Here is a very theoretical idea I want to bounce off of your guy's devils advocate-type mentalities;
I came up with this idea to try to make people less angry with their government, it seems like everyone hates taxes for programs they dislike (shocker I know).
Tax revenue would be collected the same way as it is now for demonstration purpose.
Tax revenue would be SPENT in an entirely different way. Instead of elected officials deciding what the budget would be spent on, they would only be responsible for deciding on what is taxed and how to raise money.
Taxpayers would decide WHAT to spend their taxes on.
Example;
Lets say I dislike welfare, wish the police were better equipped, and think our schools need more funding.
So:
I would choose to give half of my taxes to the police fund, half to the school fund. And none to the welfare program.
This system has 3 major advantages:
1. Programs that the public disliked and wouldn't fund would be eventually phased out, or altered so more taxpayers would put money into them.
2. Programs that the taxpayers liked would get more and more funding each year so that they would expand.
3. This system would encourage programs to be both transparent and efficient.
Some potential disadvantages:
Taxpayers could drastically undercut entitlement programs. Which some people may not see as bad. But still, it is pretty obvious that people on welfare(or similar) don't pay very much if, any in taxes, so self-funding is obviously impossible.
Military R&D could be majorly cut depending on how you "group" programs. Few people know that the military is building the next super-laser-death ray, so they would be unlikely to fund it.
IF these do become apparent problems, my fix would be to revert a portion of tax dollars back to the old method of gov controlled spending. That way the congressmen could fortify underfunded programs that the public might not have full knowledge of or not care about.
So in essence, every government programs turns into a non for profit charity, the only catch is, YOU have to still pay taxes, you just get to elect how they are spent.
-Cher
I came up with this idea to try to make people less angry with their government, it seems like everyone hates taxes for programs they dislike (shocker I know).
Tax revenue would be collected the same way as it is now for demonstration purpose.
Tax revenue would be SPENT in an entirely different way. Instead of elected officials deciding what the budget would be spent on, they would only be responsible for deciding on what is taxed and how to raise money.
Taxpayers would decide WHAT to spend their taxes on.
Example;
Lets say I dislike welfare, wish the police were better equipped, and think our schools need more funding.
So:
I would choose to give half of my taxes to the police fund, half to the school fund. And none to the welfare program.
This system has 3 major advantages:
1. Programs that the public disliked and wouldn't fund would be eventually phased out, or altered so more taxpayers would put money into them.
2. Programs that the taxpayers liked would get more and more funding each year so that they would expand.
3. This system would encourage programs to be both transparent and efficient.
Some potential disadvantages:
Taxpayers could drastically undercut entitlement programs. Which some people may not see as bad. But still, it is pretty obvious that people on welfare(or similar) don't pay very much if, any in taxes, so self-funding is obviously impossible.
Military R&D could be majorly cut depending on how you "group" programs. Few people know that the military is building the next super-laser-death ray, so they would be unlikely to fund it.
IF these do become apparent problems, my fix would be to revert a portion of tax dollars back to the old method of gov controlled spending. That way the congressmen could fortify underfunded programs that the public might not have full knowledge of or not care about.
So in essence, every government programs turns into a non for profit charity, the only catch is, YOU have to still pay taxes, you just get to elect how they are spent.
-Cher
The idea of people controlling what taxes should be paid doesn't sound like a bad idea. Just make sure the person who decides what taxes to pay, is a hard working tax payer, not a welfare recipient.. Personally, I'm not for cutting taxes nor raising taxes. I'm for a flat tax that would not only keep the U.S government well funded, but also keep the size of government in check. For example, if they keep spending and growing like they are now, a moderate flat tax rate won't fund them enough to keep growing, so they would have to reduce back to normal levels. And WE the "taxpayers" should vote if we should raise or lower the flat tax rate, so WE control it. Everybody gets taxed according to what they are paid. Not the "your rich, so give half of your paycheck and give more to the people who need it(cough, welfare recipients, cough...) routine, nor the cut all taxes and screw our men and women who are putting the lives on the line for our country. And stop spending money on stupid programs like the study of shrimp, ants, and other stupid unnecessary shit. I saw it on FOX, a shrimp in a water tank walking on a small treadmill... I guess they want to improve the health of shrimps... :laugh: :banghead: AND stop giving bailout money to companies. If they fail, so what. Something better and stronger will come out of it and most importantly, the government would keep their noses out of where it ain't suppose to be. Also, Lobbying should be illegal and you must be a Taxpaying American citizen to vote. We currently have Illegals and welfare recipients voting for the future of our children.. :banghead:
