Ala' Carte Taxes...

[Spicy McHaggis]

Taxes. I don't mind paying them.

But I don't like the "general fund" type stuff that's about as useful as throwing money in a barrel and lighting it on fire.

So I was thinking the other day "It wouldn't be so bad if I thought the money was being used properly." and was wondering:

Would you be okay with an extra (just throwing out a number here) 5% income tax increase if you had a list of programs to choose from, so you had a say in where that extra money went.

i.e. "I hate that my tax money goes to (insert program here) but if I knew my dollars went to building bike lanes in my city, I'm for it."

Or a 5% increase if it meant you could dictate where 10% of the money goes.

I think it would add a bit more accountabilty than just voting for the person you felt would do the stuff you want, and put a bit more control back in the people's hands.

 

[GQ Chris]

Sure, I am open to an increease , if I knew where it went.

 

[GQ Chris]

I think I pay too much taxes, am I alone in feeling this? I mean jeeze...

 

[Luther073082]

In all honesty, if I only picked the programs that I support to throw my tax money at, then my taxes would be cut by more then 50%.

The only problem I have with that is that certain things that are necessary but not directly beneficial to everyone may end up getting cut out.

For example if a person comes from an area where there is very few illegal immigrants. They may not give a crap about the boarder patrol. But without that money the overall country could have a bigger immigration problem then it already has.

Then if you have a controversial war. A lot of people may not let their taxes go towards that conflict. The problem with that is that in their "voting" against the war they make our military less effective.

I don't care if you support the war or not, but you don't want our military going into any conflict with only half of the ability to fight. Some mother's son could die because not enough people wanted to give the tax money to get that son a kevlar vest.

 

[ido]

It sounds like a promising endeavor. The only concern I would have is that there would still be the issue of misappropriation of funds.

For instance, the way govt works now - 2.5% of the 5% would go towards the outrageous salary the govt would pay to the new director of the Cycling Lane Zoning/Planning dept they would have to create at the DOT. Another 1.5% would go towards research and studies on how adding cycling lanes will affect traffic flow/patterns. Leaving a mere 1% of the tax actually going towards installing the cycling lanes.

Obviously a dramatization, but you get my drift.

 

[Sketcher]

No, I wouldn't be in favor of that. Paying an extra fee to "make sure" that my tax money is being rightly spent, from an entity which has never been trustworthy with tax money? Heck no.

 

[GQ Chris]

Luther, many on the left don't give a squat what happens to the military, or the importance of our National Defence. They think its all coombaya and if we're just nice the bad people will go away.

So they wouldn't even consider military lives at stake because of their disdain for all things military. Militarism is poo poo'd upon by many on the hardcore left.

 

[GQ Chris]

I saw the most ridiculous activist postcard the other day expressing disdain for the U.S. Marines and Oakland Police for their "Colonialism" and oppression locally and abroad.

 

[Luther073082]

Luther, many on the left don't give a squat what happens to the military, or the importance of our National Defence. They think its all coombaya and if we're just nice the bad people will go away.

So they wouldn't even consider military lives at stake because of their disdain for all things military. Militarism is poo poo'd upon by many on the hardcore left.

I know, thats why I mentioned that.

Also FLnavtive girl reminded me of something. Salaries of government officals. I doubt if people got to pick what their taxes went for very much would go for the salaries of government officals or the congress.

We need some of them. (not most of them but some) And they won't work for free, I wouldn't either. That could cause some problems.

 

[Spicy McHaggis]

In all honesty, if I only picked the programs that I support to throw my tax money at, then my taxes would be cut by more then 50%.

The only problem I have with that is that certain things that are necessary but not directly beneficial to everyone may end up getting cut out.

For example if a person comes from an area where there is very few illegal immigrants. They may not give a crap about the boarder patrol. But without that money the overall country could have a bigger immigration problem then it already has.

Then if you have a controversial war. A lot of people may not let their taxes go towards that conflict. The problem with that is that in their "voting" against the war they make our military less effective.

I don't care if you support the war or not, but you don't want our military going into any conflict with only half of the ability to fight. Some mother's son could die because not enough people wanted to give the tax money to get that son a kevlar vest.

Well, in this scenario what I'm suggesting is a small bump *in addition* to what you're already paying, but that small bump gives you control over the money to a higher degree than voting for the person you think will make the decisions you agree with.

The money you're paying is already supporting the military in your example, but your 5% bump allows you to allocate funds to something *you* think you want to see happen.

 

[Spicy McHaggis]

It sounds like a promising endeavor. The only concern I would have is that there would still be the issue of misappropriation of funds.

