I know that there was question about political system based on your wealth. This is little variation of it:
What if your amount of votes was waged according to what you pay to the system?
- If you turn legal age, you are allowed to vote (and be elected)
- No matter what you do, you have always at least one vote
- For every dollar you paid on taxes you get one extra vote
- For every dollar you received from state (social or other supports). you lose one vote
- No extra buying of votes is allowed. If you want to have extra votes, pay your taxes properly.
- Your "voting account" is added up from election to election and are "nulled" once new government is estabilished
- If you have less than fiscal year between elections, data from last closed fiscal year are used.
Othervise, usual parliamentary system is assumed with government having 4 years for usual turn
If you are only receiving social supports and government lasts 4 years, you have 4 votes in total in next election.
If you turned legal age a day before elections and you pay no taxes, you have 1 vote.
If you are super rich person who avoid taxes, effectively paying nothing to the state where you reside, you gain same amount of votes as someone on social support.
If you taxed 0,99 dollars in fiscal year, your problem. Only full dollars are counted, no rounding (State wants to gather money)
When you vote and you have >1 vote, you have to spend all your votes. Basically you check "I vote for cat lover party" and if you have 3 votes, the cat lover party will get 3 votes.
In my imagination, this is system which should make prefference on these who pay to the system. While rich people can have some influence, lots of rich people avoid paying taxes.
But I feel this system is flawed and cannot figure out why.
So, what woud be implications if everyone followed this system?