It’s the Tax Payers Money…
June 30th, 2007 by Dave
So let the tax payers decide.
Myself and Frank had an interesting conversation last week about how the current system of one man - one vote aint really working. Basically we the people don’t seem to pay enough attention to who we vote for. Some of us vote for all the wrong reasons. Some people don’t even bother their back sides to vote, yet reserve the right to avail of the benefits the state (sorry the tax payers) provide… free first, second and third level education, roads, social welfare, subsidised public transport, health care etc etc
I’ve seen the other side, politicians pandering to those who come looking for favors… my daughter and her baby needs a house, I want a medical card -even though I’m not entitled to it! So people who don’t deserve the support of the state (sorry the tax payer) are getting it and those seeking office are facilitating this misallocation of funds in order to get elected.
So the system is broken. I’ve got a suggestion to fix it. One that is fair on those who deserve fairness most of all… those footing the bill.
My suggestion is a simple one. It’s still one man - one vote but the votes are weighted. Weighted based on the amount of personal tax paid by the individual in the 12 months leading up to the election. The beauty of the plan is that those who only take from the system won’t get to decide how the money they didn’t work hard to earn is spent. If the mega rich want to have a say they will have to start paying a bit of tax too!!!
It’s a sort of capitalist socialism where the PAYE worker, the back bone of the economy, rules supreme.
I await your questions and comments!
Entries (RSS)
June 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Yes, of course, the path to a better society is further disenfranchising. Why don’t you go the whole hog and return to your blueshirter roots.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
What a ridiculous idea. A vote by a rich person should be worth more than a vote from a poor one? So all the power would be even more in the hands of the rich and powerful companies and people, the government would only want to please them?
I think votes should be waited on how clearly you’ve thought through your ideas.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Richard,
Never said companies should get a vote. Most people who are actually rich pay feck all income tax. Or are you a Socialist/Sinn Fein types who thinks anyone earning more than the average wage is rich? The money belongs to those who have paid it so surely they should have more say in how its spent? Or else maybe we should all pay the same amount? Why should I be punished for being a high earner?
My idea is not that the rich should have more of a say, it’s that those who pay more should!
And who is going to decide how to wait clarity of thought? That’s a wonderful suggestion… very well thought out!
Bif,
How original… I’ve never had the blueshirt thing thrown at me before. Who is being disenfranchised? Those who don’t contribute to the state coffers? Those who chose not to work or pay tax? I’m sorry now but as someone who pays more than a fair share of income tax (and we are in the majority) I feel disenfranchised.
I’m out there working my balls off while others live off hand outs from the state… ie from me! I’d much rather if more of my money, much more of my money was spent on looking after the elderly, the sick… lets spend it on better education and making sure that those who need it most actually get it!
The way we are going we’re not going to break the cycle. Those stuck in the social welfare rut are keeping the rest of us back. Every €100 they take in benefits they don’t deserve is €100 I had to earn and hand over. It’s €100 my grandparents can’t have to make them more comfortable after a lifetime of paying tax. It’s €100 that can’t be given in grants for the arts or sports.
So why, why not let those of us who pay the bill decide how it’s spent?
June 30th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Give it a rest man!! Always on about how hard your working. Is it the only thing you care about? I’m sure there’s a post somewhere else on some other site for money mad workaholics.
June 30th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Ha ha Ed… you’re a funny bloke! Is that the best you can do?
July 1st, 2007 at 12:19 pm
“How original… I’ve never had the blueshirt thing thrown at me before.” And you wonder why?
People who are being denied a vote are being disenfranchised - it’s pretty much the dictionary definition. And when you say only taxpayers get to vote, does that mean you want to take the vote away from full-time mothers or those on disability benefits? And how long must to be paying tax before you qualify for the vote? And how long must you have been unemployed before you get stripped of the right.
Now lets have a look at your basis for doing it. What about the election system gets fixed? Do politicians stop pandering because the long-term unemployed etc, who for the most part never voted anyway, no longer wield that influence? Do the wealthy stop having a disproportionate influence on the government? Does the government become more answerable? Can you cite any examples of where creating further inequity in a society has been of benefit to the wider populace?
July 1st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
If you took the time to read my suggestion in full you would find the answer to most questions you posed. Everyone would still have a vote. No one would be denied their say. The personal income tax paid in the previous 12 months would be the deciding factor or maybe since the previous election how ever long that has been.
Obviously special consideration would have to be given for the examples you cite such as full time parents (not just mothers!) the retired or people on disability. Perhaps stay at home parents would qualify for the same weighting as their partner? The retired might receive a weighting equal to the amount of tax they would have paid if still working based on the last few years of their working life… Others would have to be looked at in more detail taking into account that the system is geared to favour those footing the bill.
I think if the politicians were faced with answering to those who actually pay their salary they might become more accountable for the decisions they make with our money. I think if people knew their say was affected by how much they contributed the vote would become a more valuable thing.
There will always be inequality in society. To believe otherwise is naive and absurd. It is how we manage this inequality that decides the quality of our society… And there is no evidence to suggest that the tax payers of this country cannot be trusted to deliver for those whom they provide for.
