this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
2113 points (99.9% liked)

Mildly Interesting

17468 readers
105 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I assume "Other purposes" is govt kickbacks to mining and gas companies 😬

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I strongly believe that this should be the standard everywhere. Unfortunately most governments won't tell you this, because a few of them are busy building golden temples for their authoritarian leaders, and blowing half of it on cocaine while pretending it's the immigrants' faults

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with you 100% that this should be standard everywhere, but here's the thing... this information is readily available already.

At least in the US. But just like with most thing, it takes citizens a willingness to show the tiniest bit of effort to find that information.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58888

This is but one of many sites which show a breakdown of where our money in the US goes. Having one that breaks down each person's personal contribution would be especially interesting, but a percent is a percent so if 20% of our money collectively goes to X, then 20% of what your paid as an individual will also go to X.

[–] Emu@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

sometimes accessibility and user experience is more important than "its available if you look for it.: 99% of people don't really have time, they have families, jobs, some leisure, cooking, paying bills, visiting family. etc. etc. So it should be easy and the FACT that it isn't easy is purposeful whereas the Australian system is purposefully easy.

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but again, it IS easy. It took me less than 10 seconds to find the link I provided. Sure, make it even easier still by including it with every tax return, but let's not kid ourselves - this shit is incredibly easy but average taxpayers just don't want to bother.

I would argue average taxpayers don't know it exists and a ton of them, particularly older ones have a very hard time with technology. I've had to show my mother in law how to get a url from her phone to her desk top, I've explained what the read mode means in Firefox, and numerous other things. Easy for you doesn't mean easy for everyone.

[–] lemming007@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Not only this, I think this should be selectable by taxpayers before they pay taxes so they can customize the amount that goes to each category. This would be the true democratic way of doing it. So, for example, based on your salary you need to pay 20k in taxes. You'd then select how much you want to go into Transportation, Healthcare, defense, education, etc.

[–] swnt@feddit.de 19 points 1 year ago

This wouldn't be truely democratic. It would rather be just like donations. Government spending works, because it's all out into the same basket. If it weren't, then rich taxpayers would move the movey to projects they want - and as would have very little old-age welfare, because they don't pay much taxes anymk6and every group in society would put the money into their projects.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

If you can't see the obvious ways this would fail and/or be abused you should steer clear of any and all leadership positions.

[–] capr@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

And if you get caught using a public service you didn't pay for, you get fined.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then everyone would just fund things 100% and 0% for everything else they deem not important, like education or roads.

[–] lemming007@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

That's the point. If people don't find it important, then it's not. Who else should decide if not the people?

[–] Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

There’s no point in having a government if you don’t let them decide how they spend and raise money

[–] selawdivad@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Tax-deductible donations get you part way there.

[–] capr@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I also think people should not be allowed to vote unless they pay a flat poll tax. Otherwise it's a conflict of interest.

[–] dioxy@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

No, we should not have more barriers for the poor to vote actually

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would just reduce representation for low income people. That's an absolutely abhorrent idea.

[–] capr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then have them pool their money together to get a vote.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What? Are you a teenager or something?

[–] threeduck@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

Either weak sarcasm or three Republicans stacked in a trenchcoat.

[–] Nelots@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Tell me you hate poor people without telling me you hate poor people.

[–] DrPop@lemmy.one 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a poor take, a few to vote is not the easy to go about this. Even owing taxes shouldn't bar someone from voting as voting is about being represented and everyone deserves representation. Even hardened criminals.

[–] capr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What happened to taxation without representation.

[–] Emu@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Many people aren't represented in America, e.g., DC, Peurto Rico, people who were in prison. Taxation without representation doesn't exist in America.

[–] adrian783@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

wanna elaborate on that?