Skin in the Game

I once posted that if you pay you should have your say - i.e. if you pay tax you should be able to vote (frequently). The counter argument to that is that many people are net takers of benefits, not net payers of tax, and that any increase in their voting power will lead to an increase in socialism and a redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. Yet Swiss direct democracy has resulted in the opposite. Why?
It could be a cultural thing. It could be caused by a quirk of history and the timing of events. Or it could be that voters want the best for their country because that is best for them. Because they have skin in the game. And they understand that taxing the rich excessively is likely to cause them to flee to more welcoming jurisdictions which will be a loss to all. Because the rich are more mobile and typically, as a proportion of their wealth, have less money tied up in fixed assets - they have less skin in the game. On the other hand, the average voter has more of their wealth tied up in their house, is less mobile and has more skin in the game. Thus they are often more committed to their country.
Yet in a representative system the wealthy can influence politics through their ability to fund political parties. The average voter has little say. Perhaps this imbalance leads to more income inequality.

This post was inspired by "Antifragile" by Nassim Taleb.

Californian Referendum on Cannabis

A referendum on legalising and taxing cannabis in California is expected in November. The referendum was given the green light after 694000 people signed a petition calling for the question to be added to the states general election ballot paper. According to some reports this could save $200million in public order costs and reap $1.4billion in taxes. The debate on this contentious issue is also likely to cover health issues, use while driving and the slippery slope argument. The details of the Initiative can be read here.

More from The Telegraph here.

If You Pay, You Should Have Your Say

There's a certain fairness about the idea that "if you pay, you should have your say". We all pay tax in one form or another and should have a say over how it is spent . For many this could be a rallying call for Interactive Democracy!

Billy Bragg

Billy Bragg has declared that he will withhold his tax until the government caps bankers bonuses. He commented that people have said to him that he should express his power through the ballot box, but he points out that there's no one to vote for who will curb this sort of excess. He also points out that we are all shareholders of some of these banks.

Billy has reached the point where he is questioning the efficacy of British democracy.

Interactive Democracy could be used to address this issue by people like Billy. In fact he is well positioned to become an opinion leader on this subject, given his access to the media and his fan base.

Hear his interview on The Jeremy Vine Programme, Radio 2, 18/01/10.

Interactive Democracy and Money Bills

The Parliament Bill of 1911 replaced the Lords' power of veto with the ability to delay legislation for up to two years. It also removed their power over money bills - those associated with taxation.

Should Interactive Democracy allow the majority to vote on money bills?

It seems to me that an important aspect of democracy is a balance of power, so that one faction doesn't become too self possessed. Power corrupts! I think the population could handle Money Bills and should be allowed to vote on them. This may help to prevent the sort of debacle that occurred with the proposed 10% tax rate.

Using the ID system we could all decide if Money Bills should be open to Interactive voting, passing Parliament Bills of our own to curtail our own collective power. There may be good reason to do this, if the majority vote for their personal financial benefit without regard for the wider picture.

Voting on Tax

On principle I don't like the idea of limiting what the electorate can suggest or vote on, but wouldn't we all like to pay less tax?

It seems to me that it should be the government's responsibility to set the tax rates in order to raise money to pay for what the people have approved by referendum (and existing remits for public spending).... always with a view to the next general election and their prospects for reinstatement.