How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

Put aside the practical considerations of setting this up for the moment. Would you be against a system where at the beginning of every financial year each citizen of a country got a list of the things that their government wanted to do along with their expected cost (and the amount they cost last year) The citizen would then choose which of the things he or she personally wanted to happen and ticked the various boxes. Then here's the thing. Your taxes would equal the total cost of the program divided by the number of people who tick the box to continue that program. You could even weight it on income if you a redistributor. For example you could have

Iraq War
Full presence 100 billion y/n
Some presence 50 billion y/n
Token presence 1 billion y/n

Enforcing gay marriage ban 100 million y/n

Immigration
Closed borders 10 billion y/n
Strict limits 8 billion y/n
etc etc

So you make your choices then they send you the full bill and you could either choose to pay it or change some of your choices. If you like this idea what do you think the outcome would be. If you don't, why not?

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Put aside the practical considerations of setting this up for the moment. Would you be against a system where at the beginning of every financial year each citizen of a country got a list of the things that their government wanted to do along with their expected cost (and the amount they cost last year) The citizen would then choose which of the things he or she personally wanted to happen and ticked the various boxes. Then here's the thing. Your taxes would equal the total cost of the program divided by the number of people who tick the box to continue that program. You could even weight it on income if you a redistributor. For example you could have

Iraq War
Full presence 100 billion y/n
Some presence 50 billion y/n
Token presence 1 billion y/n

Enforcing gay marriage ban 100 million y/n

Immigration
Closed borders 10 billion y/n
Strict limits 8 billion y/n
etc etc

So you make your choices then they send you the full bill and you could either choose to pay it or change some of your choices. If you like this idea what do you think the outcome would be. If you don't, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL.

It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation.

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

Freeriders?

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Put aside the practical considerations of setting this up for the moment. Would you be against a system where at the beginning of every financial year each citizen of a country got a list of the things that their government wanted to do along with their expected cost (and the amount they cost last year) The citizen would then choose which of the things he or she personally wanted to happen and ticked the various boxes. Then here's the thing. Your taxes would equal the total cost of the program divided by the number of people who tick the box to continue that program. You could even weight it on income if you a redistributor. For example you could have

Iraq War
Full presence 100 billion y/n
Some presence 50 billion y/n
Token presence 1 billion y/n

Enforcing gay marriage ban 100 million y/n

Immigration
Closed borders 10 billion y/n
Strict limits 8 billion y/n
etc etc

So you make your choices then they send you the full bill and you could either choose to pay it or change some of your choices. If you like this idea what do you think the outcome would be. If you don't, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL.

It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could group them together people could ask for a reduced paperwork list if they wanted or hell you could have a set of Obama recommends this set of ticks, Bush recommends that set of ticks etc etc. If people don't want to think for themselves fair enough but it'll cost them.

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program, absent the administrative costs. An improved form would carry the caveat that if "n" was not above a certain threshold, then the program would be abandoned even for those that voted for it. I may support giving a portion of my income to the homeless, but not 86% of my income if "n" makes it so.

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program, absent the administrative costs. An improved form would carry the caveat that if "n" was not above a certain threshold, then the program would be abandoned even for those that voted for it. I may support giving a portion of my income to the homeless, but not 86% of my income if "n" makes it so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds fine to me. Heck we can even vote for that threshold if you like.

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program, absent the administrative costs. An improved form would carry the caveat that if "n" was not above a certain threshold, then the program would be abandoned even for those that voted for it. I may support giving a portion of my income to the homeless, but not 86% of my income if "n" makes it so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds fine to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even when you take into account that you'll have to pay (with taxes) for the administrative costs as well?

Oh, one other thing is that people would only get access to the programs they elect. For example, if you "opt out" of paying for the road system, you wouldn't get a sticker for your car saying you can drive on the roads (or some such mechanism to reduce free riders where possible).

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program

[/ QUOTE ]

how do you define social democracy?

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program

[/ QUOTE ]

how do you define social democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

A democratic state where taxes are collected and redistributed through state programs in an attempt to create a better society?

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program

[/ QUOTE ]

how do you define social democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

A democratic state where taxes are collected and redistributed through state programs in an attempt to create a better society?

[/ QUOTE ]

if taxes are collected dont you think that is a sign that people dont own the money they make but are told by democratic decision how much of their income to keep and how much belongs to society?

Once society receives its revenue the democracy chooses how to spend each societal dollar by democracy.

the OP's system says that individuals should form private groups with those that agree with them rather than a majority rules. How is this democratic?