No, I got that. For example: One person doesn’t want to contribute to military spending. Say the Fantasians invade and the military is tasked to defend the country. Now the Fantasians don’t take any prisoners and kill everyone they see. How does the military only defend those that paid for their upkeep?
I look at this form of taxation as based on the old adage of ‘Those who have the gold make the rules’. I look at is as counteracting somewhat ‘one person, one vote’ which allows for people to have input on how monies are spent even if they don’t provide any money for the public good themselves.
You could also make a rule that any of the choices can only have up to 50% of the funds. The rest are on a sliding scale, say down to 5%. That ensures that everyone who does pay pays for everything society deems important, but it allows them to rank that importance in a meaningful way: As in, I’m only willing to pay this much and not a penny more for this ‘important’ item.
**Ravenman **said what I was going to say in response here, but your response to that now has me completely confused as to what you’re asking here.
In our current system, people don’t directly choose where their taxes are allocated, so everyone gets to enjoy the benefits of everything, whether direct or indirect.
In the “choose where your taxes go” system under discussion, with my modification, someone who chose to pay no taxes would enjoy no benefits. They could not drive on the roads, they could not have their garbage picked up, they could not have running water, they could not see a doctor (unless they were educated entirely in private schools that were in no way government-subsidised and took out no student loans from the government during college and med school), they could not watch TV, they could not be protected from crime…
Basically, my post was a subtle way of saying, “I think this idea is terrible and will never work.”