In response to
"Have you asked that of me yet? I don't remember seeing it anywhere. "
by
Name Withheld By Request
|
All right, that's fine, but I don't think you can say "Canadians could fund the parties themselves"
Posted by
Guigue (aka Guigue)
Nov 29 '08, 14:39
|
I guess you can argue it's a more direct way of deciding who gets the money, but most of the money still comes from the government. To me, in the end, the idea remains the same, we all put money in this big pool with our taxes, and the government distribute it to the parties.
Your way, the people deciding who gets what are the people donating. With subsidies, it's everyone who votes. Personally, I think everyone who votes represent more people
I still don't see an argument that it would cost us (or the government) less.
And I kind of asked you in this post (but it was lost in a sea of posts I guess)
- link (www.slickertalk.com)
So the government ends up paying 7.50 of the $10 donation? -- nm
(No message)
|
Responses:
|