September 15, 2004
PAY TO PLAY:
Danger of no tax liability (Walter E. Williams, September 15, 2004, Townhall)
When 122 million Americans are outside of the federal income tax system, it's like throwing chum to our political sharks. These Americans become a natural spending constituency for big-government politicians. After all, if you have no income tax liability, how much do you care about how much Congress spends and the level of taxation? Political calls for tax cuts fall upon deaf ears. Survey polls reveal this. According to a Harris Poll taken in June 2003, 51 percent of Democrats thought the tax cuts enacted by Congress were a bad thing, while 16 percent of Republicans thought so. Among Democrats, 67 percent thought the tax cuts were unfair, while 32 percent of Republicans thought so. When asked whether the $350 billion tax-cut package will help your family finances, 59 percent of those surveyed said no and 35 percent said yes. Tax cuts to many Americans mean just one thing: They threaten the handouts they receive.There might be a correction for the political problems caused by large numbers of Americans with zero income-tax liability. But it might be politically incorrect to even mention it. I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Co. Do you think I should have voting rights, or any say-so, in the matters of the company? I'm guessing that your answer is no.
So here's my idea. Every American regardless of any other consideration should have one vote in any federal election. Then, every American should get one additional vote for every $10,000 he pays in federal income tax. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making capacity.
Better to set a minimum tax level and simply remove the franchise from anyone who doesn't pay it. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 15, 2004 3:21 PM
Setting a nominal mark could result in distortion, over time.
What if Congress just never revisits the qualifying amount, as with the Federal Minimum Wage and Alternative Minimum Tax ?
Almost everyone might eventually qualify to vote, based solely on inflation, (assuming that we haven't entered an era of neverending deflation).
With a system that adds weight to higher taxpayers' votes, as the least-taxed citizens gain votes, the most-taxed do too.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 15, 2004 4:35 PMThe Scottish historian and democracy-skeptic Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813) wrote his reasons why he believed the Great American Experiment was doomed to collapse.
"People will invariably hand over their sovereign responsibility and freedom to that government which promises the most benefits... A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority only votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship.
(He goes on to show a 200 year cycle Bondage -> Spiritual Faith -> Great Courage (in war) -> Liberty -> Abundance -> Selfishness -> Complacency -> Apathy -> Dependency -> back to Bondage.)
Posted by: Gideon at September 15, 2004 5:24 PMIt's too bad the Democrats abused and debased the idea of a poll tax so much that the 24th Amendment was passed.
There should be a market in votes, with people bidding on them like at eBay, with no limit on the number of votes you can buy. But the records would be open to all and kept permanently.It would be a much more open and clean system than the one we've got where the same thing happens once you strip away all the attempts to regulate campaigns. We could eventake away the gov't right to tax and make this the only funding mechanism.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 15, 2004 5:34 PMVAT, Gasoline Tax.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 15, 2004 5:48 PMRaoul:
An interesting idea, but the underlying premise is a little too cynical.
Yes, there is a high correlation between money spent on a candidate or issue, and success, but it's not a perfect one.
In 1992, Ross Perot spent $ 65 million of his own money, ($ 85 million in today's dollars), and didn't even come close to becoming President.
In 1994, Michael Huffington spent $ 25 million, ($ 31 million in today's dollars), in a losing campaign for the US Senate, which was at that time a record amount for a Senate race.
In 2002, Erskine Bowles spent $ 13 million, half of it out of his own pocket, and didn't win a Senate seat.
In 2002, 29 candidates, for both Houses of Congress, spent $ 500,000 or more of their own money on their campaigns (some much more).
Three of those candidates were successful.
One sorry but persistent schmuck spent a total of $ 14 million out of pocket on losing campaigns for the US House of Representatives in '00 and '02.
Plus, who knows how much advocacy groups have blown on issue ads and referendum battles.
Bypassing the uncertainty of an actual campaign would cause many more deep pockets to be willing to pony up to control elections.
There are many corporations and/or industries that could afford to spend a couple billion every election cycle to ensure a favorable political environment, if it were a sure thing.
www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/millionaires.asp?cycle=2002 has an amusing/appalling chart of who spent how much to lose what race in 2002.