May I ask one question of both yourself and Richard… Could you please state the cut off point for being rich?
July 1st, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Also by calling me a blueshirt you show a huge lack of knowledge of what it is the Fine Gael party in 2007 stands for.
Lest it be mistaken this post is simply and exploration of an idea I had and does not reflect my own or in particular Fine Gael’s political thinking’s!
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:23 am
This is dangerous talk Dave. Situtation and circumstance has given us jobs (and time to contribute to blogs): you might say you have worked hard to get where you are, yet I know people who work all the hours god gave them yet still barely make it above the bread line.
A societies true nature shows in how they treat the weak.
Classing people by how much money they earn is stupid. What about all those lazy five year olds in schools? Start a few sweat shops, make ‘em pay their way! And thats not taking the piss - its pretty much what you’re saying.
And one more thing: hundreds of years of political science dimissed over a few pints in a pub? Is there a need to post it? I used to think this blog was a good source of infomation on a varity of different topics, not a forum for bigoted rants.
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:41 am
“Also by calling me a blueshirt you show a huge lack of knowledge of what it is the Fine Gael party in 2007 stands for.” I didn’t call you a blueshirt nor did I suggest that Fine Gael still had fascist leanings. I merely suggested that touting a system that furthers inequality in society has certain quasi-fascist qualities that are reminescent of your favoured party’s blueshirt roots. It was largely a tongue in cheek response to what I thought was a tongue in cheek post.
How I define rich is irrelevent. You are talking about making the inequity in society more pronounced in the hope that that will make politicians more accountable - except it will only make them more accountable to the higher earners. Higherearners who will then be faced with the choice of whether they want to vote for someone who wants to increase funding for education in under-privileged areas or someone who will guarantee that house prices won’t drop sharply over next two years.
Yes inequity will always exist, it would be naive to think otherwise but it would be foolish to imagine you could alleviate the problems in this country by further marginalising the poorer elements. It would be equally foolish, and naive, to think that there is one clever quick-fix that’s going to allow everything else to fall in to place. It will, as in anything, take a lot of innovations working in concert with each other.
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
[...] Have you seen this: 02/15/2007: Live At The Marquee « It’s the Tax Payers Money… [...]
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
John,
Do we continue to punish those who do pay the bill because others would if in the same circumstance? Circumstances are for the large part dictate by life choices. Not always but to put everything down to circumstance is to say you have no control over your own life. And that is the favourite refuge of the “down trodden” The reality of it is slightly different.
I will keep going back to my central point which none of you seem to accept. Those who are in the PAYE system are footing the bill for everyone and everything else. They pay for themselves, their families, the roads, the hospitals, the schools and their own mortgages… and all that after handing over 20-40% of what they earn to help run the country. So do they not deserve a little more say… We already have this two tier voting system for the upper house… Who will you be voting for in the Seanad John as an NUI graduate?
Your comment on sweat shops for lazy five year olds in so far removed from what I’m actually talking about that I’m not even going to address it except to say again you’ve missed the point… it is not to punish anyone simply to reward who actually are paying the bill.
And then we come to your last comment… I would have thought that this site was an excellent place to kick around an idea discuss its merits and limitations then throw it in the trash where it belongs. Surely the is no harm having an open and lively discussion which is first and foremost for entertainment! I can only hope that by reading some of my other comments on this site in the past you will see that I am far from a bigot!
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
One of the problems with discussing any crazy idea like this in my opinion is that society has gone so far wrong in some respects that it is hard to find any way back to a working model.
This pessimistic statement is by way of pointing out that personal choice cannot always overcome circumstance, and that society has whole communities that are victims of circumstance by nature and by nature are not given to ‘rising above it’ or whatever other condescending terms we might hear bandied about in the pub.
For the privileged to then add insult to injury by reducing the efficacy of the vote of the less well off would be another nail in the coffin of any semblance of civilised society.
I appreciate your interest in views on outrageous suggestions like these Dave, but all I can say is I’m glad nobody weighed in on the side of this idea!
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Bif,
I actually look good in blue… buts that too much info for this site!
Anyway, I don’t think how we define rich is irrelevant. It is central to understanding where you are coming from. For example, I have no doubt that you would regard me as a high earner, I do pay the higher rate of tax so its hard to escape the tag.
However by the time I pay my mortgage and bills, road tax and full price for every government service etc etc I’m not left with enough to go out most weekends or go on a decent holiday. And I don’t have kids yet. Colleagues of mine are all in similar situations. So you will say thats the point of view I am writing from. And my idea of rich is therefore probably quiet different to yours in the context of this discussion.
Now I accept we are the well off and the privileged but we need the house prices to stay at a reasonable level, we need the economy to stay strong… because if the day comes when we’re fucked then you better believe that those less well off are going to be in far more serious trouble. I think you under estimate your high earning countrymen.
I certainly don’t think there is a quick fix for anything as complex as reforming the voting system… This suggestion is totally unconstitutional and it would have to be put to a one man one vote referendum to be passed… which it never would and even if it did the legality of the referendum would be challenged at the EU and the UN courts of human rights where it would no doubt be over turned.
