What do you think about having people choose where their tax dollars go?

Question

I know there could be problems with this system, but on the surface it sounds like a pretty good idea. People would be able to support what they ethically believe in, and because people are all different, pretty much everything would still get funded. The military would still get money, and so would schools and cops and parks and busses. It would just be distributed in a way that more accurately matches the morals and values of the citizens of this country.

I'm just spitballing. Obviously, I don't hold a political office or any real political sway, so lets keep the discussion friendly.

Answer 1

This already happens to a minor extent because many donations are tax deductible.

If your marginal tax rate is 25%, and you donate $1000 to the USO, your tax bill is reduced by $250 due to the deduction.

You have effectively directed the govenment to give $250 of your tax dollars to the USO.

Answer 2

Earmarks are essentially having your representatives in Washington choose where our tax dollars go:

Suzy out in Catstown, Catsylvania has a collection of ceramic cats, but no good place to put them.  He husband suggests she open a museum and let others look at them out in the barn.  She thinks, "A little building down town would get more traffic."  She calls up her congressman and says, "What we need in this community is a ceramic cat museum in downtown Catstown, Catsylvania."

He puts in an earmark, and the CCM of Catstown, Catsylvania is born.

I like the idea of being able to deny my tax dollars to underwrite corporations that produce gas guzzling vehicles, and to guarantee them to education funding, but it would not work in practice.

At least you are thinking about the changes required.  A good place to start!

Answer 3

The problem is deciding which people get to make this sort of allocation of tax dollars. Less than half of eligible voters are registered to vote. So, we shouldn't allow those who assume no role in the electoral process to have a voice in distribution of taxes. Only one in five has ever read the Constitution. So, that means 80% should have no role in such a distribution scheme because their ignorance of the charter of government presupposes a level of ignorance concerning how government accumulates revenues in the first place.

Next, we have to eliminate those who don't know that their employer contributes one dollar to the Social Security fund for every dollar that the worker contributes. Add in those who don't know that corporations and businesses don't pay taxes (they incur a tax expense, which is passed on to the consumer in the price of goods and services) and you get pretty close to the figure of the 535 individuals in the House and the Senate who currently make the allocation of tax dollars.

Answer 4

Our taxes should be spent on Americans rather than foreign countries.

Answer 5

I think it would cause choas.  Pay taxes because I hope that my money goes to things I believe in but I know that sometimes it won't.

Answer 6

Oh shoot I never thought of this!  I think it's a great idea.  I know for a fact if taxes were done like this, there would a whole LOT more funds for schools, investment in sustainable alternative energy and energy efficiency, and health care for everyone.  But that's just me and hopefully others agree as well.

Answer 7

Because then people would only approve things that either directly benefit them or are the current fad.

Another issue this would have is that it would not work unless every taxpayer would spend the time necessary to understand what every government department does and how budget allocations affect them.

For example would you bother to take the time to find out what NOAA does and then determine how much money they should have?