What would the effects of democratic "allocatable taxes" be?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Textual Innuendo]
Then we are at an impasse, because aggregate opinions don’t sway that easily, only micro populations sway easily. I base my estimation on empirical numbers, with the Obamacare chart the example of the worst case.

In the WORST case, aggregate public opinion swayed 7% over 4 years. I have seen no evidence and you’ve provided no cites that aggregate public opinion is highly volatile, and your specific example of Obamacare in fact refutes that.
[/QUOTE]

As noted I disagree. I’ve provided no cite because there are no comparable situations TOO cite…no one has tried to do something this obviously (to everyone but you) stupid before, so we can merely speculate on the outcome. You are making several assumptions that I disagree with. One, that people will be consistent in how they choose, year to year, to allocate their taxes to specific programs and will actually remember how they did it before. And that in the aggregate it will all work out to be less than a 10% change, year to year. Oh, and that a 10% change (or even a 1% change) in a $3.5+ trillion dollar budget is not a big deal anyway. I disagree with all of these premises and assumptions. shrug

This is laughable. You call yourself a business professional, and say a 1% budget change is unbearable? Let’s consider the 10% worst case - you’re seriously telling me that you have NEVER dealt with a department change or restructuring that cut yours or anyone else’s budget more than that? Yes, it sucks to deal with a lower budget this year, and for the foreseeable future. That doesn’t mean it’s the end of the world, creative destruction is part of the game.

A 10% change in the US budget would be a shift of over $350 billion dollars (well, not really…you haven’t gotten into discretionary verse non-discretionary spending). That’s half of the annual defense budget, and a larger overall annual budget than many COUNTRIES have. That’s a massive shift in funding. Even a 1% shift is $35 billion. And as I said, I doubt it would be so small a shift…I think you’d get much larger shifts year to year based on public perception and probably based on the fact that many people would just put down 100% to some things and leave the rest blank…whatever lets them get done quickest. People have neither the time nor the understanding to allocate funding for a government as complex and large as the US. Simple as that.

On who decides the details and the cases of IT infrastructure upgrades and other unglamorous but necessary work, you make a good point. But as proposed, this was only ever a matter of a change in allocation at the top level. Presumably, each of these top level agencies and programs has Directors and other leaders who currently work out the details and decide to do necessary but unglamorous things with the money, and there’s no reason that would change.

So, what really does this solve? If I allocate 35% to defense it’s still elected officials and various appointed officials and administrators allocating those funds anyway. All you’ve done is basically to put a more random element into the mix, as people either allocate all their funds to what they think they want or just randomly select stuff.

What problem are you trying to solve with this? And how does your system actually accomplish that?

I get that I seem to have found that rare issue that literally everyone is against, and am willing to drop it, but I still haven’t seen any really compelling arguments against it beyond a general distrust of the masses.

It’s not a ‘distrust of the masses’, it’s that ‘the masses’ really have no idea of what and why we spend money on the things we do. As I noted in my first post, one has but to read the threads on this board concerning the US military budget, or welfare or even infrastructure maintenance to understand that people don’t know why we spend money on those things. Or, hell, go to a bar or a college dorm room on a Friday night and listen to the discussion. This isn’t a knock on ‘the masses’…they don’t know because it’s not their job to know or understand that sort of thing. It’s a highly complex system that takes experts and huge staffs to wade through and understand. Just like the legal system, or engineering or medicine, it’s not something that you’d want to let the public have serious input into because the majority of them don’t have a basis for having input into it. What makes Joe Blow Citizen an expert on how $3.5+ trillion dollars should be allocated in a country as large and complex as the US??

[OldGuy]

One huge problem I see is that SSI is largely a tax now for later benefits. There is a huge number of people who’ve paid those taxes and now expect to get the benefits they “paid” for. That’s quite different from telling people they don’t have to contribute now, but don’t get the benefits later - -government sponsored IRAs.

Do I also get to decide where the $$$ for the roads get spent. What do i care if areas I never travel to have decent roads.

Do i get to say OK money for the military but get out of Syria (or wherever)?

[DrDeth]

@XT

It’s not a ‘distrust of the masses’, it’s that ‘the masses’ really have no idea of what and why we spend money on the things we do.

We do, in fact, and likely better than you do. Why?- due to campaign contributions and lobbying. And in the last few years, the budge has been held hostage by a handful of reactionary tea party Republicans.

The taxpayer is immune to such considerations. Maybe taking the budget system out of the hands of corrupt and biased politicians and into the hands of the people is a better way. It cant be worse.

[Human_Action]

Why can’t it be worse, again? Is the lack of individual accountability, the lack of expertise, the lack of coordination, or the plutocratic nature of the whole thing?

[YogSothoth]

@DrDeth

We do, in fact, and likely better than you do. Why?- due to campaign contributions and lobbying. And in the last few years, the budge has been held hostage by a handful of reactionary tea party Republicans.

The taxpayer is immune to such considerations. Maybe taking the budget system out of the hands of corrupt and biased politicians and into the hands of the people is a better way. It cant be worse.

