What would happen if you could vote when you spend?

[Moonbeam]

Could a government be run based on taxes paid via plastic with funding the choice of the person exchanging money?

I was wondering what would happen if all money exchange could be done only with a government credit card with some fixed fee for each transaction, but where that fee would go in terms of government program would be up to the person paying the fee. Every time money changes hands the government would get a cut, but you would decide what you wanted to fund from federal to state and local.

How do you think something like this might play out?

 

[highland145]

Congress would NOT be getting any raises. Ever.

 

[cubeless]

setting aside the technical aspects of menu of choices and collating all those 'votes', us naive types say that you do this at some level already... buy ben and jerry ice cream and you get different lobbying than buying jerseymaid...

but i think it would be too much for the masses, sadly... having to make uninformed decisions every time they buy beer and cigs? who gets the votes for the people who spend but don't vote?

 

[sandorski]

For 1 specific Program/Agency it might be doable. Similar to a GM Visa(perhaps a poor example at this time ) or Points CC.

 

[cubeless]

For 1 specific Program/Agency it might be doable. Similar to a GM Visa(perhaps a poor example at this time ) or Points CC.

i want my 'nuclear arsenal' plutonium mastercard!!! interesting concept... register for your issue...

 

[Moonbeam]

setting aside the technical aspects of menu of choices and collating all those 'votes', us naive types say that you do this at some level already... buy ben and jerry ice cream and you get different lobbying than buying jerseymaid...

but i think it would be too much for the masses, sadly... having to make uninformed decisions every time they buy beer and cigs? who gets the votes for the people who spend but don't vote?

You could make a choice that would stick until you change it and there could be one for a general fund to be used at the discretion of politicians if you thought that the pros might know best where to spend. You could also divide up your choices so that some goes here and some goes there.

Lobbyists, of course, would have also to lobby the people. Maybe you could sell your vote for a refund like the pros do.

 

[Moonbeam]

The rates you pay could be flat or adjusted to how much you earn or spend or a combo of both.

 

[sandorski]

i want my 'nuclear arsenal' plutonium mastercard!!! interesting concept... register for your issue...

Ebay can let Buyers put the name into their Profiles

Auction: Widget

1st Bid $10 Bob2834 Immigration and Naturalization
2nd Bid $15.55 ChuckET US Border Patrol
3rd Bid $16.50 JohnBigBooties Adult English Education
4th Bid $18.90 JibJUb DHS.....

The possibilities are endless.

 

[bamacre]

But who would pay for the wars?

 

[tk149]

Assuming that you could get through the budgeting nightmare, I actually kind of like this idea. Don't like military spending? Give your money to education instead.

We already vote with our wallets for consumer goods. Why not our government spending too? It would provide a greater level of accountability.

Of course, with our monolithic government, it'd be darn near impossible to sort through all the available programs/agencies. You'd have to make general categories like "military" or "welfare" or "corrupt politician" (yeah, a repetitive term, I know).

This does present a problem in that those who pay more taxes would have a greater say in government...but how is this different from what we have now?

You would need something, kind of like a law, that would require every government agency to have a balanced budget...yeah...something like that...

I'd give all my taxes to the Department of Create-Robots-that-Say-Kiss-My-Shiny-Metal...

 

[nonlnear]

This is basically a Fairtax revenue model using Facebook to draft the budget. You buy budget points with your purchases and vote for cool gubmint cheese online.

I think the vast majority of the money would stay local, with rich neighborhoods building posh government run country clubs. Then the poor areas would burn down the rich people's country clubs and the country would fall apart and reset itself.

You would really have to redesign all of the institutions of government to balance things out. By taking away the power to budget from legislators without adjusting the institutions, you would make the building collapse. Populist budgeting could be made to work, but you have to consider how all the institutions interact to make it reasonably stable.

Notice I intentionally avoided philosophical considerations here. That could drag this thread down too quickly. I get the impression you wanted to keep it a little more "fun" than that!

 

[piasabird]

Money is not local.

So if I purchase things at walmart with my debit card what does that mean?
So then walmart then purchases things from china and other places to put stuff on the shelves. So does China get to make some of the votes?

I love games in logic.

 

[Moonbeam]

Money is not local.

So if I purchase things at walmart with my debit card what does that mean?
So then walmart then purchases things from china and other places to put stuff on the shelves. So does China get to make some of the votes?

I love games in logic.

No they would have to pay but citizens in the US would vote how to divide the money. This would be because, while all money may not be local, all politics is.