Thought experiment: Democratic tax allocation

[InvestigatorIL]

Its a fine idea but there would need to be a checklist of things to choose from. People would be giving $ to religion, war and other ridiculous causes

 

[JDragon]

Sounds like it would be the equivalent of making charitable donations towards government programs, except it wouldn't be a tax write off, and it wouldn't be optional.

I don't think many would go for it.

Yes it would be optional. Either you pay less taxes or you pay more but have a say in where they go.

 

[IDL]

Yes it would be optional. Either you pay less taxes or you pay more but have a say in where they go.

So it is like charitable donations to government programs then by the sounds of it. But not tax deductible.

Might work better if you just set it up like an optional donation on the tax form with no 2.5% min/max required. Sort of like when you go to the grocery checkout and they ask if you want to put 5$ towards kids camps, or cancer research or something.

 

[JDragon]

Its a fine idea but there would need to be a checklist of things to choose from. People would be giving $ to religion and other ridiculous causes

We would not be getting rid of representative democracy. In a way it is more of a like / dislike system for state agencies etc. with your wallets.

 

[Cooz]

a system like that would never work. Ever.

You have influence on how your taxes are spent by voting those into office that share your interests.

Focus less on emails and extreme vetting and push candidates (at any level) to tell is what exactly the eff they will do with our money.

 

[InvestigatorIL]

We would not be getting rid of representative democracy. In a way it is more of a like / dislike system for state agencies etc. with your wallets.

I would be ok with it... I would probably choose issues like homelessness, public schools system and infrastructure

 

[kpt018]

Fun thought experiment, but I hate it.

The first massive issue with it is that you cannot know if the things you allocate your tax dollars to will be funded enough to accomplish the desired result. What if you supported free college for example an pay an additional 5% only to find that you were among the 1% of people in the country to do so and it impacted so few people? The money is essentially wasted.

The other problem is that we would see things that are necessary become underfunded and people generally would have a hard time getting behind something that could be huge but it's hard to see it.

And finally, I simply don't trust the general public is educated enough to decide on how to allocate tax dollars.

 

[Lead]

My state actually has something very similar to this. You do have to register though and renew it each year at a specific time. The clients who do it seem to really like it.

Edit- I had it a little wrong because it's out of their businesses tax, not personal taxes. It's called pa eitc and its to donate taxes straight to an education program in the state. Some private schools actually benefit from it.

 

[nostradumbass]

We have that already. Ever heard of charities?

TeIling you where only 5% goes also kind of illuminates the fact that they waste most of your money on shit you don't want them to. Why the hell should I have to pay more for them to tell me where any of it goes? I should already have some say in where my existing tax money goes. Basically admitting "we're going to steal your money and do whatever the fuck we want with it."

 

[Anung Un Rama]

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.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

no, for two reasons. 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.

so even if i could 'say' where the extra tax revenue goes, who's to say it's being efficiently spent.....

anything that would involve more taxes, i'm automatically against. just being subject to VAT while living in Germany, and i was cool on that bullshit

 

[uncommon]

How about cut the taxes and then you can donate them if you want to?

If you are not mandating taxes to a certain degree to a specific program that suggests they arent in dire need of forcing taxpayers out of their money, therefore that portion should be cut.

 

[Phelly2]

no, for two reasons. 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.

so even if i could 'say' where the extra tax revenue goes, who's to say it's being efficiently spent.....

anything that would involve more taxes, i'm automatically against. just being subject to VAT while living in Germany, and i was cool on that bullshit

Ha. Good post.
I've been a federal employee for about 10 years. Of all the agencies I've worked for and worked with, I've seen first hand the waste and abuse in all of them. A lot of that waste is due to politics and beaurocracy, a problem that is probably not even fixable.

I agree with Uncommon's post when he basically said if the issue is not important enough to mandate taxes to, then shouldn't it be handled by charity? That would be not only more efficient, but also (more importantly) entirely voluntary.

If you're going to take people's money against their will (i.e., taxation), then it should be for something that's SO mandatory that you don't get a choice. It's either we do this, or society crumbles.

 

[lookslikeseen]

Rather the option to opt out of social welfare taxation and use personal income to fund my own safety net.

I liked your post but the more I think on it the more I may disagree. Do you feel there may be a threshold to income where you no longer are allowed to "opt out of social welfare"?

For instance you make 100k or more, you get a percentage of you income taxed for that purpose then get to choose where the rest of your taxes go.

 

[Greoric]

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.

 

[Limeade]

This idea only focuses on discretionary spending and ignores mandatory spending programs that are written into the law and make up the majority of federal spending.

Also, the legislative branch sets the spending level through annual appropriations. You can't have congress set a cap on NASA spending, then exceed it with extra funds. That would undermine our checks and balance system and ability to limit government. Not to mention a horribly undemocratic idea because it is an end run around elected representative institutions

 

[ehtheist]

Like a project to build a statue of 'Deez Nutz'?

Actually, yes – crap like that precisely.

You give people free reign to allocate their tax dollars and do you think it’s going to flood into orphanages, charities, etc etc? I doubt it. You give people free reign with their expendable income and it usually goes into something wasteful, unnecessary, and utterly frivolous. Anyone remember crap like the potato salad kickstarter?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/potato-salad-kickstarter_n_5563290.html

You give people free reign with their tax dollars and you’ll see it go towards crap like building a Deez Nuts statue or getting Jedi added to the census or birth control vending machines or shit which is either something that should be tremendously low priority or something that is an utter waste. I’d love to be proven wrong and, while I like the idea behind citizens getting to choose where some of their taxes go, I expect it would largely lead to a bunch of bullshit getting funded. On top of this, the government would still be implementing these frivolous projects, and you’d end up with a stupid waste of money being done by a group that’s as efficient as a one legged man in an asskicking contest. It’s a sad statement, but I think the government will actually be better at allocating these funds than people in general…

Maybe I’m too cynical but this is how I see this going down…

 

[JDragon]

Not to mention a horribly undemocratic idea because it is an end run around elected representative institutions

What could be more democratic than direct influence of the people?

 

[Fawlty]

This idea only focuses on discretionary spending and ignores mandatory spending programs that are written into the law and make up the majority of federal spending.

Also, the legislative branch sets the spending level through annual appropriations. You can't have congress set a cap on NASA spending, then exceed it with extra funds. That would be undermine our checks and balance system and ability to limit government. Not to mention a horribly undemocratic idea because it is an end run around elected representative institutions

Mostly agreed, it's a terrible idea while still being a great thought experiment. The idea of accepting a tax raise if we have more direct control of the money is a very appealing idea.

If we think lobbying influence is bad today, it would get completely insane under this system. Imagine the pressure on lawmakers to allocate these excess funds in certain ways, within these programs. And this would also add a larger amount of bureaucratic reshuffling every year, probably reducing efficiency.

This is the reality of our discretionary spending:

I should hope that I don't need to point out where the problem is here (though Obama has made small improvements in recent years). It's very obvious. Cut that shit to 40% and raise everything else accordingly.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

Most people will agree to do this but won't trust it will go to the right area, no matter what.

Yeah, I like it in theory, but I don't feel good about the applicability. There's a lack of oversight/accountability and a lot of shell games that can be played.

Lotteries were sold to most state voters on the premise that "all of the extra revenue will go directly to education funding". In most states, education budgeting didn't go up a penny.