Let's say that a voter elects a politician, and that person ends up spending a lot of money. Should those voters be held responsible to pay for those policies?

For example, just hypothetically speaking, let's consider Jones and Smith.

Jones is a lifer in the military and votes for Bush twice. Smith on the other hand has a regular job and votes against Bush. Now suppose that Bush spends 1.6 trillion dollars on a war, ending up costing a family of four $20,000.

Now, is it unfair that both Smith and Jones should *both* pay the same amount in taxes to pay for this policy that only one supported? Especially given that Jones financially benefits from electing the most aggressive, xenophobic president possible (helping his line of business), and Smith only stands to pay the bill.

Does it make more sense that Jones should pay the bills of the person he elects (taking into account progressive taxation)? What do you think?

Sounds great in theory but its against the idea of democracy. All for one and one for all kinda thing. Everyone gets a vote but you have to live with the consequences of whoever wins.

If you were to extend your idea. Look at it from this point of view. Suppose I voted for some radical who wanted to abolish all taxation. He doesn't win. Do I then get to decide I don't have to pay tax because I voted for the guy who wanted to abolish it.

Well, that's true. In the proposed system, if your candidates always lost, that means you'd never pay any new taxes.

I suppose someone could intentionally vote for people they believe would lose just for that purpose. But you'd also never get a say in how things are run either ... and then people may create policies that cost you money indirectly. For example the Bush administration passed FCC changes related to the resale of UNE-P lines that cost the company I currently work at ... probably at least a million dollars a month.

Although I admit, keeping track of who bought what would require some fairly sophisticated software.

Although the general idea is to just send the bill to the people that bought the policy. We'd be "wining" in the same sense that we "win" an auction ... which really means we may lose money if we win.

First of all, Mary completely refuted your argument and exposed it for the silly garbage it is. Secondly, you don't know shit about the military do you? You don't know anyone personally who as served - a close friend, close family member, etc., right?

Boy you sound awfully touchy.

Of all people, I'd think you would have liked the idea, given your lip service to the ideas of low taxes, and personal accountability.

Also yes, like most people, I do have friends and family that served in the military. What's that got to do with this discussion?

You failed to remember that he's in love with the military-industrial complex.

I think your idea is unworkable, but it makes a point. I wish people would open their eyes to the insane amount of money these politicos are spending.

Then they might start to wonder where these trillions are coming from (you, me, and the next several generations of Americans), and they might start looking for the cure (hard money).

The Founders had much to say on the subject of money and banks, which we have wholly disregarded in the last century.

I wonder where your hard money should come from with the arse load of debts the country has.

You can print money, you can burn money, but you can't just make capital pop out of nowhere.

A better idea - something that'll never happen - is do away with income tax withholding. Make people write a check every quarter or so after they've had a chance to hold all the money they earned. You'd see things change fast.

A better way for taxpaying to be transparent and completely controlled by tax payers is the Fairtax.

With the Fair Tax, I don't see how choice and responsibility are proportionate. Smith is being held financially responsible for something he had no choice in. That kinda goes against what you said in one of your other threads (about reforming child support laws).

For example, in the hypothetical* case I mentioned, Jones can be a complete dumbass, and Smith ends up paying half the bill. Would it be fair, if the next time I screw something up, I sent you a $20,000 bill? Or to send this to your children? Then I can trot out some kind of collectivist "all-for-one" justification and you'd buy into it?

* any resemblance between dumbasses living or dead is purely coincidental.

You do have a choice in the current system. Its called voting. In principle I guess your idea is nice, it'd be cool when you do your taxes to have a check box form where you check which government programs you want your dollars spent, I'd love to never see a penny of my money spent on the NEA, but in reality is just isn't practical and its not how we exercise our consent of the governed.

I'm not entirely convinced that the Fair Tax is the best choice. Obviously, serious reform of any type is way-way-way past due.

I'm just not a big fan of a blanket sales-tax on the Federal level, especially at the rate they're suggesting, but beggars can't be choosers, either. It really can't be any less equitable than what we have now, I'm sure.

I'd rather see a revenue-negative reform, too. Seriously, the less money the Federal alphabet soup has to waste, the better.

The Fairtax is revenue neutral - its not about raising or lowering spending. One thing I like about it is it would end class warfare tactics by politicians pitting one class against another. Of course, it won't penalize productivity, it'll give people choice, people existing at the poverty level will effectively pay no taxes, and it will create a labor deficit as buisinesses from around the world will want to do business here tax free.

Your a pretty thoughtful person, even if I don't always agree with you. I'd suggest you look into it on your own. The book does a good job of explaining it, but there's plenty of info on the web too.

Most of the complaints I've heard about it indicated the complainer didn't know anything about the actual bill and what it says.

As for your objection, the high rate is balanced by a couple things at least - one is that everyone will keep their entire paycheck = everything they earn and receive a prebate for what they spend on necessities. The other is that the cost of the current system - imbedded tax - will disappear. Corporations don't pay taxes, they pass the expense down to the consumer. That problem will disappear.