It’s the goal of all politicians: Find a way to generate tax revenue without angering voters.

It’s the goal of all civic do-gooders: Find a way to encourage more people to show up at the polls on election day.

Well, I think I’ve come up with an idea that manages to kill two birds with the same fiendishly clever stone.

Both of the above-mentioned problems have been addressed, in some fashion or another, over the years — but with limited success. For instance, Washington’s politicians are actually cutting taxes while they increase spending.

How? By ballooning the deficit. There is indeed a cost to this, a terrible and painful cost in fact. But most voters won’t notice until the bills come due. And that’s a few years down the road.

Officials in New Castle have hit upon the scheme of ever-earlier retirements for employees. This allows costs to be shifted from the general fund to the pension fund, which is covered in large part by a special wage tax imposed on all people who work in the city, residents or not.

Non-residents, of course, can’t vote in city elections. Gotcha!

As for voter turnout, we all know it tends to fall somewhere between embarrassing and appalling. Advocates of good government and citizen involvement routinely propose new ideas — Internet voting, same-day registration, etc., to boost turnout.

Typically, these moves are designed to make voting easier. That they cheapen the process and decrease the need to seriously think about candidates and issues is conveniently overlooked.

So how did I manage to develop a concept that solves both of these problems at once? Actually, it’s so simple, so foolproof I’m amazed it isn’t already in effect.

Years ago, many states had what was called a poll tax. In order to vote, you had to pay a tax. The intent was to discourage poor people — especially poor black people — from voting.

Poll taxes are now prohibited in America. But what about about a non-poll tax?

Instead of taxing people who vote, why not tax those who don’t vote? Send every citizen 18 or over a tax bill — say for $100 — every time he or she fails to show up for a general election.

It’s perfect. Not only would the tax draw more people to the polls, it would also generate money from those who don’t go. And here’s the beautiful part: The politicians have no need to worry about these disgruntled taxpayers, because they don’t vote. Why care what they think?

Some non-voters might object, trying to argue there is some constitutional right to refrain from voting. They’ll claim the decision not to cast a ballot is a form of protest protected by the First Amendment.