The total amount of optional tax increase is limited, so multiple projects require splitting the amount at election time. I've only seen a very few years when the tax stayed at the base, and it seems to work relatively well. Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
Rob Graham wrote: How long a feedback loop would be needed if too few funds were voted for sewer maintenance I wouldn't make it so specific. I would say water services (which includes sewer maintenance). I would say you get a number of categories without getting too specific. The politians would then have that as their budget. I can see your point of the emergency repairs so you could always say that a set portion is always put aside for emergencies, what ever they may be. I would say that voters set a percentage at the level of: Health, Education, Policing, Fire Protection, Transport, Defence, etc. And it would be upto the polititians how to allocate within those groups.
-
What do you think democracy is? The word Democracy is Greek for "Will of the People". I don't think anything would go unfunded - some randomly vote. YOu would phase it in a little at a time - start out with 10% of the budget democraticly apportioned, then 15%, and as people become more familiar with their own govenment, then gradually increase it.
Jeff Bogan wrote: What do you think democracy is? Four more years of Bush? Ok, cheap shot on my part :-O Seriously, though, our framers were worried about the whole 'pure democracy' thing as well, which is why the US Constitution institutes a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. A pure democracy means every important governmental decision is made by taking a poll. Would our invasion of Iraq have been acceptable if %50 + 1 of the US population voted for it? If not, don't we have to have someone in government that has the power to say "shut up folks - I know what I'm doing"? Democratic processes are good for allowing people control over their own government. However, they are not a magic bullet for tough decisions. The best way to go may not be a very popular viewpoint at the time - a great example would be federally mandated (and forced) desegregation in the southeastern US in the 50's. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
-
What do you think? We pay taxes and politician always seem to give lip service to this "direct democracy" idea. But it seems to me if they really were interested in this concept they would do one little thing. When we fill out our tax forms and pay out a goodly portion of our income to the common good, there should be some way of dividing that money to area where we want it to go. Technology has allowed great strides in the processing of data - I say it is time to let it work for us.
you seem to have a great deal of faith in the autocratic abilities of people.:) Looking for me in cyberspace? I am the electron with the red hat, occupying 3rd sit on the left of the data bus. by the way, perl stinks. "I believe god invented man, because he was disappointed in the monkey" Mark Twain
-
What do you think? We pay taxes and politician always seem to give lip service to this "direct democracy" idea. But it seems to me if they really were interested in this concept they would do one little thing. When we fill out our tax forms and pay out a goodly portion of our income to the common good, there should be some way of dividing that money to area where we want it to go. Technology has allowed great strides in the processing of data - I say it is time to let it work for us.
the problem is not asking where to spend the money, but exactly is the money spent. for $1 you want to spend on education, you need to know of that 1$ how much will go to administrating the education system, paying teachers, fixing bathrooms, purchase of sport equipment ... and that's the same thing for all budget "slots" for example, for some charities, for every 1$ that you give, they will tell you that 5c will go to administrating the 95c that goes to the said cause.
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
-
What do you think? We pay taxes and politician always seem to give lip service to this "direct democracy" idea. But it seems to me if they really were interested in this concept they would do one little thing. When we fill out our tax forms and pay out a goodly portion of our income to the common good, there should be some way of dividing that money to area where we want it to go. Technology has allowed great strides in the processing of data - I say it is time to let it work for us.
Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups. http://www.thinkgeek.com/cubegoodies/posters/despair/32d4/[^]
This demographic will quite happily click on shiny things however:laugh:
Found on Bash.org [erno] hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.
-
Jeff Bogan wrote: What do you think democracy is? Four more years of Bush? Ok, cheap shot on my part :-O Seriously, though, our framers were worried about the whole 'pure democracy' thing as well, which is why the US Constitution institutes a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. A pure democracy means every important governmental decision is made by taking a poll. Would our invasion of Iraq have been acceptable if %50 + 1 of the US population voted for it? If not, don't we have to have someone in government that has the power to say "shut up folks - I know what I'm doing"? Democratic processes are good for allowing people control over their own government. However, they are not a magic bullet for tough decisions. The best way to go may not be a very popular viewpoint at the time - a great example would be federally mandated (and forced) desegregation in the southeastern US in the 50's. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
Russell Morris wrote: Democratic processes are good for allowing people control over their own government. However, they are not a magic bullet for tough decisions. The best way to go may not be a very popular viewpoint at the time - a great example would be federally mandated (and forced) desegregation in the southeastern US in the 50's. I couldn't agree more. Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
-
Jeff Bogan wrote: What do you think democracy is? Four more years of Bush? Ok, cheap shot on my part :-O Seriously, though, our framers were worried about the whole 'pure democracy' thing as well, which is why the US Constitution institutes a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. A pure democracy means every important governmental decision is made by taking a poll. Would our invasion of Iraq have been acceptable if %50 + 1 of the US population voted for it? If not, don't we have to have someone in government that has the power to say "shut up folks - I know what I'm doing"? Democratic processes are good for allowing people control over their own government. However, they are not a magic bullet for tough decisions. The best way to go may not be a very popular viewpoint at the time - a great example would be federally mandated (and forced) desegregation in the southeastern US in the 50's. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
I'm not saying it would be necessarily be more efficient, but it would allow the quick reallocation of moneys to where they are needed. There is a certain inertia in beauracracies, politicians do not want to upset their government employees, because they know that they have a certain amount of power on their own and they rely on them for many things. With this system it would put the responsibility for funding on the broad shoulders of the public. If the Housing and Urban Development Dept was corrupt (and it has been) for example, the public could find out about it and reduce funding or demand a new system be drawn up or threaten to starve it of funds.
-
Too complicated. First you have to think where your money is spent. Of course you'll want your funds spent in your hometown, which means areas that do not pay alot of taxes, get the less say. On top of that its a little more than just 5% of my taxes to education, in what aspect, what grade, what shcool, and for what exactly. I mean it would take a well-educated, well-informed america for this idea to even have a chance. As we all hope people are going to do the right thing, we cannot rely our countrys budget on it. The budget has got to be thousands of pages long, expenses stemming from countless programs and state financing. However I do wish that americans could have more of a say in their choice of canidates. Besides th primaries, we're basically forced to chose between 2 men, and its starting to divide us. Perhaps men could be chosen from every district, and then eliminated thru process of elimination, who knows. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
well said !! Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
Rob Graham wrote: Necessary but unpopular things would go unfunded. Like??? I would think it would even out and distribute things fairly evenly given the demands of society. For instance: Young parents may vote to increase spending on education to ensure the best for their offspring. While a sales-rep that drives all day may vote for more spending on roads and transport. Meanwhile pensioners would most likely vote for increased health care spending, and Sci-fi fans would vote for increased research on scientific ideas and so on. If for instance no-one votes for a sufficient amount to be spent on, say, the fire brigade then the next time round people would modify their vote to compensate. Effectively a feedback loop is created which would even everything out and then no-one can blame polititians any more. I quite like Jeff's idea that to start with the proportion democratically assigned is smaller amounts (say 10%) which then gradually increases. This would give time for the feed back loop to set up without the first few years being too disruptive.
Ever think of the system that is in place for unclaimed bodies? Costs a lot of money each year. What about all the systems we don't know about? Some are just so bizarre or so mundane we don't realise they are neccesary. Waiting a year to re-address the need may be to late for some systems. Maybe phasing it in would be ok but something like this would have to be very carefully done. regards, Paul Watson South Africa Michael Dunn wrote: "except the sod who voted this a 1, NO SOUP FOR YOU" Crikey! ain't life grand?