1. That's pretty much already the case (lobbyists are paid by someone, and that someone isn't the poor).
2. You make that sound like a bad thing, when it's not.
Given the categories listed on the receipt, which one of those would you really be upset if a rich person decided to put 51% of his taxes to? Medicaid? Pell Grants? How about the National Parks?
"If the wars are important to you, use your money to pay for it, stop using mine," is pretty much my philosophy. Having no control over where my taxes go makes me significantly less pleased with paying them.
Well, that's already the case, but I agree in that this would make it considerably worse. If you look at the government as legal force, then this scheme would amount to paying for influence over a group with legal force.
2. You make that sound like a bad thing, when it's not.
Given the categories listed on the receipt, which one of those would you really be upset if a rich person decided to put 51% of his taxes to? Medicaid? Pell Grants? How about the National Parks?
"If the wars are important to you, use your money to pay for it, stop using mine," is pretty much my philosophy. Having no control over where my taxes go makes me significantly less pleased with paying them.