Just as people who hold sincere pacifistic beliefs can obtain “Conscientious Objector” status and avoid being drafted into combat, I think it would be fair to allow CO’s to “opt out” of funding the military.
In order to ensure that people will do this due to their beliefs instead of to reduce their tax liability, the person will pay exactly the same amount as they normally would in taxes, except none of their tax dollars will go to The Pentagon.
What would be the purpose of this? My personal $100 goes to the FDA, and my neighbors goes to the Pentagon? How can you tell? Once it goes into the “Revenue” basket it’s just money…not yours, not mine, just “Revenue.” Even if they wanted to do something like this it would be meaningless.
It’s the elected representitives that decide how much tax dollars they need to collect, and how they spend it, not the individual.
My individual Federal income tax rate is set (by them) as a lump sum, and I may not “opt” out of any part of it because I may object to how a certain part of it is spent. My only options are voting for candidates that share my views, sending letters to my representitives to express my opinion on upcoming legislation, joining or forming groups that have “collective lobbying” abilities, and trying to get my views out in a public manner.
If I may speculate, very few people would actually elect to pay the entire income tax amount levied against them, if it was left up to them to itemize and opt out on programs that they did not approve or agree with. A great many would probably “elect” to pay none at all…
It is like a recent discussion on how lottery proceeds go to fund education. It just means that that much less comes from the general fund and the actual amount going to education doesn’t change. The only way this would actually affect anything would be if enough people opted out that the sum total of the remaining tax revenue was not enough to fund the military. Not only is this unlikely, but even if it happened they could just take out a bond or something and then pay it off out of the general fund. Either that or just run a deficit. If there is going to be a deficit it may as well be specifically associated with military spending as with anything else.
I frequently “decide” that my tax dollars go exactly where I want them to. Of course it is entirely in my own mind, but I’m happy with that.
Should Libertarians be able to opt out of funding welfare?
AFAICT, that would be the effect of the OP.
My taxes are paying some of the salary of the staff of the Congressional committee that Henry Waxman chairs. They’re doing great work, these days. 
How could you tell the difference between that system and the system we have now?
The only way you could would be a situation where there were enough C.O.s such that their total tax bill was greater than the non-military part of the budget.
I hate to break it to you, but according to the memo I have here, your taxes are going specifically to fund Rick Santorum’s pension.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Look on the bright side, since 1990 they were allocated to pay his salary.
And so…does this mean that if I don’t believe in social programs, my tax money should not go to fund it? Or if I don’t believe in the evils of science, my tax money shouldn’t go to fund that? Or if I think national parks are a waste, that my money shouldn’t go to fund that?
See where this is going?
-XT
Tom DeLay’s book sales aren’t going so great & he’s got ongoing legal fees. He really needs that pension. And the health care…
If I concientiously object to welfare, do I get to opt out of funding that? How about concientious objection to any and all entitlement programs? Perhaps I have a conscientious objection to the concept of debt and debt funding of government; do I get to avoid paying toward the government’s annual interest payments?
The whole concept is, per se, silly.
I agree that this wouldn’t be a good idea - if for nothing else then because it’s a slippery slope. What if I only want my taxes to go towards military peace-keeping actions, but not towards invasions?
Something like this would open the floodgates for tons more bureaucracy, and tons more headaches (i.e., more than it would be worth).
LilShieste
I think some folks on this message board would also be shocked at what got funded…and what didn’t, if the people were given their choice as to what their tax dollars went too. 
Hm…you know, maybe this isn’t such a bad idea at that!
-XT
I believe Fred Pohl or some other science fiction writer had the idea that for an extra 1% tax payment you could designate 10% of your taxes would have to go to a particular program. Pay 2% extra and you get 20%, and so forth.
So if you’re willing to pay 10% more taxes, you could specify that 100% of your regular tax bill would go to fund hospitals for homeless kittens, or what have you. The extra 10% would go to general revenue.
Not sure how low-level you could make this, otherwise you’d have people funding “repair the sidewalk in front of my house” projects. But it would be cool to at least send it to NASA or NSA or DHHS, or what have you.
It’s a bad idea, mind-bogglingly unworkable, and contrary to the principles of representative democracy enshrined in the Constitution. We elect Congress to make funding decisions using Federal tax dollars, not 300 million citizens developing a budget a la carte.
Not a bad idea. And although I object to the OP’s proposal, I would heartily endorse some form of voter specified government spending requirements. For instance, give voters some broad categories and let them designate how they want their tax dollars spent. X% for defense, Y% for welfare, etc. You might need to do something so that budgets didn’t fluctuate wildly, but with enough people participating, that shouldn’t be too much of a problem. I’d create an exception for wartime, though, but it would have to be a real war-- one declared by Congress, not one of these “military actions” that we keep getting ourselves involved in. That would never fly, of course, because it would give the rich more say in government affairs since they pay the lion’s share of taxes.
Heh, you do have a point. Something like this would probably get people more involved in politics. And that wouldn’t really be a bad thing.
LilShieste