A mere 70 million could defeat a tax increase? And you don't see the issue?
With coasianism... the money would be counted
after the last participant had spent their money. So how could anybody know
beforehand exactly how much either side would spend? Are you assuming that the rich people would know
beforehand that the poor people would spend $67 million? In other words, are you assuming that all the rich people are omniscient? Don't you think it's stupid to assume that anybody is omniscient?
But let's say that 7,014,114 people
did spend $67,100,000 for the tax increase and 5,653,637 people
did spend $70,000,000 against the tax increase. Feel free to double check my math but this would mean that the average proponent would spend around $9.50 and the average opponent would spend around $12.40.
Let's say that you're a proponent and I'm an opponent. You'd get your $9.50 back and I'd give you $12.40. You'd lose the tax increase... but you'd gain $12.40. I'd lose $12.40... but I'd avoid a tax increase.
Don't these numbers sound iffy? Why are you only spending around $10 bucks and why am I only spending around $12 bucks? We're talking about a trip to McDonalds here. I'm guessing that the tax increase would cost me a lot more than a trip to McDonalds. Which means that a tax increase would benefit you a lot more than a trip to McDonalds.
Let's say that a tax increase would set me back $10,000 dollars. Would I spend this to try and prevent the tax increase? Even if I won... I'd still be out $10,000 dollars. How likely would it be that I'd lose? Why would you, a proponent, spend more than the tax increase would be worth to you? You wouldn't.
So how much should I spend? Let's say that I spend $9,000 dollars. How much do you spend? You know that I'm not going to spend more than the tax increase. You know I'm going to spend less than the tax increase. You could spend $1... but you understand that the winnings are divided
proportionally. The more you spend... the more you get. So how much do you spend?
Let's say that you spend $500 and your side loses. You get your $500 back and you get my $9,000 (we're pretending this would be the proportional amount). You lose the tax increase... but got $9,000. I won so there's no tax increase... but I did have to pay $9,000.... which means that I'm $1000 dollars better off than I would have been if the tax rate had increased.
The issue is whether the $9,000 in your pocket is better than the $10,000 dollars that would have been in the government's pocket if the tax rate had increased. How much of that $10,000 dollars would have ended up in your pocket in the form of benefits?
In any case, I completely fail to see how coasianism is clearly and obviously beneficial for the wealthy. So either come up with better numbers or come up with an argument against coasianism that isn't dumb.