It sounds like a great way to increase income disparity even faster. The rich will have more direct input into the budget and the poor will have no say at all.
I don’t see why it would be any more difficult than it is today, with offices and funding already subject to change. Indeed, the voting can be on the exact same timescales it is today, it’s only a matter of percent allocated.
How would this work? TV ads imploring you to fund the military if you’re truly patriotic? How exactly will monied interests advocate for top-level category increases from the great mass of people, more than half of whom likely disagree with them anyways?
Let’s not get too literal, my point was that expertise matters.
Just that one? How about Social Security, are you ok with it being slashed for people who paid into it for decades? Or Medicaid: the people who need it, don’t pay the federal tax dollars that funds it. In effect, you’re removing their vote.
But you’re proposing even more direct rule by big suitcases of money. The poor pay little to no federal income tax. The rich pay a lot. Therefore, your proposal concentrates power in the hands of the richest, to a degree commensurate with our tax rates.
As above, that’s what they were elected to do, more or less: “stand up to” Obama et by any means necessary, shrink the federal government, and generally throw a tantrum. The voters have an opportunity to throw out the class of '10 Senators this year, and generally make a course correction, and I have every confidence that they will.
Further, this sort of disruption and grandstanding is the exception, not business as usual. A certain percentage of the electorate lost their minds when a black man was elected President, and voted in a class of irrational ideologues.
You left out the biggest line item in the budget.
Interest payments. So you intend not to pay that ??
The top-earning 1% pay 45% of federal income taxes. The bottom 80% pay 15% of federal income taxes (same cite).
Actually, I don’t think this is the case. Since income taxes are essentially regressive in this country, particularly payroll taxes, which cut off around $120k or so, the 1% doesn’t pay as big a portion as you might think.
Of the cites I found for 2010 payroll taxes, the top 1% and over pays 2.9% of the total, and for 2012, the top 1% paid 38% of income taxes. This would give the 1% a weighted ~19% of the allocatable budget. Outsize to their proportion of the population for sure, but the 81% remaining to everyone else will still be making a sizeable and noticeable impact.
Sorry, I missed this. So with 45% and their 3% of payroll taxes, they’d allocate 22% of the budget by direct allocation. That’s probably less than monied interests allocate today.
It was there at 6%. I agree, we should probably keep that off the table for ours and the world economy’s sakes, and confine the allocation to the other categories.
I’m not sure I understand how this is supposed to work? Do I get to determine how my tax dollars are spent? Does this mean that people who pay no net taxes don’t get any input on the budget, and the wealthiest 1%, that pay like 45% of the income taxes get to determine 45% of the budget? Or is this everyone-gets-a-vote, regardless of whether they actually paid any taxes or not?
And who determines how the deficit gets spent, since no one paid that amount in taxes?
At a superficial level, I think it’s appealing. When the FBI wants to force Apple to hack iPhones for them, the American people could retaliate by slashing their budget. That’d be nice.
What you’re proposing is citizenship based on income, not humanity. In a society where dollars and cents are sentient and have the franchise this would be equitable. But in a society where humans are the sentient, enfranchised components of a democracy, then the franchise is one human = one vote. I realize this is distorted in ways by the realities of life, but at least the foundation of the system is one of an ideal.
To marry political power with economic power is the definition of corruption. What you propose would not be a democracy, it would be an oligarchy.
Enjoy,
Steven
The basic outline would be right now you pay $X in Payroll and Income taxes, and it’s allocated by politicians, to a bunch of different things, more or less per the allocation in the OP, but what if YOU decided what to spend that on?
I’m proposing an option where you could go in and then allocate your $X dollars according to YOUR desires, with government debt / interest payments non-optional, but the other categories up for grabs. So if you don’t like Energy & Environment spending, you reduce it from 1% to some other number, and if you like Education, you up it from 2% to some other number.
And I totally agree, slashing various three letter agencies’ budgets would be at the very top of my wish list, and probably many other folks as well. Let’s hope we get agency-level discretion in the allocation so we can do so.
As discussed earlier, the 1% may well pay 45% of income taxes, but they pay a tiny fraction of payroll taxes, and their weighted contribution is ~22% in terms of allocatable funds, so it’s not simply a plutocrat’s paradise.
Deficit spending is an interesting point, but I think much like now, it would just be allocated per the final percentage allocation. The difference being that allocation came collectively rather than from legislators.
And for people who receive money from the federal government, we get to vote on their household budgets.
On the contrary, in this system, the 1% would dictate ~22% of allocated spending. What would you bet that they’re currently dictating LESS than that in government spending? I would not take that bet.
If anything, this is much more democratic than the current system we have, where millionaires run for office and then pass laws and budgets influenced by and for billionaires and billion dollar corporations.
How much say does an average person have now in how their taxes get spent? None? And who decides it? Millionaire legislators listening to billionaire’s lobbyists? And how democratic is that?
All of this bickering just proves HL Mencken was correct when he pointed (a hundred years ago) out “Elections are just advance auctions of stolen goods.”
Textual Innuendo,
I’ve decided I like your idea. Make it so.
Gods, that’s a horrible idea! :eek: Most people aren’t even very good allocating their own money for their own personal finances, let alone deciding spending priorities for a country as complex and powerful as the US. Good grief, just look at some of the threads on this board talking about military spending, or about social programs, or even education spending and you can see that even on the 'dope you get people who have no idea why we spend money on anything we do in the US and wildly (and often ridiculously) varied ideas of what we should be spending the money on.
