What does everyone think about this change to taxes?

1st off everyone still has to pay their taxes, but, some ratio, we'll say 50% of your taxes goes wherever the government wants it to go, the other ratio, still 50% for an example, goes towards what programs the taxpayer wants it to.

The 1st ratio is to make sure our representatives, etc still get paid, and to allow the government some ability to shift resources around where necessary.

The 2nd ratio is to make sure more of our money is going where the citizens most feel it will benefit us all. Those who believe in social programs can pay more towards those, and those who believe more in a stronger military can pay more towards that. Much less of people bitching about paying to help others, and allowing those who want to help others to foot that bill.

Anyone who doesn't give a crap, can check off the "do whatever you want with it" box and give the government 100% control.

What does everyone think?

a reply to: Puppylove

Govt would never keep their fingers out of the other half of the pie. They always "borrow" from programs to prop up others, then never seem to return what they borrow.

a reply to: DAVID64

We'd need legislation to prevent that then, after all that's what the 1st ratio is for.

a reply to: Puppylove

I like the idea, a lot. I think realistically, more like 1/4 should be decided by the tax payer, so essential and emergency services, etc., get funded. Otherwise, a fantastic idea.

a reply to: Puppylove
Sounds like an excuse to steal Social Security. If they do that someones going to get a cap in their ass.

Tax the Rich.

a reply to: reldra

I think emergency services would be one of the ones chosen most by a lot of people, thus why I didn't think allocating specifically for that was necessary. I think the things people would most choose to do is pay for emergency services, infrastructure, and a split between social programs and military.

What I think few will choose to pay for is corporate welfare and politician's salaries. I also think that while some die hards will voluntarily bolster our military, the insane glut that goes towards our military would drop significantly.

a reply to: ugmold

Right because no one is going to voluntarily pay for social security because we all hate ourselves and each other and want to starve and die after retirement. I can guarantee one thing, social security will not be destroyed by giving people the power to decide what programs to support. If anything this would bolster and save social security by a lot.

Actually I just noticed a flaw in this system, it gives the rich too much control over where government spending goes. Hmmmm.... solutions, solutions....

a reply to: Puppylove

Do you really think that the average taxpayer is well enough informed to make that kind of decision?

First, consider that the average taxpayer doesn't consider him or her self competent enough to complete even the simplest tax form on their own.
Hence the popularity of software like TurboTax and firms like HR Block.

Then consider the truly Vast number of agencies and services, nationwide, "competing" for that 50% share of the taxpayers benifisence.

And realize that those agencies and services would now have to spend even more of the tax dollars they receive to weedle their funding not from just 500 odd politicians (as it is currently), but out of 100 Milllion or more individual taxpayers!

There's a fine and efficient use of your tax dollar!

And consider the moral aspect as well.

Should a child in rural Appilachia starve because more taxpayers were persuaded to fund a park in northern Alaska?

Complex problems never have simple solutions.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

I think that you find much less people starving with this than you do now. And we'd obviously need to legislate against using this money to "advertise" as it would be more simple form, it wouldn't be THAT over specific, more generalized categories, maybe more specific for those who want it.

Here's an idea of the form, you can stop at any check box

A1: Yes I want to specify my tax expense
B1-B?: Very broad general categories (Can stop here)
C1-C?: Broad subcategories of the 1st set (Can stop here)
D1-D?: Smaller subcategories of 2nd set (can stop here)
E - ???: Etc until all is covered (can stop any time going only so far as you care to)

A2: No I do not want to specify my tax expense (Can stop here)

Just one way it could work. Few would put all their expenses towards some random park which is a sub, sub, sub, sub, sub category. For one few would go so far to be that specific. Most would stop at A2 but those who care can go as specific as they're willing to take the time for. The only advertising allowed is in a neutral government database specifying the purpose and function of each option to educate those who wish to know.

a reply to: ugmold

Too late

www.fedsmith.com...

Government Owes $2.7 Trillion to Social Security. The government has embezzled all surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike, and spent the money on wars and other government programs. None of the money was saved or invested in anything.

dailysignal.com...

POLITICSCOMMENTARY Budget Deal Kicks the Can on Disability Insurance, Robs $150 Billion From Social Security

No matter where people want it to go or what laws are written to stop them from "borrowing" it, they will find a way to get their hands on it.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ugmold

Right because no one is going to voluntarily pay for social security because we all hate ourselves and each other and want to starve and die after retirement. I can guarantee one thing, social security will not be destroyed by giving people the power to decide what programs to support. If anything this would bolster and save social security by a lot.

Social Security doesn't come from tax revenue though, it comes from contributions to the social security fund.

a reply to: dogstar23

Explain please.

Social Security is it's own separate "tax" that isn't state or federal income tax. It will be listed as a separate deduction on your paycheck. However that doesn't stop politicians from dipping their hands into the pot. The only reason there are problems with Social Security is because they keep taking money from Social Security to fund other things.

I like the OP's suggestion but I think 100% of our state and federal income tax should be decided upon by the taxpayer. There is more than enough money in this country to maintain our infrastructure but we have bridges broken down (I live near a canal and there are many in my area... why?) we have potholes in the streets, we have brownouts, we have places like California with poor access to water. At the same time we are funding hundreds of billions, if not trillions, into our military and our politicians have their hands in every pot, and live the good life at our expense.

The only way to stop this to put the public in charge of public spending. Remove the corrupt politicians from the equation entirely. They don't know how we live and cannot relate to us at all, so why give them the blank check paid for through our livelihoods?

Everyone holding a public office should also be required to submit all of their personal sources of income as a matter of public record, every year they hold that office. We should all see where they are getting their money from.

Taking money from one public fund to prop up another fund should be illegal and punishable by prison time.

The government should be required to maintain a balanced budget at all times.

I could go on. Our officials are in no way shape or form required to be responsible with our taxes at all. It's no wonder our country is in poor shape.

It's a fairly good idea, but highly impractical.

a reply to: Puppylove

Sounds almost too great to be true. A lesser percentage should be in control of American citizens.

This may shush up the whiners who believe all of their money goes towards the "moochers".

You mean AFTER the law is passed that ALL politicians working for government start at $15.00/hr. topping out at $22.00?

I don't know, I kind of want the people to have the power to decrease congress' salaries when we end up with congresses like the on we have now that have well, the last I saw a percentage, less than 10% of the people actually approve of this congress. so well, I think their salaries, or at least a portion of them, should be included in the optional category. I also think that war should be optional. having a strong military is something I might want, but needlessly blowing that strong military to hades and back because it puts some spending money in some friends of some relatives, of some congressmen's pockets, no, I don't want...

but everyone should have a voice in this, after all we all pay taxes really, and if the taxes collected to pay for those mandated programs isn't enough to fund those programs, well, it falls onto the states to come up with the money. which they usually solve by increases other taxes, sales tax, property tax, registration fees, ect.

na, it would turn into a bookkeeping nightmare!

a reply to: dawnstar

Unfortunately, just our ability to vote is our voice in this

a reply to: dawnstar

Lol make it so their pay can only come from the optional category. Watch them squirm when they actually ARE beholden to the people they represent for their pay.