Thought experiment: Democratic tax allocation

[VulcanNervPinch]

And that's the other downside. It opens the door a crack to crackpot thought like this:

Brilliant idea!

But let's just take it one step further. Let's allow people to spend 100% of the money they make how they want.

 

[Greoric]

And that's the other downside. It opens the door a crack to crackpot thought like this:

Not an argument.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

Not an argument.

Well, of course we're not having an argument. Nobody can make a cogent argument that in a nation of 400 million people that

Let's allow people to spend 100% of the money they make how they want.

isn't sheer insanity.

 

[Greoric]

Well, of course we're not having an argument. Nobody can make a cogent argument that in a nation of 400 million people that

isn't sheer insanity.

So you need people to make your decisions with what you do with your money? That's fine if you do, but why are you obligating anyone else to do that?

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

So you need people to make your decisions with what you do with your money? That's fine if you do, but why are you obligating anyone else to do that?

I have to leave, so I don't have time for your nonsense trolling.

True 100% individual choice in how 100% of your money is spent means no taxation.
No taxation means no government.
No government means anarchism.
Only teenagers and retards think anarchy is a good plan.

 

[Greoric]

I have to leave, so I don't have time for your nonsense trolling.

True 100% individual choice in how 100% of your money is spent means no taxation.
No taxation means no government.
No government means anarchism.

Can't fool you!

Only teenagers and retards think anarchy is a good plan.

Not an argument.

 

[CableandThanos]

so whats 5% of zero, like 47% of tax payers don't pay federal income taxes?

Also you can say 5% goes to education, but when teh gov gives it to the state and they use it on administartion cost, what good does that do?

 

[CableandThanos]

As a nation we already spend more on education, health care, and the military than any other country(ies) with disappointing results.

I would like to see those areas revolutionized to free up money and improve outcomes.

Meanwhile, i would like to see my tax dollars go toward infrastructure: roads, bridges, plumbing cable, solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc.
Creates jobs, helps economy, helps climate change, reduces dependence on fossil fuels, probably some other stuff.

edit: and I would be totally for this, if there was a guarantee, like if a wizard proposed it.

Yep, donate that 5% of solar power and have the obama admin give contracts to solendra and then watch them go bankrup with your money in 6months.

or donate that money to education and then wehn the gov gives it to the states, they use it for admin cost. Not really helping any situation.

 

[Snackbar]

I have to leave, so I don't have time for your nonsense trolling.

True 100% individual choice in how 100% of your money is spent means no taxation.
No taxation means no government.
No government means anarchism.
Only teenagers and retards think anarchy is a good plan.

You do realize personal income tax makes up less than 50% of government revenues right?

Some people have this zany idea that our consumption should be taxed, not our labour.

 

[Blackened]

If citizens were allowd to allocate 100% of their tax burden as they see fit, you would find out quickly what services the state offered really mattered to people, and what "services" are just vote buying and handing out money and favors to the connected.

If taxation was voluntary, and the individual was able to allocate 100% of their tax burden as they see fit, then you would be approaching a moral system of social and financial interaction.

Another added benefit would be that the citizen has to be sold on the value of any given service, rather than being forced to pay for things whether they like it or not, or whether it violates their moral code or not (for example, War).

Solid post.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

You do realize personal income tax makes up less than 50% of government revenues right?

Some people have this zany idea that our consumption should be taxed, not our labour.

a) I know Gregoric well enough to know what he meant. See his response for confirmation.

b) In what way is that relevant? Consumption tax only would still be 'your money' being taxed. It's just on the back end instead of the front.
Then, as is, it will sometimes be spent in ways you don't approve of.
And, if you buy his notion that that should never happen, then you'd have to eliminate consumption tax as well.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

i'm a federal employee now, and i see everyday the fraud, waste and abuse of tax payer dollars in full effect. the amount of projects tha tmake no sense, get shitcanned halfway through, or end up not being used upon completion is astonishing.

I've worked in both the public and private sector for many years each.
When it comes to fraud, waste, abuse, and bad ideas that don't last - I haven't seen private be at all any better.
Certain types of people are just predisposed to bitch less about private inefficiency is all.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

If citizens were allowd to allocate 100% of their tax burden as they see fit, you would find out quickly what services the state offered really mattered to people, and what "services" are just vote buying and handing out money and favors to the connected.

If taxation was voluntary, and the individual was able to allocate 100% of their tax burden as they see fit, then you would be approaching a moral system of social and financial interaction.

Another added benefit would be that the citizen has to be sold on the value of any given service, rather than being forced to pay for things whether they like it or not, or whether it violates their moral code or not (for example, War).

Solid post.

It falls apart pretty fast, once you put a little thought into it.

###########

Many services can't/don't/shouldn't target who they benefit.

For example, supposing when cops pull over and arrest a drunk driver, everyone who drives in the same area benefits - the sensible people who volunteered to pay for it and the freeloaders/idiots/drunk driving fans who didn't.
When your town builds a flood preventing drainage system, everybody in the area benefits - people who paid and people who didn't.
When armed forced prevent invasion/bombing of your country and your favorite oil-supplying nation, everybody benefits - people who paid and people who didn't.

So where's the incentive to contribute? Just kick back and let some other suckers shoulder the load.
Until eventually the suckers get tired of being played, and enough of them quit, too, and then whole thing collapses, because there aren't enough people to keep it going any more.

###########

And that doesn't even address what happens when you get people choosing diametrically opposed goals. Or choosing goals that the vast majority find utterly vile.

For example, suppose some people put up 5M for the purposes bombing country X and overthrowing its leader, while some people put up 5M for supporting country X's leadership against the rebels. Now what? You do both? Or just let the team with the most money win? Just openly and directly make "money buys policy" the procedure?

What happens when some people put up 1M earmarked for building statues in town squares with plaques depicting hooded KKK members hanging black people and longing for the days of white superiority?
Or maybe a grown man sodomizing a young boy and a plaque describing the beauty of philia and how it needs to be legalized and accepted?
Those going to go up under your plan? Because the money's been raised, and letting individuals be themselves and fund whatever they value is going to create this great "moral system".

 

[Snackbar]

a) I know Gregoric well enough to know what he meant. See his response for confirmation.

b) In what way is that relevant? Consumption tax only would still be 'your money' being taxed. It's just on the back end instead of the front.
Then, as is, it will sometimes be spent in ways you don't approve of.
And, if you buy his notion that that should never happen, then you'd have to eliminate consumption tax as well.

Gregoric's post didn't imply abolishing taxation, he simply stated individuals should have 100% control over their spending.

It is relevant to the greater theme of the individual having control over their taxes, whether that be allowing them to earmark a percentage of their income tax, or allowing them to tailor their spending habits to control their tax rate.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

Gregoric's post didn't imply abolishing taxation, he simply stated individuals should have 100% control over their spending.

It is relevant to the greater theme of the individual having control over their taxes, whether that be allowing them to earmark a percentage of their income tax, or allowing them to tailor their spending habits to control their tax rate.

You can't have 100% control over the spending within a tax system.
As noted by others - when you completely control what causes your money goes to that's private voluntary charitable giving.
Taxation is by definition determined by something other than pure individual choice (representatives and voting if you're fortunate, dictatorship if you're not). That's a key element. When you have voluntary contribution, you encounter the problems I outlined above in 53.

(And btw, yes, Gregoric does generally advocate things like abolishing taxation completely. I suspect his persona is just fabricated clownposting, but it's possible he's serious.)

 

[DragRacer]

I'll tell you who would really win in this scenario.. The media and advertising firms.

Because the level of advertisements begging for allocations would be epic.