I guess you can watch the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ4tdBV5ch0
I got a new 8gb card for my camera so I can take a couple hours of video if I want. I did this mostly in one shot, it was like 15 minutes long so I had to take some chunks out of it, but you get the basic idea I’m sure. This is the description for the video that I wrote while it was uploading. I lost all my tags unfortunately< i had some great tags for this video but I”m not going to try to reproduce perfection.
Your dollar your vote. I propose a system where:
Your tax is still expected to be a certain percentage of your income over a year period.
You can pay any part of your tax any time you want something improved or fixed
You can always allocate your tax dollars to exactly where you want them spent
You can never give your tax dollars to someone else to spend on your behalf
(unless you can prove that you are mentally unable to understand the implications of your spending)
Any attempts to make people stupid enough to give this right away need to be eliminated at the source
You must understand the implications of where you spend your money as it effects life, lives and your life
Any cause that you can legally put your taxes towards must include the following criteria
-Must benefit more than just one person
-Nation tax payments must benefit the entire nation however you can put precedence towards benefiting an area that is below the national average level of service in a particular area
-Local tax payments must benefit the entire locality, not just your street, only a percentage of anything absurdly local to yourself could ever count as benefiting the entire locality
-The mathematics for this are not complex and are rather quite simple to divide the percentages accordingly so long as accurate statistics are measured with the lowest overhead possible one can easily spread the money in a way that is most fair and benefits the most people however this part of the system algorithm needs to be understood by and visible to everyone.
-All tax payments must also provide some benefit yourself, it is not legal to commit suicide by tax payment by supporting things that are not beneficial to yourself or anyone else, such as making cyanide legal over the counter substance or giving fluoride to children cannot be a legitimate cause.
-All legitimate causes might get on the Ballot. Mathematics or Linguistics might be legitimate causes in the category of education. They would be able to go through a speedy process to get on the ballot as causes you could put your taxes towards. There might be another set of Mathematics under Research. It might be possible to automatically spread money over each set of mathematics fairly or allocate it more specifically. This way it becomes easy to support either very general or very specific causes easily.
-One of the biggest dangers to be avoided is the means by which people might try to obscure or hide things in categories that do not actually represent the actual thing thats presented. Because of this all spending on taxes needs to produce measurable results that are in line with the amount of money that is spent on a particular area. If an area fails to produce measurable results then the area may remain valid however the exact spending in that area might need to be audited and the process by which, lets say for example, the mathematics money is spent would need to be assessed and improved.
-Many areas are too simple, such as paying off the deficit, and that is a simple category although the need for audit is still very real.
-The money to audit causes would invariably be another thing people decide to put money towards when they suspect something is not working correctly or they aren’t getting the results they want, they might be able to spend money to audit a particular area rather than invest more money in that area, then later in the year on seeing the results or seeing some actions taken for improvement they might feel more comfortable investing their money for futures in that area.
-Centralized broadcast mediums could/can not adequately direct peoples interests in ways that would benefit them, and almost always has the opposite effect.
There should be no overhead in distribution or transfer of money. making money off money must invariably become illegal because it is always slight of hand, and simple magic tricks that are illogical and child play unreasonable and unacceptable. The only way to make money would be to invest your tax dollars in something useful, and if you always managed to invest in such a way that lead to gains then there might be some reward or credit for having done so, or at least social standing or respect for making good decisions, making taxes and voting a game is of critical importance. If people actually got what they paid for they would be more involved which is critical to success as a nation, because involvement and investment are key to being a part of it. Our current system leave everyone detached as possible from the actual inner workings of the system, which is inherently backwards. Even through very passive tax season action people should become very desperately involved.
People you might elect to government might include people who try to propose new causes BUT necessarily and JUST as important people who try to shoot down those causes as for being secret schemes to try to put things on the ballot that have no ultimate benefit, such as letting people invest in systems that would ultimately lead to an increase in their stupidity and lessen their ability to make sound ballot decisions. All schemes must be approached as scientifically as possible which is to say to not discount any possibilities or favor any particular position that has validity or following while at the same time trying to shed new light on existing positions that they might come to realize a common benefit of mutual action. There is still a great need to judge whether things are legitimate causes or not and ultimately still a need to lead people towards recognizing the opportunities that are waiting for them while at the same time the emphasis cannot be on opportunities to get rich, but rather opportunities to lead better lives in the future while being very careful not to embrace or approve anything too early or before it’s ready. Ideally the ultimate separation of corporate interests from the government bodies such as congress and the FDA need to be attained somehow, and the only way to do this is to create the antiFDA as a government body, and anything that gets approval needs to go through both of them. While this might seem like parasitic loss, one body invariably represents the corporate interests while the other body must necessarily represent the publics interests, and while corporations may still attempt to dissuade the public into believing their position through marketing and advertising and all sorts of tactics that trick religious people into thinking they are on the same side as the corporations, ultimately if the system is set up correctly from the ground up doing this would become impossible, because any true devils advocate system could not actually take the same position without due scientific critical process. It must not be a big show, or lawyer based court room battle so much as a discussion between opposites where the opposition has as much say as the proposition. The necessary requirement for any such system is that scientific studies that came to a different conclusion would not be ignored or silenced. One big example of regulation failing in this respect is the FDA