For instance, the way govt works now - 2.5% of the 5% would go towards the outrageous salary the govt would pay to the new director of the Cycling Lane Zoning/Planning dept they would have to create at the DOT. Another 1.5% would go towards research and studies on how adding cycling lanes will affect traffic flow/patterns. Leaving a mere 1% of the tax actually going towards installing the cycling lanes.

Obviously a dramatization, but you get my drift.

I see what you mean. If it created new jobs I'd feel somewhat better about it, but you're right in that the gub-mint is rarely efficient at anything they do.

That's what got me thinking that a 5% increase allowing you to control 10% might tip the scales back in our favor.

And the only other thing I could see helping in your scenario is if people take at least SOME interest in where their money goes, vthey may actually try to enforce the accountability they're *supposed to be* entitled too.

But most of us don't pay attention on that level, and lately it's got me thinking you can replace "democrat" and "republican" with simply the word "government" and get the same results. I mean, you even hear people say things like "what would you do if you were President?!"

Nothing.

You'd wait for a couple hundred other politicians to make decisions and maybe veto a few things when the bill gets to your desk. I guess I'm starting to think the Presidency is just the shiniest object to distract the public from what's really happening in our country.

*rant over*

But again, on the in-effieincy of government. I really wonder if we should eliminate welfare, and give half that money to churches. Churches of all faiths, not just Christian, and let those organizations supply the needs of the welfare crowd.

I'd wager that most churches are way more efficient at taking care of needs than the government is. They're stocked with people who WANT to volunteer. Sure there would be crackpots who start their own religion to get funded, but I doubt it would be any worse than the exploitation of the current systems.

Then take the other half the welfare money and allocate that to police, fire, schools (but that's just political McHaggis pulling at the heartstrings). Or allocate that money to the "baby-kitten" fund. So if anyone tries to shoot down my proposal, when they run for office next term I can tell America "this guy voted AGAINST baby kittens!!!!"

Well, all that just to agree with you and Sketch, that the money is going to be wasted no matter where it goes.

I guess I'm xstarting to agree with Shawn101, the problem isn't so much the system, but the humans.

 

[Spicy McHaggis]

Also FLnavtive girl reminded me of something. Salaries of government officals. I doubt if people got to pick what their taxes went for very much would go for the salaries of government officals or the congress.

Good point, but unless the salaries are something we can text-in to vote for, most people would pull the lever at the polls then completely ignore what's going on after that until they're opportunity to complain pops up.

 

[Spicy McHaggis]

No, I wouldn't be in favor of that. Paying an extra fee to "make sure" that my tax money is being rightly spent, from an entity which has never been trustworthy with tax money? Heck no.

yeah my suggestion may have just re-created the illusion of power when we could just make those programs voluntary contributions to get the same effect as my "if/then" scenario.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I wouldn't give an extra dime to any government even if I could choose projects because we have had that here. We have sales tax that we vote on and they propose projects that expire after so many years. when they started this ala carte sort of taxing we had 6% sales tax and now we are over 8% instead of giving us a lot of choices they use it for general budget items instead of special projects. In other words the government now expects to make ends meet ala carte instead of getting *extra* stuff done beyond their funding they are just getting more to do the same thing. Several presidents tried to get line item veto so they could remove ala carte type additions to huge spending bills forcing the congress to fund pet projects just so they could fund huge projects. Get rid of the pet projects and spend that money ala carte instead...

 

[Luther073082]

Yeah I don't think I'd pay more overall taxes for the privilage to pick where it all goes.

I'm a small government person, so I don't need to stimulate the government to grow more. Because once it grows, it does not shrink.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Yeah I don't think I'd pay more overall taxes for the privilage to pick where it all goes.

I'm a small government person, so I don't need to stimulate the government to grow more. Because once it grows, it does not shrink.

feed a monster and sooner or later you will have to slay it

 

[ido]

I think churches and non-profit organizations would be a great way to support the welfare population. Imagine how well food banks could stock themselves - or how much more a church could put into their discretionary fund to help people with food, bills, etc.

Especially in lean economic times, when it's more difficult for people who normally contribute to these causes to continue to do so.

The same people who use their food stamps (debit card) to buy food, then pay cash for the foods/luxury items (alcohol, cigarettes) that food stamps don't cover are the same ones that would exploit food banks and church assistance, IMO. But, I don't think any system would be able to avoid people like that.

 

[Luther073082]

I guess I'm xstarting to agree with Shawn101, the problem isn't so much the system, but the humans.

The system should be designed to as much as possible prevent people from mis using it.

Every system should be designed with the fact that people will try to take unfair advantage of it in mind.

 

[Allen1901]

I would love to defund the Pentagon, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, The CIA...

 

[smacarena]

If I don't pay my taxes, who will bail out irresponsible, too-big-to-fail corporations?