What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
44 Comments
- beck5, on 06/29/2009, -2/+22I think its a great idea, in theory. My main concern is that after meeting a few people in my life there are lots of idiots out there.
"we already have enough roads why should I pay for more"
"Why should i spend money paying for students to do nothing all day"
"Weapons only cause more harm, lets stop spending money on them"
But maybe I'm wrong and this is the start of the next great society........... - zephyear, on 06/29/2009, -2/+15normally i think letting the average citizen have his say is a good thing.
then i remember the average citizen is a ***** dolt. - dazparkour, on 06/29/2009, -5/+17That's not the Tory war cry - their war cry is "If we get taxed less and our employees work for less, we might start tipping in MacDonalds" - tipple down economics.
- mellomeh, on 06/29/2009, -4/+16But we do have a say in how our taxes are spent, it's called a general election.
- thespiff, on 06/29/2009, -2/+14This is probably the wordiest, most douchebaggy way of stating "We've got the right philosophy, so why don't you politicians figure out a way to win the argument?" that I have ever read.
It's all summed up in one sentence: "Now is the time for an unambiguously clear argument which connects up the anger at public profligacy with concrete mechanisms for allowing individuals to take control of that portion of their wealth which they hand to the state." Yet the author feels no compulsion to actually take a stab at making that argument herself. I guess as a political commentator it's not your job to solve problems. You just get paid to bitch at the people who get paid to solve problems. I wonder if she actually gets some satisfaction out of this job she performs. What a hack. - theodenking, on 06/29/2009, -4/+15You do, it's called a vote.
Your proposal is absurd; the average voter doesn't have clue how much funding the NHS or the army needs, it would be an utter disaster. - powatom, on 06/29/2009, -9/+20I've been saying this for years - I don't mind paying taxes, but I wish I had control over how my taxes are used. People should be able to divide their taxes between different sectors, say 'Defence', 'Healthcare', 'Welfare', 'Infrastructure' etc using a simple percentage system. This would not be terribly difficult to achieve, and it would make sure that money goes to the areas people feel that require it. A certain percentage should be automatically reserved for 'the pot' or whatever, so if the government absolutely needs to shift more money to some sector, it can use the reserves it has.
- Hefelumpman, on 06/29/2009, -0/+10That's all well and good, but why is the thumbnail of The Ashes??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ashes - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -1/+8RIght...so all the money would go to tax rebates.
- Aroundtown27, on 06/29/2009, -1/+8This is an interesting idea that will never work in practice for the basic reason that it assumes that the public is educated enough to make wise decisions about where to spend their tax dollars. I wouldn't even begin to pretend I know exactly what percentage of my taxes should be spent on X, Y and Z. Now take that sentiment and extrapolate it to the broader population and it becomes a funding nightmare. No agency would ever know how much money was coming in year to year because it would all be based on what each individual tax payer wanted.
Lets not forget that the idea of a democracy is that we elect people to REPRESENT us in government. If you want to change how your tax dollars are being spent then maybe you should elect a new representative. - shedtroll, on 06/29/2009, -0/+6This coming from a party that used scotland as a gunniea pig for the poll tax.
- pathouston22, on 06/29/2009, -4/+10Of course not. I hate taxes. And his fiscal plan sucked/sucks.
- zephyear, on 06/29/2009, -4/+9you didn't vote for obama
- rahsut, on 06/29/2009, -0/+5How about less government waste and less government influence over our lives?
- clayvis, on 06/29/2009, -0/+4We do. Why do you think we elect congressmen and senators? They are elected to be our voice.
- powatom, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4It doesn't have to be that complicated. It's effectively like donating to your favourite charity - if you provide more funding, they can do more. It doesn't necessarily mean the money will be spent wisely or at all - but you have 'voted' with your wallet rather than allowing the corrupt politicians to be lobbied into submission.
- SpinningHead, on 06/29/2009, -2/+5"Of course not. I hate taxes. And his fiscal plan sucked/sucks."
Remind who was in office when the economy crashed. - scamper22, on 06/29/2009, -2/+5'low-tax' conservatism is dead. The welfare state is here to stay. Even America, despite rhetoric is a welfare state.
For good or bad, conservatives lost that battle.
The only battle conservatives have left is the battle against centralized bureaucracy and the attacks on individual freedoms.
They are going to have to push to empower the individual over the ideas of bureaucrats. That is the conservative push that is needed. By individual, I do not simply mean leave more money in the hands of rich people. I mean, redistribute wealth, but leave it in the hands of people. They will have to appeal to the poor to say, how do you benefit when a public sector worker gets a better pension or a pay raise? Here, we are the party that is going to empower you with more and the power to decide your own fate. The left is just in it to empower those in government.
