If you represented the wealthy 1% of wage earners in the US

[Soleron]

TheRealMafoo said:

Soleron said:
40%. And we shouldn't be able to dictate what the money is spent on unless everyone has that right equally.

 

I always question this. I know there are fundamental problems with this thought process, but I find it odd that people who only consume the money, get a say into where it goes.

One thing that I think would be nice, is when you pay your taxes, you get to select what program you want your money to go to. Once a program is fully funded, you don't get to select that program. You have to select from the unfunded ones.

All the money would go to the same place in the end, but government would get to see what programs people are most willing to pay for (so what ones to cut first when need be).

I get your point - certainly it would be great if the the government were held more accountable in this way. But people are, in general, stupid and easily swayed by advertising campaigns and misleading language. The programs that 'sound good' would be funded at the expense of those which the country really needs - for example, basic science would be even more underfunded than present, and welfare like subsidies and benefits would be increased to unreasonable and even damaging levels.

No, I think the current, indirect say on spending via elections works fine, except that it needs to be proportional representation rather than FPTP.