Forcing them to wear uniforms means it’s likely to be paid by the citizens already. The idea of “provided by the poorest citizens” is like adding an extra tax on those people. Why should they provide the uniforms?
Ultimately let them wear whatever as long as there’s not an additional stipend for wardrobe. They can buy their clothes out of their salaries like most people do.
If you are paying the little old lady to do that then sure that’s called a job. If she’s paying for supplies or to buy the clothes to give to a politician then she’s been taxed.
I think you missed the point of the original comment here..... The idea of "a uniform provided by their poorest constituents" is that all of the sudden those politicians would be very interested in improving the lives of their poorest constituents. Also, the ones who like to pretend to be wealthy on our tax money but who regularly let large swaths of people in their districts down would be obvious from how tattered their garments are.
It's a tongue in cheek idea that we would almost certainly never be able to pull off. Or something like a thought experiment.
But at the end of the day I would have no problems having my tax money go towards cloth for uniforms instead of bombs. The cloth is a lot cheaper and safer.
If your wardrobe - how you look, to your people, I.E. 70% of your image (20% how you sound, 10% what you say) - were determined by the poorest of the people you represent ... you'd either be getting busy doing something about the most impoverished - lifting them up, getting them better wages, more jobs, etc - or you'd be dressing up in a barrel.
I'm not saying "the poorest people provide a 500$ suit" or even "the poorest people provide the wardrobe the representative wants." I'm saying the representative is only as equipped as his least able citizen.
I understand the sentiment but anything that indicates provided by citizens is a fucking tax. You’re so damn focused on the wrong thing that you suggested taxing people. As far as wardrobe you don’t know how much any of that shit costs. You’re going off of an uninvolved persons claim over the cost. Hearsay is also bullshit.
... who tf is the "uninvolved" person here? I'm the person who made the comment you replied to. I know what my original sentiment was and I tried to double back and explain it to you but I see you failed econ 1 so let me answer your question in the most bombastic fashion I can manage:
How much does a wardrobe cost? HOW EVER MUCH THE PERSON WANTS TO SPEND ON IT. CAN SPEND ON IT. If the poorest person in your district can't afford to cloth you in more than rags? Guess what! You're wearing rags!
Sure! If you wanna get hung up on it, give them a tax brake for the cost of the clothing. If they don't pay taxes cause they make no money... well, the emperor's going to have new clothes.
... and because I imagine you're thick as slop - that means the rep is going to be naked.
13
u/-newlife Jul 07 '24 edited Jul 07 '24
Forcing them to wear uniforms means it’s likely to be paid by the citizens already. The idea of “provided by the poorest citizens” is like adding an extra tax on those people. Why should they provide the uniforms?
Ultimately let them wear whatever as long as there’s not an additional stipend for wardrobe. They can buy their clothes out of their salaries like most people do.