So there is the whole business of the Laffer curve and the tradeoff between social justice in regards to taxation and welfare versus destroying the motivation to achieve and the just rewards of hard work. I was wondering what you think about allocating privileges based on taxes paid. Everyone still gets their rights of course. But it seems we could put some things on the table that would cost the government little or nothing and might even encourage people to pay extra taxes to get over a certain threshold. For example a working class or middle class individual is demonstrating some responsibility. Perhaps we could allow legal use of certain less destructive and addictive drugs for them? Knowing they would lose the privilege if they dont keep it under control and keep their job might keep that from becoming so destructive. People with a solid taxable income also arent so likely to choose to knock over a Seven Eleven or do a drive by, and so perhaps they could be afforded greater carry privileges with their firearms? Maybe, with higher taxes and having completed some required courses, people could get special license plates and a transponder to exceed speed limits on certain classes of roads? There are also some things, like hiking or fishing in certain areas, where if everyone did it the environment would be damaged. But a few people could be allowed to do so without harm. Getting privileges on Federal lands for paying a certain level Federal taxes seems logical to me. Thoughts? Would you accept people getting certain extra privileges for their taxes? Would getting certain privileges make you willing to accept a higher level of taxation?
So rather than people buying privilege surreptitiously, you propose letting them do it out in the open.
Sounds a little like an idea that was floated here a while back about giving people an extra vote for every $10,000 they pay in taxes. It went something like this: Everyone gets one vote. And for every $10,000 you pay in taxes, your vote counts another time, up to three. For me, I think this sort of smells like a 'ruling elite' class system, which is not very palatable in a land where government is supposed to treat every individual equally under the law. A pay-to-play system isn't really what we're supposed to be about.
You make like the corporations and foreign governments that "donated" money to the Clinton Foundation?
I was thinking more of a threshold crossing thing, but basically. Presuming this allowed taxes and welfare to increase I'd expect those on the lower income spectrum to like it as well. I mean consider someone without health insurance and someone with a $250,000 supercar that they know they can't take over the speed limit without being a target for every cop in the state. Wouldn't both be happier if the first had health insurance and the second had to settle for a $200,000 car but they could actually drive the thing as it's meant to be on certain roads, perhaps at specific times or under specific traffic conditions? I don't think messing with voting is a good idea. You could easily imaging a system where all that vote getting taxable income is being sent into bridges to elite golf courses or whatever. Presumably to get the needed bipartisan support such privilege laws would need to be supporting the poor and working class.