I mean they might even have to raise taxes, but provide education vouchers, health care vouchers, forcing local issues back to local politicians... - PeppermintPig, on 06/30/2009, -0/+3Corruption and economic destruction ended when Obama took office, eh SpinningHead? lol
Amazing. - PeppermintPig, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2So why shouldn't individuals be allowed to control the fruits of their own labor outright? Why the charade?
- MelissaOfTroy, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2I can't help but hear "Power to the People!" in the voice of Flo from those Progressive commercials.
- shadus, on 06/29/2009, -6/+8I fully agree that we should have some say as to what our money goes to.
- dazparkour, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Shadus - +1
Currently, you are right - but surely the GOAL of politics is to find someone who does and get them into power, even if it is not the actuality.
That is WHY we vote, even if it doesn't work. - rahsut, on 06/29/2009, -1/+3Iran is the iranian peoples' problem, not ours. how about we stop interfering in other nations affairs?
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -2/+4So it would be Digg meets SimCity/ Spore. That would be kinda cool, because citizens could suggest projects, people only of that city could yey/neigh certain things, debate and comment. Scalable to nationwide projects, and maybe even worldwide projects. Only problem is that education/information would have to be abundant and available to everyone. Management of worldwide resources would have to be completely reformatted.
Such a system at the very least would make it seem like a true social democracy. - snarkastic, on 06/30/2009, -1/+3Usual Tory bollocks, trying to attract the sort of idiots who whinge about the amount of tax they pay while paying accountants to evade all their tax responsibilities. Then they have the cheek to complain about the quality of public services.
- shadus, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2hahaha, you're a comedian. They represent my interests about as much as your average person represents a slugs interests.
- Gumphlumph, on 06/29/2009, -3/+5Uhhh, do the have selective amnesia. Yeah the Tories took down the unions, and proceeded to dismantle all public services and sell them off to private interests - laying the foundation for the mess we have now.
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -7/+8But how would we pay for roads. /sar
- clayvis, on 06/29/2009, -1/+2you are a moron.
- pathouston22, on 06/29/2009, -8/+9What? You mean I voted for Obama who said he wasn't going to raise taxes, yet he wants Cap and Trade which will tax me, and basically my money will be going to *****? That's not what I voted for!
- clayvis, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1Then get more involved....don't whine...do something!
- rahsut, on 06/29/2009, -1/+2I sure as hell hope you're wrong about the welfare state being here to stay. I know its here for at least the next four years but I think eventually the productive members of society will get fed up with this and create change.
- Aroundtown27, on 06/29/2009, -1/+2Budgets can change a large percent year to year. Especially in times like these where governments are having to run deficits. Can you imagine locking your government into a budget for 4 years at a time? Talk about a rigid system
- powatom, on 06/30/2009, -1/+1Re-read what I wrote, you've misunderstood.
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2Buried for Tories and Telegraph.
- powatom, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2That doesn't matter. They give a percentage of their taxes. If not enough people fund something, then so be it - the people have decided that it isn't important.
The army 'needs' as much as it spends. The NHS does NOT receive the funding it needs. If people decide that a higher % of their taxes should go to the NHS or the defence, then that is what should happen. - MaxxusFlamus, on 06/29/2009, -3/+2judging by your comment history-
the assertion that you voted for obama is a crock of *****. - powatom, on 06/30/2009, -3/+1This is precisely why a certain % should be reserved and lumped together for use where it is needed - which is exactly what I said should happen. The people should choose where the government spends money, it should not be up to politicians to say 'we're going to spend X much money on Y program, so we're raising your taxes'. Let US decide to shift the balance of the taxes we're already paying.
- scamper22, on 06/29/2009, -2/+0There are a lot of way to make it work practically.
For example, you could have the electorate set the budgets (+- 5%). When you vote in an election, you also choose the budget (same, +5%, -5%). This would ensure relatively consistent funding... with changes happening over several elections. You could have the electorate set the general budget, or the budget for specific departments (health, education, security...). - GTS42, on 06/29/2009, -4/+1Tell that to Iran.
- rahsut, on 06/29/2009, -4/+1and when not enough money goes to defense causing us to have a weak military? how about when not enough money goes to goes to infrastructure and our bridges collapse?
not going to complain about welfare, i would hope that program dies. - zebraz, on 06/29/2009, -7/+4The US has no battle left for the conservatives to fight.
Obama has turned us into a socialistic state. - Cputerace, on 06/29/2009, -12/+5How bout not giving it to the government in the first place and instead giving it to the charity of your choice. That way you can decide where it goes, and change charities if you don't like it.
Government cannot be an effective charity...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is