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
How I define rich is irrelevent because I refuse to believe you can tie someone’s democratic rights to their earning power.
My point wasn’t that housing prices wasn’t important. My point was that people often vote on issues that directly effect them - sometimes at the expense of the greater good. You don’t solve that by giving the lower earners or under-privileged less say.
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Frank,
Me too! Although after the immigration thread I wouldn’t have been all that surprised.
Your first point is spot on. The system is broken… but the fix, if there is one, is well out of reach.
The danger we face in this country over the next few years is that if there is a down turn in the economy, those who have paid their own way stand to lose much more that those who it is perceived have not and this could lead to a serious kick back and then ideas like this may not seem so far fetched.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Bif,
You’re right, people hardly ever vote for the greater good. If you can get them to then you are a greater political mind than most in this generation.
My point is not to punish anyone. Punishment almost never works for any problem which you actually want to solve although it does seem to make people feel better.
My idea (crap and all as it is) was to reward people for contributing to the state coffers by giving them more say in deciding who decides how that money, their money, is spent. While you guys might assume that I am on about the less well off, I would acutally prefer to see the property tycoons, builders and other such tax dodging types pay thier fiar share.
This would do much more for the countries piggy bank and society in general that screwing those who don’t have it to give.
I’ll give you one such example. I work with a guy who has a farm in North Co. Cork… He is able to fiddle the figures in such a way that it looks like he is making a loss and then write off the loss against his PAYE… He pays no PAYE. All of his salary goes straight into his hand along with money made from the farm. To look at it another way, all of my tax goes into his back account.
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
One simple question… which may or may not cause a riot…. does the current system of social welfare help or hinder those using it and/or society in general.
I don’t mean those on disability or long term sick or those who couldn’t possibly work even if they really wanted to. I mean those caught in the rut of social welfare dependence generation after generation. I suspect that it does not but again the answer is not a simple one.
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
I think there’s some merit in your suggestions Dave, but linking voting rights with tax paid is in itself anti-democratic. Besides, the demographic you’re referring too don’t vote by and large. Why not just sterilise the urban poor and be done with it?
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Dave,
Dave, you’ll never make a politician with all this apologising and backing down. No need to crumble so fast under the liberal whip (that Bif keeps stored under his bed) People like john will always say “This is dangerous talk”as if you were planning a fascist coup. He’s also the type to say ‘Classing people by how much money they earn is stupid’ which is an entirely facile statement. (No offence John) Should we class people by how kind they are to animals instead?
Also, just because you argued with a few people who dont particularly think immigration is entirely a good thing doesn’t mean your not a bigot.
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I thought backing down was integral to a becoming a successful politician.
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Martin,
There is something in the idea but not in the form discussed here. In a society like ours it is the middle class which always gets screwed. Ireland in 2007 has a huge and mostly silent middle class. There are two major drags on society at either end. Despite what others here might think I think we’d be much better off going after the real rich. I’m not sure about the legality of your suggestion for dealing with the urban poor!
Ed,
In writing this post I was merely kicking around a crazy idea and it was never my intention to defend the indefensible. The main point I was trying to make was that it is the working class, be they high or low earners, are paying for the running of the country and that it would be only fair that they be given a greater say in the running of the country that those who don’t contribute. I felt in order to engage those posting replies to the article it would be beneficial to distance myself slightly from the idea… I wouldn’t call it backing down; it’s more about picking your battles! (Is that politician enough for you?)
This isn’t the place but if you read my replies on the immigration debate you should see that I am not for an open door policy and it is your motivation and the groups you aligned with I called into question. And I don’t need anyone on this sites help to know whether or not I am a bigot.
July 4th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Yes, was I insane to think a politician had to have principles?
I admit, you may well make a fine politician, the way you said ‘working class, high or low earners’ instead of saying middle class, which is surely what you really wanted to say but felt it might not go down so well with some of the radical anarchist types perusing these pages was a fine example of slick word play employed by all good politicians.
I aint aligned with no-one neither. Just happy to defend someone who I believe makes sense.
July 5th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Firstly, I’m not actually a politician. Secondly I do have principles and I have every intention of sticking to them regardless of where I end up in life.
If my choice of words appears “slick” then it is because I say what I mean and I try to be careful in getting my message across to whom ever I am addressing (or writing to in this case!)
The whole theory behind effective communication is to get your point across to your chosen audience. In the case of this site and this post I am trying to avoid using terms like middle class as it conjures up the wrong image for prospective readers. The point is not what I am writing but how it is picked up by the reader.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
‘The point is not what I am writing but how it is picked up by the reader.’
Sounds a bit Goebelsy to me.
Talking a bout effective communication though, I recently met a girl who was being trained up for O2 management, she had completed a weekend studying a technique called ‘Platonic questioning’ She had no idea who Plato actually was but Platonic questioning taught her how to make a potential customer answer a question the way 02 wanted them to answer it. I thought that a 2500 year old philosophical tecnhnique being employed by a modern corporatation interesting, if not somewhat disturbing.