Let us pay for those government programs we choose to support. Why not?

Great Debates
1

I don’t know about ‘debate’, but I’d like to hear the discussion. It just seems to me that there might be enough diversity among the US population that we could pull it off, and leave everyone with more sense of satisfaction.

What would happen if we allowed everyone to at least express some preference for at least the broad categories of government programs they want to support with their taxes? The liberals could choose to support the social programs and the conservatives could choose to support the defense programs - or however it works.

Has anyone ever tried such a survey?

2

We’ve tried it. It’s called representative democracy, and it works reasonably well. You probably remember it from civics class.

3

Suppose government program A costs ten billion dollars. I am an average tax payer and there are one hundred million taxpayers, so my fair share of that cost is $100. Logically my tiny share of the cost has virtually no effect on the program; it will function equally well regardless of whether or not I pay that $100. Given the choice, I have no financial motivation to support it. Of course I might pay out of the goodness of my heart, but should the entire government rely on that?

4

Who is going to contribute towards unsexy stuff, like, say, food safety inspection?

5

Besides, very few people are going to oppose defense entirely or welfare entirely. Not even your hypothetical conservatives and liberals would go so far - and yet you’d only allow broad categories to be used.

The biggest controversies and scandals are over smaller sums - bridges to nowhere, for instance, or Randy Cunningham’s defense contracts. Who is going to vote on these?

Representatives and Senators, that’s who. And since they have to deal with the small stuff, may as well have them do the heavy lifting as well. Have them hire a staff to do the research on the defense bill - I don’t have the time or money to do so myself.

Screw it up - you get voted out. Simple. Far simpler than the plan in the OP.

6

I don’t think the OP is thinking of making taxes voluntary, but rather where they go. So I’d still owe the same amount, but I could designate it for the things I feel most important.

I think it’s an interesting idea, but ultimately unworkable in a society as large as ours. The reason we hire and vote for people to make these decisions for us is that we don’t have time to become fully informed on every issue demanding money. And, frankly, many of us don’t have the ability to delay gratification long enough to balance our personal budgets and live within our means - there’s no reason we’d be any better at doing so for the nation. As even sven says, there will be very important functions which will go unfunded because they’re just not in the popular consciousness.

Unless you want lobbyists on every doorstep pushing their interests to each citizen individually or something. That sounds like a nightmare on the morning commute!

The idea behind what we have now is that I vote for the guy who thinks what I think is important is also important. Ideally, I then communicate with him frequently to remind him of what I think is important, and he takes that into account when he votes in my best interest. If I think he’s not doing that, then I vote for someone else next time. Granted, there’s a huge flaw in this system: it means someone has to screw up for a while before I can try to fix the problem, but it’s the best system anyone’s found so far for an uneducated, apathetic populous.

7

To an extent, this is done already at the state and federal levels. Examples include the Presidential Campaign Fund at the federal level. At the state level, I could designate certain organizations and charities to receive part of my state refund. I chose small disbursements to the Virginia Republican Party and to the state cancer hospital.

These systems are workable, though I have issues with the campaign fund. I think the program with the state taxes here is great to encourage giving - though it must be stressed that this is my money that is being designated, not state money. All of these are better by far to manage than what the OP proposes.

8

I think the real problem with this idea is that people will overwhelmingly put money into things that help themselves and those close to them massively out of proportion. Of course this already happens, ie: Congress voting itself a raise and not raising minimum wage.

It comes down to how much do you trust the average (and below average 'cause they vote too) person? Me, not much. Not that I’m any better.

-Eben

9

That’s meaningless. Money is fungible. If all your $10,000 tax payment goes to program X, that’s just $10,000 less the government has to come up with for program X and $10,000 freed up for program Y.

10

Actually it would be power to the people. We talk that,but do not really want it. Our senators and congressmen would never give up that power.
If it happened it would be interesting to see what the population really thinks is important. I would not put 2 cents in anything Hallliburton or Blackwater could get at.

11

Free riders would be a problem. I won’t contribute to defense spending. What’s the consequence? China invades me personally? So the rest of you suckers pay for national defense and I’m safe anyway. Now multiply that by a hundred million.

12

It would be power from the people. Taxes are complicated enough as it is for some people. Many would just check boxes randomly to get it over with. The politics over which options get first billing on the forms would be insane. The amount of information that the average person would have about what their money would actually go for would be minuscule.

Say you want to put a large amount into the “Defense” category - what does that include? Funding for the military, certainly, but what else? Does it include the intelligence agencies? Does it include funds to contractors such as Blackwater and Halliburton? Is NASA shoehorned in there, since it helps launch the occasional spy satellite? Does this include arming rebel fighters in foreign countries whose leaders are considered ungood by the current administration? Does “Education” include K-12, universities, and funding for scientific research? Does it help support PBS, or is that separate?

