I'm curious. If you could choose where your taxes went (let's say a percentage split---ex: 10% to education, 10% to health etc.), what would you choose? Would you feel better paying your taxes? Would it be better for the country as a whole, or does this undermine the whole republic and the caste of elected officials? I think it might be interesting to float something like this, or maybe you could have discretion over a fixed percentage of your taxes. I would choose much less defense spending, and more spending on foreign aid and infrastructure, personally. I look forward to your choices.
Good idea and question. I don't know about specific numbers, but generally, same as you -- a very little chunk to defense and the rest to education/health care/foreign aid. I realize a sizeable defense budget is necessary, but I would assume a large chunk of our population would willingly choose to invest a large chunk of their pie in defense anyway, so it would be sufficiently covered. Is a system like this feasible, and why hasn't it been discussed? I'm not so sure it undermines the caste of elected officials -- I think part of their job is to effectively execute the budget, in addition to shaping it. In this system, they would have less say in shaping it, and more burden in executing. Wouldn't a system like this truly represent the desires of the people, down to the individual, instead of an elected official who not everyone voted for?
In terms of governance, it sounds like a cluster**** to me. In addition to being incredibly unwieldy, the allocations of funds would have little to do with how much it costs to succeed in a given arena. And, an overarching strategy for success as a nation would be impossible.
Would it be one vote for one tax return? Or would you get more input if you pay more? And then what about the people who don't pay federal income taxes - do they get input? Obviously, I know the answer to those questions, but they indicate why it wouldn't work - you are effectively disenfranchising some people based on income. It would make me feel better, but it's not really practical.
No because the news media would sway people differently and you would have every side of each industry trying insane tactics to get the needed funding. Esp for defense.
Sounds interesting but not practical for the most part. Maybe if we get to decide 1% of our tax allocation, it would be a fun experiment.
I don't think anyone knows the best allocation of resources, especially our government. Clearly, our primary focus is this paranoia that everyone is out to get us, and we need to spend an exorbitant amount of money on defense to maintain the, don't F- with us, image, whether we really need it or not. And we don't. Isn't that already happening as far as our parties and politicians?
In GA, we have a 100% tax credit you can get for donations to private schools (up to $2,500). Essentially it is directing a portion of your taxes. Personally, I hate the credit, because I don't want that money funneled into private schools (would be more okay if such a credit was allowed for public school donations).
I agree that capital allocation is poor now, but it'd be even worse allowing individual taxpayers to decide. Capitalism is a pretty good method of allocating capital and it relies on many people making individual decisions, but it works because they get feedback from the market about what works and by how much and they each feel the sting of failure and the euphoria of success. In allocating your taxes, you don't get anything close to adequate feedback to make optimal choices. You don't know if your money is being wasted or would be better used elsewhere. At least in the current system, you have politicians who are generally incented to make sure the country/state/county/city are okay because they are more likely to get re-elected in that environment. That's not a great mechanism either, but it's better.
We let individual voters decide on their political choices because we think it is individuals who are best fit to decide what is right for themselves. I can think of some reasons why that framework wouldn't fit perfectly for taxation, but not one that is overwhelmingly compelling. Problems can be dealt with by making a difference between discretionary and forced spending. Programs that do not benefit income tax payers per say would probably go under the forced category, unfortunately, as a matter of practicality, but even some degree of variability will, I think, make people more satisfied that their tax money is going in the right place (at least at a more frequent rate than the current system), and might better reflect the individuals that are best placed to judge how policy plays a role in their personal lives. It would also be a great way to educate most Americans about the pertinent issues of the day, and get them involved in them.
I like the topic. I think 19% flat is appropriate for individuals & all corporations, regardless of their technical 'domicile.' 3% infrastructure 2% social security/public retirement system 4% higher education & human services 1% FEMA/disaster $ 1.5% defense 3.5% local government [police, fire, schools] based on a county pool 4% single payor health care No stupid crop subsidies, no foreign aid, no subsidizing ridiculous tax loop holes for hedgefund/investing/Romney types, & no subsidizing multinational corps [GE]
What comes to mind is that the average citizen does not know the level of funding necessary to protect our national security in certain aspects (defense, homeland security, etc). That makes the average citizen uniquely unqualified to allocate tax dollars effectively.
I think it's a fine enough idea as 150 million quantitative samples would probably ensure even allocations among different categories that wouldn't change that much year-to-year. As long as Congress and the President are still determining total expenditures I think percentages would just make them a bit more resourceful and thoughtful with the same amount of dollars. Also, you forgot to ban or even allocate deficit spending, so have fun watching lobbyists completely invalidate your numbers. I hate filing taxes a lot more than paying them, so it'd probably be no concern to me as I'd skip that part of the form.
What makes the average politician uniquely qualified to allocate tax dollars effectively for defense? There are plenty of Americans who volunteer for the military. I don't necessarily think your core assumption is true. Let's assume that deficit spending, and the amount undertaken would be restricted to say, hell, 1% of GDP in normal times, then a discretionary amount in a crisis like 2008 (but only as approximately bad as that). Valid point. Let's say, for discussion's sake, you include payroll taxes, and sales taxes,and you frame the system in discretionary and forced funding. Certain programs that protect the interests of those that do not pay income taxes would work conventionally, but everything else would be fair game.
Access to classified information would be a start. Congress has the benefit of information that the average American does not and should not have (due to the sensitive nature of the info). Access to the advice of the best minds the military has to offer would be another reason.
