|
In response to
"You still haven't explained to me how it's not still the government paying most of it with the tax return -- nm"
by
Guigue
|
Have you asked that of me yet? I don't remember seeing it anywhere.
|
On the 75% tax return and the 50% election expences rebate, I support both and there is a difference between them and the direct price per vote which I'm still in favour of, but only loosely now.
The logic of the 50% election expences rebate is that it is the purest subsidy, because running for office is expensive whether you win or lose and all candidates are entitled to it so long as they receive 5% of the vote. This is the subsidy that costs the government the most amount of money, but it is the best way to ensure that campaigns are conducted with the most strength. I can run as an individual and so long as I still receive 5% of the local vote, I receive the 50% of my expences, thus allowing me to pay for a campaign without going into hock.
There's also a very practical argument for this subsidy because banks will often use the subsidy as guarantee for candidates that require loans for upfront expences of campaigning, like setting up offices, signs, etc. Without that subsidy, hundreds of candidates would never get off the ground.
The tax credit is also an acceptable subsidy to me because it still encourages people to donate, which is the proactive part on their behalf, and the onus remains on the parties to convince people to support them before that subsidy kicks in. The parties are still directly responsible to the donors of the party rather than receiving funds that the parties are not accountable to anyone for.
Hope that explains the difference between the three as I see them.
|
Responses:
|
