Changes should be revenue neutral

The per vote subsidy is probably fine, but it's significant enough of a change that it should be campaigned upon first. Overall, I think the proposed legislation is too big of a burden on taxpayers. In an example of a $100 donation, here's my understanding of the proposed scenario: Donor: $100-$75(rebate)=$25 actual cost. Party: Accepts and spends $100 on campaign. Then, receives $50 expense refund and ~$10/vote subsidy. So, the party ends up with $60 and whatever they bought with the $100. Tax Payers: $75(donation rebate) + $50(expense rebate) + $10(per vote subsidy) = $135 total tax payers' burden. More than the original donation!? In addition, our debt is financed so there are interest charges in play. Finally, political parties don't pay taxes so there is no revenue to the tax base. If I misunderstand the numbers, someone please correct me. Again, I think this proposed legislation puts too big of a burden on the tax payers. At a minimum, any changes should be revenue neutral to the tax payers. If we're going to add per vote subsidies, then we should reduce donation rebates and not include expense rebates.


How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
Donate Get Involved