Economy Weird tax idea, choice over spending???

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Alright so say you paid 10k in taxes this year (just using an easy number to work with, the actual number isn't important for this example). Under my proposal you would pay the same amount, but would get to choose between say 10 different categories of spending.

They would look like:

Military
Welfare
Education
Roads/highways
Etc.

If you thought military was super important you could choose 8k to that and then the remaining 2k for education or whatever seems most useful to the nation.

This allows people more say in where their tax dollars go. They are more directly represented. It also forces "the people" to put their money where their mouths are. If something doesnt get much funding under such a system, then "the people" dont care much for it right?

I'd also be open to half of it going to a general fund and the other half getting choice over.

Thoughts?

 

[loyalyolayal]

5k to education, 5k to healthcare.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

5k to education, 5k to healthcare.

Would you prefer such a system over the current one? Can you think of any major flaws?

 

[TheComebackKid]

The idea that Americans have or would ever have a say in how the govt collects and spends their money is extremely naive. Tax collection is not done to supporting spending. Spending is not done to support the peoples interest. Its done to enslave you.

And this should be no surprise as the Bible warns and commands us not to go into debt with people because it leads to slavery. Yet that's what our entire financial and taxing system is...one big debt slavery scheme. And what a shocker...Christians are oblivious.

But don't let that hamper your fantasy discussion.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

The idea that Americans have or would ever have a say in how the govt collects and spends their money is extremely naive. Tax collection is not done to supporting spending. Spending is not done to support the peoples interest. Its done to enslave you.

And this should be no surprise as the Bible warns and commands us not to go into debt with people because it leads to slavery. Yet that's what our entire financial and taxing system is...one big debt slavery scheme. And what a shocker...Christians are oblivious.

But don't let that hamper your fantasy discussion.

I agree it's a far fetched idea, but say it was presented as a valid option. Would you take that over our current setup? Could you forsee any issues that would arise under such a system?

 

[loyalyolayal]

Would you prefer such a system over the current one? Can you think of any major flaws?

Not really, no. I just want Governments all over to focus on education, healthcare and labor.The MIC would not allow for this to happen and would probably attack 4 countries at once to justify their budget and spending.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Not really, no. I just want Governments all over to focus on education, healthcare and labor. Major flaws would the MIC would not allow for this to happen and would probably attack 4 countries at once to justify their budget and spending.

Thanks for your input. What about flaws inherent to the system itself?

 

[loyalyolayal]

Thanks for your input. What about flaws inherent to the system itself?

As long as there's a system, people find a way to exploit it. In a bipartisanship, we could see a majority voting to spend on something needless just to be petty.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I agree it's a far fetched idea, but say it was presented as a valid option. Would you take that over our current setup? Could you forsee any issues that would arise under such a system?

I would expect the government to figure out a work around. If the people indicated that they wanted to spend x amount on education and less on military, for example, then I would expect certain sections of the military to be reclassified as education or something.

The last thing I would expect to result from this system is the American people to controlling how their money is spent.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

With so little faith in the government and its spending, this is seeming more and more of a good idea to me

 

[JDragon]

Alright so say you paid 10k in taxes this year (just using an easy number to work with, the actual number isn't important for this example). Under my proposal you would pay the same amount, but would get to choose between say 10 different categories of spending.

They would look like:

Military
Welfare
Education
Roads/highways
Etc.

If you thought military was super important you could choose 8k to that and then the remaining 2k for education or whatever seems most useful to the nation.

This allows people more say in where their tax dollars go. They are more directly represented. It also forces "the people" to put their money where their mouths are. If something doesnt get much funding under such a system, then "the people" dont care much for it right?

I'd also be open to half of it going to a general fund and the other half getting choice over.

Thoughts?

I made a similar thread a couple years ago:

What I lay out below is a thought experiment; don't stumble across the numbers if they irritate you and try to go with the thought experiment.

My general question is if you would be willing to pay more taxes if you could directly influence where they go.

So let's assume your tax rate is around 30%. Now the proposal goes like this: You pay 2.5% (or so) more in taxes. However, you get to allocate these 2.5% and an additional 2.5% (in other words: 5 percentage points of your 32.5% tax rate or about 15% of the total tax you pay) the way you like.

For example, if you earn 75,000$ a year, you would pay 22,500$ in tax but you would opt for the "democratic" tax scheme and therefore pay 24,375$.

However, only 20,985$ directly goes to the state. The other 3,750$ you can freely allocate.

For example, if you are a space exploration guy like me, you give a high share of it to NASA (or whatever your state's space agency is called).

If you believe veterans get not enough respect, you can allocate money to government programs that do something for them.

If you believe abstinence programs are underfunded, you give them your money.

And so on.




1) What do you think of the general idea?

2) If you do disagree with any proposal that includes "paying more tax", what do you think of the general idea of democratic tax allocation I laid out above?

 

[FIMN]

This is a horrible idea that wouldn't work for obvious reasons.

 

[Otto!]

Althiugh the idea has merit, there would be a lack of coherence. For example, if everyone funds healthcare as a priority, you would have holes elsewhere.

Also, military funding should be based on policy and need, not the will of the people.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I made a similar thread a couple years ago:

I think it's a great idea and people would feel more represented. It's annoying to have money taken out and you feel its pissed into the wind. Plus people wouldn't be annoyed with their tax dollars going to stupid stuff they disagree with

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

This is a horrible idea that wouldn't work for obvious reasons.

Well.... go on

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Althiugh the idea has merit, there would be a lack of coherence. For example, if everyone funds healthcare as a priority, you would have holes elsewhere.

Also, military funding should be based on policy and need, not the will of the people.

What if it was half and half then to avoid gaps? Also as I explained wouldn't gaps just show the people dont want something? Wouldnt it almost be theft to take money for something the majority of Americans disagree with?

 

[FIMN]

Well.... go on

Well clearly the funding assigned for certain things wouldn't match the bill so either things the government wanted to spend on would go unfunded, making the whole legislative and budget process pointless?

 

[nostradumbass]

You can do that now and they're just as likely to spend the money how you want them. What would happen if you told them you wanted your money spent on ___ but they spent it on ____ instead? Also, everybody would put roads and schools down and roads don't cost a trillion dollars/year to maintain.

 

[JDragon]

Althiugh the idea has merit, there would be a lack of coherence. For example, if everyone funds healthcare as a priority, you would have holes elsewhere.

Also, military funding should be based on policy and need, not the will of the people.

I think if something like this gets introduced, there would have to be a certain ramp-up time regarding percentages that can be allocated, and also it would be important to have a long-term fix allocation. Imagine a big military scandal and then everyone would defund the next year.

 

[monster zero]

Each party sets basic standards of 20% divided into categories and then you have to pay 10% flex and it goes to cats you choose.

30% across the board.