Basically this idea would be equivalent to having The Purge happen in real life, as your budget would fluctuate so wildly from year to year that whole departments and portions of the government would either be in feast or famine continuously, from year to year. Military popular this year? Cool, they get gobs of money. Not so popular next year? Well, lay those soldiers off and mothball all that equipment. Oh, forget about all those R&D projects, because while last year you could fund them, this year you can’t, so bummer man. Healthcare big now? Sweet…fully funded! But wait, next year it’s suddenly an issue, so got to cut their budget by 75% this year and lay off all the folks who were working on and understand the program this year and lose all that corporate knowledge. But maybe next year we can get funded again and pick some of them up, right?
It would be pure chaos. And I can imagine that large portions of the budget for departments or programs would be spent on public relations to get the public behind this program or that department and check that little box to please, please fund us for next year.
The feast / famine timing thing came up earlier a few times, but it’s not really material. We could either allocate in grant form that takes into account defined multi-year timelines with this year’s allocated funds, or allocate according to timelines we have now, with only the allocation being different. Right now, different areas are prone to more or less funding in every budget today also, and it’s not a dealbreaking issue.
I think you’re assuming a lot more chaos and variation than would actually happen from a 50/50 split and a population of 300 million, in the aggregate I doubt you’d see the large swings you suppose. Sure, one or two or even a hundred or a thousand people may foster a grudge at some agency or department or other and change their allocation for next year, but to really move the needle, that would need to be millions or tens of millions of people wildly flip flopping on opinion on multiple issues in every given year.
Do your values and what you’d like to see implemented at the program or agency level wildly flip flop every year? If not, why would you assume most people’s would?
The large portions of budget being spent begging the public for money is an interesting point, and likely something that would have to be prohibited, or capped at some fixed amount.
Allocatable taxes would be a disaster and any politician who seriously supports it is either crazy to stupid.
People do not have the knowledge of what agencies and programs need more money and what needs less. We would see tremendous waste where some things are lowly funded and other things over funded. Chaos will reign, departments themselves will have to set aside a portion of their budget to campaign for money. If you don’t like how long and tedious the presidential campaign is every 4 years, imagine that every year, for every issue. “NASA needs a new shuttle, vote more money for us!”, “Look at this cool jet fighter, don’t you want the US to maintain air superiority, vote for the Air Force!”, “Vote Social Security or you’re killing grandma!”, “If you don’t vote for the CDC, say goodbye to vaccines and medicines!”.
I haven’t read the entire thread…in fact, just the OP…but I doubt you’d be able to do a multi-year timeline because you can’t be sure of what the public would allocate. If you tried to smooth out the bumps you’d have to take money from other well funded programs or you’d need to go into deficit spending, and then you are back to who is deciding that we need this or that program? Well, those representatives are. IOW, nothing would have changed if you smooth out the bumps, since it wouldn’t be the public deciding that they REALLY want more money allocated (this year) to jobs programs and really don’t want more in defense.
I disagree that it wouldn’t be chaotic and that you wouldn’t see wild flips. Hell, just look at the sea saw flipping between Tea Party and regular Republicans/Democrats that have happened. Obama was down in the polls and people were down on Obama-care and up on the Military. No, they are up on Obama and Obama-care but down on education. No, they are up on education but down on defense spending. No…
Sorry, but as I said, most people aren’t even good at balancing their own budget or allocating their own resources, and are pretty ignorant about what or even why the government spends money on anything at all. This isn’t a knock on people, they just don’t have a need to know or a desire to wade into the figures. Let me give you an example…I work for a large state government. Every year we have to request a budget from the elected officials and state administration folks. Even explaining to THEM why we need X is difficult, and it’s their freaking job to figure this stuff out. Often their decisions are pretty arbitrary (from our perspective). If you asked the public, though, they would not see the need for giving IT (or other support services) money since it doesn’t seem to directly impact them. It gets them no additional schools or other direct programs after all, so why spend money on it? If you asked people what they should fund they would pick the things THEY think they need or programs that directly affect or impact them or give them some direct benefit. And if you tried to give every department or program a 1 or 2 page white paper for the public to read through to inform them WHY they should fund a new cybersecurity program or new core or edge they freaking wouldn’t read it because it would rapidly become too complex for them to understand.
Trying to break this all into large lumps wouldn’t work either…I mean, what would you do? Ask people to allocate to big picture programs like A) Defense, B) Welfare, C) Research or D) Other? 
Can you see how stupid that would be and how that would be even more chaotic than what we have??
Perceptions flip flop wildly every year, yes. In the aggregate people’s perceptions shift around quite a bit and one only has to do a cursory look at how the pendulum of public perceptions have changed in just the last 20 years to see how ridiculous this is.
Ok, then how would programs get representation to be considered for funding? Today you have to present your budget request to management and elected officials, but you are advocating that we throw all that to the public…so, how does the public make an informed decision on what they SHOULD be allocating? The answer is they won’t…they will make arbitrary decisions about some things and focus on things that do them individually or their ideological world view (or their PERCEIVED individual or ideological view) the most good and hang everything else. And a ton of stuff that is necessary but that people don’t realize are necessary will fall through the cracks.
Exactly this.