This came to me last night - I was wondering if there are any obvious flaws in it before I send it off to my Congress people:

Broadening the tax base is important, if done correctly. But so is broadening the involvement of the citizenry in choosing their federal representatives. The debt ceiling battle shows the dangers of letting a small minority hold the country hostage to their demands. Broader representation in Congress will lead to more opportunities for compromise and greater discussion of alternatives by those in the middle.

Many countries require their citizens to vote in national elections. We don't. But we don't need to make it mandatory to increase participation. We can use carrots.

The IRS receives about 141M individual tax returns a year. About 54M from joint filers, about 87M from the rest.

I propose that in national election years we do the following.

Offer a $100 refundable tax credit for non-joint filers, $200 for joint filers who check a box saying they voted in that year's national election. No proof will be required (people already have to swear that the return is accurate). It's available for people who take the standard deduction. In the summer before the election, PSAs would publicize the credit and urge people to vote in the fall election.

It would be a pilot program to run for 2 cycles (2012 and 2016).

The cost in 2013 would be about $20B at full participation, and similarly for 2017. The cuts could be offset by cuts to Defense programs.

Advantages:
1) Compensates people who have to take unpaid time off work to vote.
2) Increased interest and participation in federal elections.
3) Small additional stimulus to people in 2013. (Every little bit helps.)
4) Modest cost. If it is extended beyond 2016 then it won't break the budget.
5) No additional tax return paperwork.

Disadvantage:
1) "OMG! Obama's trying to use the IRS to spy on voters!!!111"
2) Works against Republican efforts to restrict voting, so they'll oppose it.
3) Modest cost.

Does this sound stupid? Am I missing anything?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.

http://docs.google.c...spZAHxF-GO2eIqavw

All proxies must be received by the Inspectors before 5 p.m., Alaska daylight Time on Thursday, June 24, 2010, to be valid for the annual meeting. You can also cast your ballot in person on the floor of the annual meeting on June 26 in Craig, Alaska. Be sure to vote to be eligible for the voting incentive of $25, which you can elect to donate to Sealaska Heritage Institute by checking the box at the bottom of the proxy or ballot.

Yes, that's not a national election, but rather for an Alaska Native corporation, but I don't see why my proposed refundable credit would be illegal. What's the rationale?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.

I can understand why one wouldn't want to directly pay people to vote. There's too much opportunity for abuse by winking and nudging and cajoling for a particular outcome.

But "walking around money" - cash to get out the vote - is legal everywhere - http://www.slate.com/id/2202955/

In 2004, John Kerry spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Philadelphia street money, and ward leaders received checks for as much as $8,000. Individual volunteers can generally expect anywhere from $10 to $200, depending on the location and the type of work they're doing.

The practice is legal everywhere—it's protected by the First Amendment—but some states have tougher restrictions than others. In Philadelphia, committee people can hand out cash for any reason, as long as they're not paying someone for their vote. (The U.S. Code prohibits vote purchasing.) In New Jersey, campaign officials have to pay the workers in checks and their names, addresses, and amounts paid must be submitted to the Election Law Enforcement Commission. Presidential campaigns are always required to report the money to the Federal Elections Commission.

Federal law trumps state law. I don't see a legal reason why this couldn't be done. It's a checkbox on a form, not someone directly giving someone money.

Yes, many people would lie about it and just take the money even if they didn't vote. I don't mind. It's more cash in the economy. And some number will be encouraged to turn out anyway, so it's still a good thing.

Cheers,
Scott.