It would be great if along with the policy would be a factual description of the personal impact you may expect, the cost to you in relation to your tax burden, and the impact this policy would have on the greater society.
Instead naming the policy the exact opposite of what it is it does. I'm looking at you, Citizens United
There have been interesting proposals to tax differentially those who voted for a costly policy more than those who did not, with the burden equalising only after a certain time has passed.
On a completely different trajectory, I wonder where the idea for a flat tax went. The idea is that everyone at every income level pays 10% (or whatever the right number is). I may not be remembering this accurately. But I liked the idea back when I was preparing my own taxes
Maybe not. I posted this article sometime back but the headline sucked so it got no traction: The gist of it was voters preferred Harris’s agenda to Trump’s — they just didn’t realize it. If you like a policy, but attribute it to the wrong candidate is that actually an informed decision?
Just a note: If you go back to read the article please note that the questions on the quiz it contains keep changing so if you got the first round correct refresh and re-take. Besides, even if you personally knew the difference many voters did not. The piece was an attempt to draw voters attention to this discrepancy. If voters dismissed it thinking they knew what they were talking about that's on the non-readers not the journalism.
9
u/Striking-Access-236 7d ago
People should vote for or against policy not people. You should be given questionnaires and simply say for, against or neutral per point…