Okay, I believe I have grasped the idea now, and prefer it to what I thought you meant earlier. Still don't see any point to it. If the threshold to exceed return is less than votes necessary to provide funding, then I suppose that makes proposals more likely to be funded.
I'm not convinced that's a good thing. If a proposal can't be funded through ordinary organic votes, there's probably a good reason, and it shouldn't be funded. Making taxes more likely to be spent is a bad thing generally, and spending them on poor proposals isn't better.
Taxes are bad, always. I'm agin' 'em.
I'm specifically against this one for multiple reasons, the foremost being that it is horribly regressive, and is going to put downward pressure on author rewards in combination with the halving of author rewards included in the EIP. When the poll was taken on @blocktrades post, tax funding was rejected. I am not surprised to see it being proposed for inclusion in the HF even so. Every part of the EIP simply makes profiteering more profitable, and I expect to see you profiteering advocates moving on to your next target soon, as the userbase plummets, Steem price crashes, and market cap decreases substantially.
Maybe then the community remaining can undertake reasonable mechanisms to curtail profiteering and promote capital gains.
We'll see then. Well, you won't. You'll be gone with the rest of the profiteers, on to the next profit center.
Enjoy your journey.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.