What political issues would make you vote?

1 - Tax

UUuuhh thats the noly one that I would care about - and it affects everything the government does.

[Wilse]

Just *having* a vote is enough to make me use it.

[AccyD]

Wilse wrote:
Just *having* a vote is enough to make me use it.

I agree, I've voted at every election I've been able to.

But the things that would make me most likely to vote a particular way are:

1) The EU (against further integration).
2) Tax
3) Public Sector (reductions)
4) Business / Enterprise

[PMC]

AccyD wrote:

I agree, I've voted at every election I've been able to.

But the things that would make me most likely to vote a particular way are:

1) The EU (against further integration).
2) Tax
3) Public Sector (reductions)
4) Business / Enterprise

I voted Labour for the first election I was eligible for - 1997 simply because I wanted to see the arrogant and out of touch Tories get booted out. Up until that point I'd always considered myself a Liberal.

In 2001 I abstained because I'd lost all faith in Blair and Labour, still hadn't forgiven the Tories foir past indescretions and didn't want to waste a vote with the Lib Dems as my Council Tax had just gone up.

Next time round, I'll vote tactically against Labour.

The issues that make me want to / not want to vote are:

1) Choice. I don't want the same content with a different political label

2) Taxation. Local taxes in Britain are too high and rising because of a shortfall in government funding. The government have spent a good chunk of our money on...

3) The was in Iraq. Don't support the actions of the US, don't believe that the Coalition will bring stability to Iraq. Am annoyed that my tax is being used to buy bullets, bombs and guns when the UN should be peacekeeping instead.

4) Integrity. I don't like being lied to by those in government.

[T_Bone]

1 - Tax.

2 - Power at local level. I want issues solved locally, as close to the bottom of the pyramid as possible.

3 - The economy in general. Well, as long as Greenspan stays on no matter who's elected, it's a bit of a non issue anyway.

4 - Crime. I favor a candidate who advocates tough sentences for violent crime, but doesn't use crimefighting resources to make us all criminals, (you know, traffic cameras, IRS persecution, gun restrictions)

5 - Education. Our current education system punishes the poor, who are forced to attend public schools, or they recieve no government subsidy. The choice of school should be in the hands of the parents, and the subsidy for that child should follow that child to the school of their choice. School vouchers work for everyone.

[KennyR]

In general, lower taxation is useless. You'll only spend the money you save away on other costs that replace the tax. The infrastructure of a country, and its maintainance and development, will always need money from the people who benefit from it. That can't be changed (although several parties enjoy making deficits for other people to clear up later).

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
In general, lower taxation is useless. You'll only spend the money you save away on other costs that replace the tax.

People will just have more money to spend on other things? oh, is that all? :lol: :lol: :lol:

The infrastructure of a country, and its maintainance and development, will always need money from the people who benefit from it. That can't be changed

But the amount it takes to do that can be changed. Should it really take about half of everyone's money just to keep streetlights lit and the public library open? Who's really deciding how much should be appointed to a service, the people who benefit from it, or the people who run the services?

Is it really in the publics interest that government departments that are under budget for the year, spend all the money they have left on things they don't need, just so that they don't come in under budget at the end of the year and risk having their budget cut?

The more controll people have over how their own money is spent, the less vunerable they are to these things.

[KennyR]

T_Bone wrote:
People will just have more money to spend on other things? oh, is that all? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Other things...hmmm...like increased export duty to cover the money lost on taxes? Or will you find your money being sucked away by monopolies because there's nothing left to fund the small businesses and help them compete? Or more money spend on housing, heating, fuel, public transport, services, etc etc etc...

By the time you've paid that lot, you'll find that you don't really have more of your own money to spend after all. At least, for normal working people. Of course, maybe lower taxes will get people to spend more...but that'll drive up inflation so their money will be worth less.

It's always the same. The government will get the money they want out you, usually by fiddling figures so no one notices. Or digging the deficit even deeper. Either way, the gain from tax breaks is mostly illusionary.

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
People will just have more money to spend on other things? oh, is that all? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Other things...hmmm...like increased export duty to cover the money lost on taxes?

What do you mean "Cover?" The money is already covered, it's back in the hands of those who earned it.

Or will you find your money being sucked away by monopolies because there's nothing left to fund the small businesses and help them compete?

You mean "investments?" These are increased when people have more money, not decreased.

Or more money spend on housing, heating, fuel, public transport, services, etc etc etc...

These are already run at a profit. The public transportation here is self sufficient, heating is privately owned, etc. Housing??? That's TAXED, not subsidised! Anyways, these are all local services, and we're already paying both state and county taxes that pay for the local services provided, none of this has much to do with the federal tax. Even unemployment insurance is paid separately, and doesn't come out of the federal tax.

By the time you've paid that lot, you'll find that you don't really have more of your own money to spend after all. At least, for normal working people.

What specific service is covered by federal funds that the average working person isn't paying for locally?

Of course, maybe lower taxes will get people to spend more...but that'll drive up inflation so their money will be worth less.

That doesn't drive up inflation, because you arn't inflating the dollar, "more" isn't being spent. it's just being spent in different places. Instead of the government spending it for you, and the overhead that goes with it, you spen it yourself. They're not printing up extra money and distributing it.

[whabang]

JonoPike wrote:
1 - Tax

UUuuhh thats the noly one that I would care about - and it affects everything the government does.

I feel that it is my duty to take a stand in any matter which demands public voting.

