The repeal the 19th meme is funny but now I'm not sure that is as much of a problem.
The property requirement meant that only those with skin in the game were the ones who got to decide who governed. Without it we have paupers and indolents with the power to spend money that they did not earn or pay.
That inevitably leads to the death spiral from the famous quote:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Obviously no political movement can form based on this principle since our current "conservatives" are too spineless to even fight for voter ID requirements. But at least it is within the overton window allowing for public discussion.
Sounds like the draft should be ended, and the militia system be reinstituted.
Taxation isn't "having skin in the game". There is never a direct benefit to you. That's why I recommend bonds as a form of funding.
They absolutely do. Your issue is that women vote for it at a higher rate, not that men don't do it.
"Taxation is theft" has become a meme, but it's basically true; you, as a taxpaying citizen, have no real say in how your tax money is spent. Sure, you can elect officials that might spend how you like, but that's no guarantee they won't pick this one time to start taking bribes. You'll have a hard time voting in a politician that promises to spend 100% to your liking in the first place. You could run yourself, but not for every position in existence.
Can you explain bonds and how they might solve this problem?
No.
I just spent the past hour trying to explain it in a giant comment and now I accidentally hit the back button and lost everything. Links and all.
...
I'm going to fight through my unbridled rage and sorrow and give you a small bullet list of the concept.
Sorry to hear, I know that feel.
That's great, I didn't know. If they're seperated in a useful manner, maybe I'd consider it for investing surplus money.
I'm unclear on this 'negative yield' thing, though, it sounds like it demotivates financial investment so what's the benefit to the person paying into it?
As awesome as that scenario would be, I'd count that as a strong incentive for parasites to go all out trying to prevent this from being permitted. I actually consider this to be the true motivator for anyone fighting against the idea of tax erasure (politically, I guess it could be called tax reform).
Let me be clearer about this. They can be. They just normally aren't. The reason for this is the same reason a cable TV provider grants you access to 4 of the 6 channels you want along with 200 others you don't. Bundling is the objective to prevent low demand from effecting a business. In politics, the same protectionism applies. You'd have to have a government willing to actually run a program that would respond to voter demand through funding.
And yes, the huge benefit to this is that the voter also becomes a literal investor in his own community and state. The state is required to benefit him in the long run, and fulfilling those benefits makes a high-trust society between the state and the people.
Financially, it shouldn't ever be done. For my purposes, I'm only using it to counter the argument against profitability.
However, for a financial justification, negative yield bonds are still purchased to counter inflation, while assuming that the state will still repay them.
For example, Let's say that back in 2015, you went out and bought a $100, 5 year, US bond that gives you 5% annual interest. When you sell back the bond today, you will get back $128.34. That's nice. It's a profit of $28.34... But inflation is a thing in most countries. The US has around 3% annual inflation. $100 in 2015 is worth the same purchasing power as $109.32 today.
All the numbers went up, but think about this for a second. Inflation causes prices to go up, which means your purchasing power goes down. If you had simply had a $100 bill in your pocket for 5 years, you would have effectively lost $9.32 in purchasing power. Check the graphs on the right hand side of the page. That $100 bill would have bought you significantly fewer snickerdoodles in 2020 than it did in 2015. But because you had a bond, you got $28.34 back... That offsets the $9.32 you lost in purchasing power.
So because of the bond, you gained $19.02 in purchasing power. (28.34-9.32)
What throws people off is the lack of a time reference. I'd argue this done maliciously, so let me be more specific.
In 2020, because of that bond, you are able to buy 19.02 2015-USD more snickerdoodles than you could in 2015... but the cash register will have read 28.34 2020-USD.
The purpose of money is to preserve purchasing power through time. Because of intentional inflation, your currency is actually losing purchasing power all day long.
Bonds and saving's accounts are meant to counter the very problem that government and the banks intentionally created for you. "I'm stealing your money. Quick! Give it to me now and I promise to steal less of it over time!"
Okay, so let's say you don't live in the US. Let's say you live in Venezuela.
Same example. If you had had 100 2015-Bolivars in your pocket it would be worth... um... 5e-9... which is actually worth less than the paper it's printed on. When your currency is worth less than itself, that's a sign of inflation. Remember that the next time John Green rants about pennies.
But let's say you were a mad man and trusted the Venezuelan government to pay back your bonds, and because you were a party loyalist, they did!
But let's say that the bond's interest rate is -5% every year. You're left with 77.84 Bolivars. Now, as bad as that is, it's better than the literally worthless paper in your pocket. Just make sure they don't pay you back the Bolivar in cash (which is what most governments try to do).
That should tell you what investors are thinking when they are buying German government bonds at negative interest rates, they expect inflation to be so bad, that taking a guaranteed loss is better than them keeping currency in their pockets.
Well, yeah.