What?! WHAT?!? The taxpayer is immune to such considerations?!? Are you even remotely aware of the amount of propaganda, lobbying, and lying we are exposed to everyday that can shift American public viewpoints? Or do you think that you’re one of those people whose views are uninfluenced by anyone, you’re your own man, and your opinions are based only on logic? Because if you do, I can guarantee that a lot of what you think and feel are because large corporations have spent time and money to make you feel that way. The American public has no idea of the kinds of things that influence them. We have no expertise or training on the kind of nuanced decisions that must be made every day and zero clue on how much money an agency needs. We should never be put in charge of deciding that specific minutia of the government budget, never. Even lobbyists and politicians are better choices to be in charge of that than blind luck swayed by the loudest voices

[DrDeth]

@YogSothoth

What?! WHAT?!? The taxpayer is immune to such considerations?!? Are you even remotely aware of the amount of propaganda, lobbying, and lying we are exposed to everyday that can shift American public viewpoints? Or do you think that you’re one of those people whose views are uninfluenced by anyone, you’re your own man, and your opinions are based only on logic? Because if you do, I can guarantee that a lot of what you think and feel are because large corporations have spent time and money to make you feel that way. The American public has no idea of the kinds of things that influence them. We have no expertise or training on the kind of nuanced decisions that must be made every day and zero clue on how much money an agency needs. We should never be put in charge of deciding that specific minutia of the government budget, never. Even lobbyists and politicians are better choices to be in charge of that than blind luck swayed by the loudest voices

Sure, but nobody gives me a check for $100000 for my vote. The influence is there, sure, but the direct bribery is not.

I have no problems with special interest groups, lobbyists, constituents and what-not trying to influence my elected rep. I do have issues with them simply buying his/her vote.

[XT]

@YogSothoth

What?! WHAT?!? The taxpayer is immune to such considerations?!? Are you even remotely aware of the amount of propaganda, lobbying, and lying we are exposed to everyday that can shift American public viewpoints? Or do you think that you’re one of those people whose views are uninfluenced by anyone, you’re your own man, and your opinions are based only on logic? Because if you do, I can guarantee that a lot of what you think and feel are because large corporations have spent time and money to make you feel that way. The American public has no idea of the kinds of things that influence them. We have no expertise or training on the kind of nuanced decisions that must be made every day and zero clue on how much money an agency needs. We should never be put in charge of deciding that specific minutia of the government budget, never. Even lobbyists and politicians are better choices to be in charge of that than blind luck swayed by the loudest voices

This is getting scary, as I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time I’ve agreed completely with Yog on something this week, and he probably feels the same way…like the end times are upon us! But yeah, this.

[Velocity]

One other problem: People like benefits, but don’t like paying for other people’s benefits.

Everyone wants Social Security checks when they retire, for instance. But most people, especially young folks who are decades away from retirement, don’t like the idea of paying for “someone else’s Social Security retirement checks.” So they wouldn’t allocate their tax dollars towards Social Security - while still hoping to receive Social Security checks themselves.

[DrDeth]

@Velocity

One other problem: People like benefits, but don’t like paying for other people’s benefits.

Everyone wants Social Security checks when they retire, for instance. But most people, especially young folks who are decades away from retirement, don’t like the idea of paying for “someone else’s Social Security retirement checks.” So they wouldn’t allocate their tax dollars towards Social Security - while still hoping to receive Social Security checks themselves.

Soc Sec is self funded.

[Human_Action]

Under the OP’s sytem, it isn’t.

[Mtgman]

The idea is wrongheaded in the extreme. It’s the kind of idea put forth by a bright sophomore who learned about democracy and crowdsourcing and decided to apply it to EVERYTHING! WHEE!

It’s the kind of thinking that leads smart people like Ben Carson to making stupid statements like “the pyramids were grain elevators built by Joseph.” He’s a smart guy but his knowledge of Egyptian history is limited to what he learned in his Bible studies, so he sees everything through that lens. Making the pyramids fit in means making assumptions and drawing conclusions that are simply wrong and a little bit more study on the subject would reveal those assumptions and conclusions as false. But rather than content himself with being rationally ignorant and keeping his mouth shut about stuff he really doesn’t have much knowledge about, he opens his mouth and puts his foot in it.

Of course he’s in good company, the “I only know a little bit about this and so I’ll make unnecessary assumptions and conclusions and then announce my view as fact” has been happening for as long as there have been humans. Famously it happened to Pope Gregory the Great, who conflated the various ‘Marys’ and ended up branding Mary Magdalene as a prostitute.

OP, there is sometimes value in proposing a radical departure from the norm and shaking things up, but if you’re going to do it, it makes more sense to know how and why the system does what it does now first. Your blithe assertions that the 1% control >22% of the U.S. governmental spending is simply wrong. As mentioned earlier, 10% of the US budget is ~399 Billion. 22% would be ~878 Billion. That’s more than the US spends on all of the military. If the 1% are directing this monetary flow then they’re being very equitable about it and allocating the vast majority to things that don’t really prop up their interests, like health care for the elderly and children.

Take a look at the interactive budget for 2016 and show us the fingerprints of the 1%. If they’re controlling >22% of it we should see that pretty clearly, right?

Enjoy,
Steven

[YogSothoth]

@XT

This is getting scary, as I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time I’ve agreed completely with Yog on something this week, and he probably feels the same way…like the end times are upon us! But yeah, this.

I know, I’m scared too

[Velocity]

While I don’t think this idea would work well in real life, I think it would make a great research study. Do a polling survey of 100,000 Americans who are statistically representative of America and do just that; have them allocate their “tax dollars” the way they want. I would love to see the results of such a polling study.

[Velocity]

It would also be entertaining - in a rather woebegone way - to see the federal government have to inform Americans - “Sorry, but since the Department of Transportation only got 0.05% of the budget, there won’t be airplane flights this year.”