The system gives more money to the popular party, which may not be the same as the winning party.
May may have shot her party in the foot in the last election, but if she takes a senate seat in this kerfuffle she will have given it the coup de grace.
And, finally, if you don't want government money going to the parties, should political donations be tax deductable?
The system gives more money to the popular party, which may not be the same as the winning party.
True that. Still, most of the time it'll advantage the winning party...
And as for donations being tax deductible, there's a difference between providing an incentive to donate as opposed to donating for us. Donating to political parties is a worthy thing to do and should be encouraged. But tax deductions are a concession of revenue, not a direct subsidy; the government is simply bleeding us less if we donate. There's a difference between taking our money and providing it as a subsidy to the parties and not actually taking it from us so we can donate it ourselves.
Yes, but that presumes that voters have enough income to benefit from the tax deduction, and/or are able to afford the donation, and are aware enough to realize that they get a tax credit for donating. None of these things will necessarily be the case. And it isn't unreasonable to assume that if you *did* donate, you'd give at least $2/year to the party you voted for. It's not as though the parties are getting $100 per year per vote.
(And here I am standing up for the proletariat, when I'm one of the more conservative people on mousme's Friends list!)
I'm not sure that the poverty of some of my fellow citizens really justifies the subsidy. I'm having a hard time framing an argument to the effect that we all have the right to donate equal amounts to the political party of our choice, regardless of income.
And, finally, if you don't want government money going to the parties, should political donations be tax deductable?
That's actually one of the points that was brought up when the subsidy was still an issue. The tax deductions (apparently) represent a whole lot more money than the subsidy, so if they were serious they should have gone for the deductions instead.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:30 pm (UTC)May may have shot her party in the foot in the last election, but if she takes a senate seat in this kerfuffle she will have given it the coup de grace.
And, finally, if you don't want government money going to the parties, should political donations be tax deductable?
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:38 pm (UTC)True that. Still, most of the time it'll advantage the winning party...
And as for donations being tax deductible, there's a difference between providing an incentive to donate as opposed to donating for us. Donating to political parties is a worthy thing to do and should be encouraged. But tax deductions are a concession of revenue, not a direct subsidy; the government is simply bleeding us less if we donate. There's a difference between taking our money and providing it as a subsidy to the parties and not actually taking it from us so we can donate it ourselves.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:58 pm (UTC)(And here I am standing up for the proletariat, when I'm one of the more conservative people on
no subject
Date: 2008-12-04 01:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:51 pm (UTC)That's actually one of the points that was brought up when the subsidy was still an issue. The tax deductions (apparently) represent a whole lot more money than the subsidy, so if they were serious they should have gone for the deductions instead.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 08:27 pm (UTC)If you donate $100 to a political party, you get $75 off your tax bill federally. Seriously. It's like you're donating only $25.