Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, maybe I'm being stupid...but isn't a TAX CREDIT for donations only going to give additional tax breaks to the rich who contribute so much to politics already???
The basic idea would be that every citizen (well, working ones who have a tax liability) would essentially have a free $100 to donate. The idea is that the contributions from the average citizens, at $100 a person, would be enough to influence, through donations, the politicians and offset much of the large donors. Many people aren't willing to dip in to their own pockets, hell, most don't even vote, but more would if it didn't have a net cost to them.
America is a at a crossroads now. We have to choose. Do we want democracy or do we want great wealth concentrated into the hands of a few hundred families? 400 families in America have funded most of the candidates' election campaigns so far. And they will be rewarded for their investment by getting politicians that work for them. That is not democracy. That is plutocracy. And it needs to end. No one, neither on the right or the left should support this. Bernie Sanders says one way is a $100 tax credit for political donations on your tax return. Getting big money out of politics is the most important issue of our time. A government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.
I've long advocated for what seems (at least, to me) to be a fairly simple fix:
Donate as much as you want, but then that money gets evenly distributed to all candidates officially running.
Raising money shouldn't have to be one of the top talents required for leading our nation.
My suggestion is to use taxes to fund elections.
Depending upon the office you are running for and the size of the electorate, once you received X number of signatures, you get on the ballot and receive X amount of money to spend on your race. You can only use that money and it would be fraud to utilize other funding or spend the money improperly.
Depending upon the office you are running for and the size of the electorate, once you received X number of signatures, you get on the ballot and receive X amount of money to spend on your race. You can only use that money and it would be fraud to utilize other funding or spend the money improperly.
Taxes are already too high and are needed to pay for other things.
There is apparently millions upon millions being thrown at candidates right now.
That money doesn't have to come out of our already depleted national treasury.
Yes, there are many good ways to do it. The most important is to get big money out of politics. A few hundred families controlling the politicians is a disgrace and plutocracy. To support a candidate that does not want to overhaul the campaign finance system is to support plutocracy and should not be an option.
It has been apparent to me over the last two decades or so, that "we the people" don't really have much say about anything if it goes against the powers that be.
They are perfectly content to watch us squabble over the tons and tons of meaningless issues that do not affect them at all, and thereby we have a pitiful semblance of control, but it is but an illusion.
Last edited by chadgates; 08-26-2015 at 01:27 PM..
Taxes are already too high and are needed to pay for other things.
There is apparently millions upon millions being thrown at candidates right now.
That money doesn't have to come out of our already depleted national treasury.
billions will be spent this next election. Not millions, Billions. Its a inefficient use of capital.
The good news is that while money does affect elections, as long as both sides have a minimal amount of funding, it only changes the vote by single digits. Single digits is HUGE though......but not enough once you start to really try and elect someone who is unpopular.
billions will be spent this next election. Not millions, Billions. Its a inefficient use of capital.
The good news is that while money does affect elections, as long as both sides have a minimal amount of funding, it only changes the vote by single digits. Single digits is HUGE though......but not enough once you start to really try and elect someone who is unpopular.
I don't know what you are worried about.
Think about all the jobs created by elections spending. Not only from the campaign employees, but the TV stations selling add revenue, the companies that print campaign material, the post office to deliver it, etc.
I
Additionally, when capitalism works, the rich will continue to get richer while the rest of society benefits.
Exactly, when the stock market goes up wealth inequality increases but the vast majority are better off. When the stock market goes down wealth inequality decreases but the vast majority are worst off.
Three men in a lifeboat with no food and water have wealth equality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