allowing GMO foods to be approved because of corporate profit reasons while the scientists had evidence it was not ready or fit for mas consumption. Ideally the entire point of this system is to prevent the public from becoming guinea pigs and ultimately being stupefied into incapacity at existence in the system by some new substance that alters their genetic relationships. To slow the acceptance of questionable things until there is adequate proof rather than simply convincing proof thats good enough to fool the stupid populations into thinking that its the same thing. There are going to always be certain areas that time must be spent to fight against making radical changes too quickly and there is always going to be the danger that people are going to try to overload the system with so many simultaneous, confusing, and conflicting things that there will be a chance of something getting through that shouldn’t have, and the system must be designed so that this is downright impossible to accomplish, that there can be no tricking the system into doing what you want unless you actually satisfy all of the ever increasing requirements, in which case it’s not a trick, but the requirements must always increase the more that is known and previously approved things must always loose approval unless they are considered fundamental or baseline and even then must be subject to question every once in a while as new methods of assessment become available, although the extinction of any technology (such as the heirloom tomato) is not the goal, regulating the spread of modern fake tomato and other contamination may be very important. Nothing that is approved today by the FDA will be approved tomorrow without going through the processes of tomorrow first, and next week when those regulations change no one gets to carry their approval automatically. The latest science of risk must be available, and if there is even a .0001% chance that it will adversely effect any individual that individual must both know about it and have choice about it, such as mercury in a vaccine, as a basic right to not discriminate and force things on everyone simply because its good enough for you can never mean that it’s also good enough for everyone or anyone. Someone will always be sensitive and always must be guaranteed the right to not be exposed to anything accidentally or outside their control. It only takes one person to ever bring down any unfair cheat of a profit motive in favor of something that has less adverse effects, that more often than not exposure is pollution that spread and contamination by human chemical pollution must be not only regulated or controlled but eliminated.
Ultimately the consequences are:
Elections become irrelevant, tax time is election time
Elections are really tax season which is the due date before taxes are due
Anyone can look at where all of the money has been spent and decide where else might need more money at any time.
The ultimate decisions are not decided by money but rather by fairness and correctness, something that has lost it’s place in our government as it has turned out, in spite of the original intention…. that rallying around a particular flag to get people to spend their tax money there must be met with a certain level of suspicion most of the time… especially when there is a profit motive which is very frequent… people need to be less trick-able and less easily mislead to really improve the quality of the results we get
Corporations need to ultimately take their place in the dog house, or government needs to step up and not be a victim to corporate interests and corporate dollars misleading results and getting things such as laws and changes approved for profit. Misleading people in order to profit must ultimately be reduced and or eliminated.
NO record of where money comes from or where it goes is kept secret.
When interests that go against each other arise its important that they can meet in a safe place and discuss how to better spend money that is going towards pointless parasitic causes that only fight each other and accomplish nothing else.
The ideal consequence is the elimination of a two party system, the elimination of people spending money on someone else’s advice or trickery, and rather people doing what they think is right and being educated rather than made stupid or drugged into submission, and being made to feel confident in their spending rather than feeling like they don’t know how to decide, but rather bringing home the real measurable difference their spending makes and the strong association between what they invest in and what the future brings them. Instead of passing a law like the patriot act that gives up rights people might make much better decisions that would have a greater effect by simply allocating money where they think it would need to be allocated to improve security rather than having the patriot act forced down their throat at gunpoint by some unknown third party. It becomes necessarily clear that Osama must inherently benefit from the patriot act or he wouldn’t have attacked us in the first place! That people can be mislead into spending or making rash decisions regardless, and that systems must be in place almost exclusively to combat this exact phenomenon more-so than anything else, because while we don’t negotiate with terrorists they may negotiate us, that policy is great but practice is greater, and I think that science itself has a lot to offer in that regard speaking in terms of emotional detachment and thinking things through and coming up with practical solutions that are worth spending money on, although chances are the same people proposing any solution for you are the same people that caused the problem, it’s this very methodology that is most beneficial in detecting the real culprit to any type of marking event that most terrorist attacks are ultimately used as, regardless of who started it, it’s more likely that the vested interests that pop up with magical solutions after the fact were involved, and this needs to be understood at a very low level not only by every individual that exists at any given point in time but also inherent in a low level of the governmental mechanism to recognize this and ultimately isolate the true culprits and expose them public-ally for who they are rather than blaming some distant party that can hardly profit, in truth anyone who profits is a suspect, and that the worst enemies already know this and try to hide it. Pointing fingers resolves to whoever pointed it hiding something.
Many people will try to take credit for this idea. I had this idea at least 5 years ago. It’s not a new idea to me. I don’t care who takes credit as long as there are radical changes that are accurate to the philosophy of involvement and counter to the philosophy of detachment and uninvolved, which only breeds conspiracy and localized or worse yet corporate interests, covert meetings, and ultimate theft from less involved players. I’d gladly run into any hostage situation and try to reason with them if only people could be trusted to be human, it would be one thing, however there is no point risking my life to protect any investment that is not my own, that involvement is more dangerous and more of an enemy than anything else, and any form of police state will only breed two groups, one radically afraid and in support of it but mostly only out of fear of not going with the flow of it, and the other radically unimpressed and passionately un-passionate, ultimately giving up on the rest of them for being stupid enough to bring themselves there.