[PMC]

KennyR wrote:
In general, lower taxation is useless. You'll only spend the money you save away on other costs that replace the tax. The infrastructure of a country, and its maintainance and development, will always need money from the people who benefit from it. That can't be changed (although several parties enjoy making deficits for other people to clear up later).

The point is that my local council and central government spend my taxes on whatever they like, and I have precious little say in how they spend it.

Some years back, the parlimentary offices moved and someone, somewhere justified spending fifty thousand pounds of taxpayers money on an antique desk. IMHO that's utterly obscene and if I was in power that MP would be dismissed for misuse of public funds.

Likewise my local council has hiked council taxes by 30%, and have spent roughly £2million in the last ten years on pedestrianising the high street. Councils need to cut spending on non-essential projects (ie going off on subisdised jollies, limousines etc). They even tried to justify raising council tax to pay for fresh flowers to be put up in the high street because "it improves the town's image".

In the UK we have roughly 4,500 Quasi-Autonomous, Non-elected Government Organisations - or QUANGOs, which spend several billion pounds every year on all kinds of projects. They are staffed by appointed individuals, who are not elected by the public, thus there are allegations of cronyism being fired at the plum jobs being offered for Civil Servants. We have a QUANGO for investigating which vintage wines to serve at state dinners... Will someone tell me how such an organisation - with a government grant costing tens of thousands a year - is essential for the running of the nation?

Meanwhile, our railways are in a shocking state, roads are inadequate and the health service still needs more cash...

[that_punk_guy]

I always use my vote. Interestingly though, I don't usually take current issues (and the short-term manifestos twisted around them) into account. I find whichever candidate's views are most aligned with mine and give them my vote.

[odin]

I've never missed a vote in my short voting career yet. In my opinion it's your duty as a citizen in a democracy to vote. Don't start complaining about how crap the government is when you even couldn't be arsed to get of your arse to go out and make a box red. (Interestingly enough I've never made a box red, only pressed buttons on voting terminals :-)).

[KennyR]

@T_Bone

My point is, government is like a company. If you tax a company, they just pass the tax on - to the consumer. The government pass the tax breaks on to something else. Our Conservatives were happy to give us tax cuts, as long as they could privatise everything so we still had to pay for it, often more so than we did with collective tax.

We could use our votes to reduce the size of government, to cut its spending, to reduce its beaurocracy or the number of civil servants it has around sucking up cash, we could use our vote to stop money being wasted on war or the UN/EU, but taxation itself is a phantom, not worth thinking about. The working people of a nation will always have to wear the yoke of taxes, otherwise you have no nation. Tax isn't important, only what it's spent on and how much comes back to the people who deserve it.

[Fade]

I think I would be greatly discouraged voting in a parliament run type of government.

As example: If I liked Tony Blair and wanted him to remain as PM, I would have to vote for the MPs of his party in order to keep him in office. On the other hand, if I disliked Tony Blair and wanted him gone, I would have to vote for MPs that I might not want, in order to get him out of office.

If I were a one issue voter, say anti-war, in order for my vote to have an effect, I might have to vote for a party whose presumed leader might be totally offensive to me.

I can only imagine the difficulty involved in choosing, when your country ends up with a coalition government and the MPs that you chose have to vote against their principles in order to have a stable government.

I like the freedom of being able to vote for each individual in my district, county, state, and nationally, based on what I think of him, and his voting record, rather than having to settle for the party that more closely matches my views. This gives me the ability to not only vote for the person I like, but to sometimes vote against a person I dislike, and still be able to support the overall platform of my chosen party.

This system works for me, and seems to work for the majority of Americans, and only aggravates the few who are one issue, one party right or wrong, or communist, socialist, etc., etc. minded voters.

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
@T_Bone

My point is, government is like a company. If you tax a company, they just pass the tax on - to the consumer.

That is correct, and it's something that many don't realise. Businesses do not pay taxes, only people pay taxes. Taxing businesses is just a way the government taxes people without the people knowing it.

The government pass the tax breaks on to something else. Our Conservatives were happy to give us tax cuts, as long as they could privatise everything so we still had to pay for it,

What's our Federal Government going to privatise? Everything's run at a profit already. Unemployment, The post office, you name it. We already pay for all these things separately, and they in no way need the Federal government to fund them. Education? Locally funded through property tax. The Federal government provides very very little in the way of services, yet they collect the most in tax.

We could use our votes to reduce the size of government, to cut its spending, to reduce its beaurocracy or the number of civil servants it has around sucking up cash, we could use our vote to stop money being wasted on war or the UN/EU, but taxation itself is a phantom, not worth thinking about. The working people of a nation will always have to wear the yoke of taxes, otherwise you have no nation. Tax isn't important, only what it's spent on and how much comes back to the people who deserve it.

Most programs we don't need, are started because the funding is already there, and they are spending it because they can. It's easier to get the government to shut down an unneeded program if there's no money for it anyway.

hell, if you get rid of the Federal tax, you even make war less likely. If Congress knew that they would have to go back to their individual states for funding, rather than the Fed, you'd see Congress much more reluctant to support passing actions that would cause their home state to have to fund the action. I truely believe that this was the way Congress was *supposed* to work, before the Federal income tax was implemented and removed personal state responsibility from members of congress.

The way congress works now, is the money is already collected from the people and congress try to get as much of it spent in their state as possible, so as their home state will get the "most for their money" that's already been paid.