I hate paying taxes, and would prefer to have the money to spend on myself. I understand however, there is a need for taxes for the general functioning of government. Wouldn’t it be nice if one could fund programs as they saw fit and refuse to fund programs they didn’t support? Not a reference to choosing whether or not to pay taxes, as Thoreau would advocate and be arrested for, but rather a system where one could distribute their money among programs they chose.
It may be as simple as a ballot one submitted with their taxes.
Take this example: I make $50,000/year (gross). I am taxed $10,000. With my tax statement I submit a voter-generated ballot-like form (call it a “tax ballot”), and 90% of my money goes to the programs I want to fund (more on why only 90% momentarily). I want a portion of my dollars to go to national defense, some to welfare, some to some project in my community. I have not only paid my taxes, but I have exercised my political voice. Does this give the rich more power? Sure, from a funding standpoint. But it doesn’t give them any more votes in the legislature. If the masses want certain things unfunded, they lobby to have those things taken off the “tax ballot.” The rich may not have the option to spend money on the things they want if the “masses” choose to take such things off the ballot entirely.
Pork barrel projects would be mostly non-existent from an elected official standpoint. If a community needs something badly enough they can advocate for it. They spend their tax dollars on it. If they don’t get the amount that is required, that money goes into a “lay-away” type plan for future use. Once the project is funded, it can be started. Modifications of this would work as well. Perhaps if a community funds 50% of a project it can begin with the stipulation that a certain percentage will continue to come out of individual taxes until the project is completed. If the community can’t fund it because it’s too expensive, perhaps it isn’t necessary. If it is a necessity, the government has 10% of everyone’s taxes set aside to address this.
The 10% percent set aside however, is not only for addressing these types of issues, but also for ensuring projects are appropriately funded should public opinion dramatically change. The most obvious, but not only, example of this would be military spending. If the government entered into a war that the public decided it didn’t want to fund anymore, they could simply stop sending money. To just stop funding troops overseas in a combat situation would have tragic consequences. The government would be forced to come up with a solution to end hostilities however, because they know money is no longer available, and would have a limited pot of money with which they could effectively withdraw American troops.
If the government decided it wanted more money for a specific reason it could still try to pass bond initiatives. Like current bonds, a person could loan money to the government for the bond and get paid interest on that money because they believe in the investment. War bonds have been an effective way to fund wars. If the government tried to pass an initiative allowing them to issue bonds for fighting a war, it would have to be voted on. If public opinion was against it, it wouldn’t pass, the war wouldn’t be funded, and would eventually have to end.
There are other ways the government makes money, but this would control at least a portion of the money. Specifically, the money that is taken directly from the people is distributed how the people want it to be distributed. It attaches strings to every dollar the government gets in tax revenue. It gives them very little discretion with what to do with tax dollars.
Many already spend time doing their taxes. If given the choice of where their money was spent, they may opt for itemizing their tax dollars. Much like itemizing their tax return, the “tax ballot” could be generated to spend some money on this and some on that. Taxpayers could also opt for generic plans that parties outline, much like voting for a specific ticket on the ballot, but they would be given a choice to “itemize” if they would like.
There is no doubt this plan would pose a logistical problem. Considering the resources the government has and the wasteful spending that occurs regularly however, adequate resources to regulate it are available. It would force a certain amount of accountability on the government, which would also be new. There would also have to be checks put into place that would force the government into some sort of budget balancing debate, which has historically been an issue, but it gives much more power to individuals, more fairly distributes the public’s voice, and gives them a clear incentive on why to pay their taxes.
Comments...
Nob Hill Ken wrote
11-14-2008 @ 16:52:10 (PST)
Your idea certainly beats the hell out of the institutionalized wallet-rape currently in place at the IRS, theoretically, anyway.
Click the button to