Alternatively, we could break it down and give people myriad categories and sub-categories with detailed explanations of what they all include, don’t include, include on the second Wednesday of every third leap year, etc. Then our tax forms would be the size of those things door-to-door salesmen used to sell in the days before Wikis. People could theoretically pick and choose precisely which “Defense” or “Education” programs they liked, but they’d first have to locate them and make sure they really include (and don’t include) everything they really want (and don’t want) to support. It would be a part-time job just to keep up with which services are covered by which programs. I’d basically be doing a Congressperson’s job for free.

Either the categories would be so broad as to be meaningless, or they’d have to be so detailed that no average person could reasonably be expected to read and comprehend it all.

13

Taxes are largely funded by a small sliver of the population. I don’t know about anyone else, but the gov’t hasn’t taken (and kept) much of any of my money. I’m sure that will change - especially as the kids leave, but really… the rich would have inordinate sway in what gets funded.

14

’
I’m sorry Anomalous, but you’re wrong. Federal taxes are paid by everyone who earns a paycheck. Take a look at your W2, boxes 4 and 6, which are for your payroll FICA (Social Security) taxes and Medicare taxes. There ain’t no refund on those, and those are not insignifigant.

15

There is a broader, more general rebuttal to the proposition in the OP:

Governments are instituted among men in large part because people themselves cannot manage the affairs of being social creatures. We found it desirable to have the chore of making the hard calls delegated to some select group of people. That way, our inherent personal selfishness doesn’t get in the way of the collective good. As Spock said, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”

On another note, even if the OP was intended to result not in a reduction of taxes but in a shift of expenditures, that is a chimera. For example, suppose a large portion of the population decides not to fund the current war. With no significant funding headed to the war, the need for the current level of taxes would be reduced. A budget should truly be made from the needs of the government, not the willingness of the people to spend. So in the end run, my choice of expenditures would dictate at some level the amount that would be taken from me to run the government. Given that this is true, what would you expect but a routing of the funds to the least important, least costly endeavors?

16

“This was covered in civics class”

Must have slept through that semester. :slight_smile:

No, this was not a serious proposal - mostly just a thought experiment. No, I’ve got no illusions that any of us would send in the same amount of money without the, ah, guidance of the IRS.

Sure, the money is fungible, and that’s part of the point. If people were allowed to at least express a preference as to where their money went, how much difference would it make overall? (Sure, if all this were just an empty ‘preference’, it would make negligible real difference.) But would the money that some folks wish were spent on some programs be counterbalanced by the preferences of the folks who have different opinions?

Sure, there are wealthy conservatives who would tilt the scales in some directions, just as there are wealthy liberals who would tilt the scales in other directions.

Conceded, that any program categories would probably be either so broad as to be meaningless, or so fine as to be beyond meaningful public debate. I mean, it’s not like our government officials have any motive to hide behind misleadingly named bills or anything. :rolleyes:

Um, that doesn’t sound quite right - a bit too much “I’m from the government and I know what’s good for you, so pay up.”

I’d at least hope for a little more sophistication from taxpayers than that (sure, I could be wrong), given that so many do believe passionately in environmental protection, and maintaining a strong military and a strong justice system.

But anyhow, the OP was mostly just some idle pondering.

17

Actually, it sounds more like direct democracy, which is a terrible idea, and which the founding fathers discussed and explicitly rejected. Their idea (bless their optimistic little souls) was that elected representatives would be able to place themselves above the petty concerns of the ignorant masses and make wise legislative decisions.

The people can’t handle that power. How much do you know about utilities regulation? Or prison management? Or what crime prevention programs have a proven track record and are worth funding? Face it; the average citizen just doesn’t know enough to be making public policy decisions. Direct democracy is a bad idea.

18

I’m not certain what you would prefer. Do you really think it would be best to determine our national budget by deciding what the nation as a whole is willing to pay in the way of taxes, then decide how to divvy that pie up? “Okay, folks, we’ve figured out that they’ll buy letting us up taxes by 5% this year. Let’s see what we can spend it on!” :eek:

Would those be the same taxpayers that, here in Ohio, will chronically starve their local schools of money simply to avoid paying an annual levy increase that equates to a tankful of gasoline for their oversized SUV? :smack:

19

I don’t. There are still jobs where you don’t have to contribute to social security—mostly government jobs with defined benefit plans. I do make enough that I have to pay regular old income tax, though.

20

Here’s a slight variation on WhyNot’s idea: Taxes remain the same, but folks are allowed to contribute money to government programs which they feel are underfunded. For example, I personally think that NASA’s getting the shaft when it comes to government funding, and if it were possible, I’d happily have extra money taken out of my paycheck (or simply mail NASA a check every so often), but it’s impossible for me to do so. (Well, I could buy something from NASA’s store on their website, but quite frankly, I have enough crap as it is.) Someone else might think that HUD needs more money, and could give extra money to them. I realize that most people would probably not do this, but even if a department netted only an extra million or so a year, it could make a difference for many of them in some of the things that they do.