board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

A proposal for taxation

Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 7 posts ]
What do you think?
Sounds good
  
50% [ 1 ]
A bad idea
  
0% [ 0 ]
Not sure...
  
50% [ 1 ]
Total votes: 2
Author Message
yovargas
Post subject: A proposal for taxation
Posted: Sun 29 Jul , 2007 5:27 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
This is an idea that just occurred to me today. As such, it's not all that well thought out. But I find it attractive and thought all you smart folk could help me see the pros and cons. :)

*********************

One of the big issues that divides libertarians from everybody else is that libertarians see most taxation as a form of force and that use of force against its citizens is immoral. In principle, I agree. In practice, I can't think of any reasonable way to make that actually work (even in the ideal hugely reduced libertarian government).

Libertarians are often accused of being selfish because they don't think taxation should go to welfare/socialist programs. This is under the assumption that, if not taxed, libertarians wouldn't freely give of their money. This is bullshit - I have no doubt that libertarians in general are willing support social causes. They'd just like to be able to have say on how, when, where, ect.

It occurred to me last night, on a practical level, what bothers me most is not that I have no real choice but to pay taxes but that I have no real choice on where those taxes go. The answer of "you elect officials that you hope will broadly use your money in ways you like", frankly, sucks. Too much corruption, too much power, too many lobbyists, too much waste, and not nearly enough voice from The People. If you don't agree, think, ye many American war opposers, how much of your tax dollars have been spent in a war you may find morally reprehensible. I don't know how much I've spent on that war, but I'm betting it's WAY more than I'd like it to be (ie. $0).

So, while I'll conceed on a practical level that the government has to take my money, I disagree on how little say I have on what my money does. In comes my proposal - instead of just voting for people and hoping they use my money well, I get to tell the government how it's going to use my money. Here's my idea.

On your yearly tax payments (or whatever), the government's functions are categorized into a small group - I'm thinking maybe 15-20 - of broad categories.

- Welfare
- Education
- Defense
- Crime Enforcement
- Healthcare
- ect ect

A certain amount of your taxes, let's say, 80% (certainly a majority) gets allocated to those broad categories in whatever manner I want. So if I pay $5,000 in taxes per year, I can put $4,000 to wherever I wish. I can put all of it to education, or split it evenly amongst everything, or make sure that everything gets something but war doesn't get a dime. It would be illegal to use my money for programs outside of the categories I designated. The other $1,000 the government takes to use as it needs or wants.

It sounds bloody marvelous to me, in part, because contrary to popular perception of libertians, ideally we be would giving (emphasis on giving!) more of our money to help each other and this ensures more money goes where I think it will help humanity most (and harms humanity least). I'm sure there are some practical problems (I hate these practical problems :x :x :x ruin my idealism will ya! :rage: ) that I can't see. What do you think?


Top
Profile Quote
LalaithUrwen
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 29 Jul , 2007 7:43 pm
The Grey Amaretto as Supermega-awesome Proud Heretic Girl
Offline
 
Posts: 21756
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 3:46 pm
 
Wow. That's kind of a cool idea, actually.

As one idealist to another, this pains me to say, but I won't hold my breath. The power has been given to the government already; I don't see them relinquishing it willingly. :(


Lali

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 29 Jul , 2007 7:57 pm
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
I find that idea appealing for a variety of reasons. For one thing, I'd be able to stop paying into a war I disagree with. I know universities face this sort of thing all the time when accepting donations, so it's not as if a large bureaucracy can't cope. The big issue is, do they want to?

The practical problems stem from making sure people's money actaully goes where they want it to (foxes guarding the henhouse, anyone?), and it makes budgeting a bit rougher than it is already. I've seen this time and again at my university. A wealthy donor gives us a pile of money. Fantastic, but wait...that money is only for department X or program Y. Or it's only for building a new building or installinga new facility in an existing building, which is great except department Z is bankrupt and program W is going to get canned and we've already got buildings that are falling apart. The chemistry department is perenially strapped for cash, and one of our buildings is completely out-of-date. So out-of-date that for a long time it has been cheaper to just pay than EPA fines rather than renovate. From the pocketbook standpoint that's fine, but I'm really really glad I don't work in that building! The money's there, we just can't use it where we'd want to because the donors will sue us. But somehow the university is still functioning. Maybe it's because we have more or less competent people running the show (and that's the real trick to anything...US Government, are you listening?).

The decrepit chemstry building story is poised for a happy ending though - rumor has it that it's actually going to be renovated in the next couple of years. I almost believe it. After years of promises, my stipend finally went up, which is a sure sign that ice is creeping over the pits of hell, pigs have sprouted wingbuds, and the hens are teething.

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject: Re: A proposal for taxation
Posted: Sun 29 Jul , 2007 10:10 pm
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
yovargas wrote:
I have no real choice but to pay taxes but that I have no real choice on where those taxes go. The answer of "you elect officials that you hope will broadly use your money in ways you like", frankly, sucks. Too much corruption, too much power, too many lobbyists, too much waste, and not nearly enough voice from The People.
The apportionment idea is used with the United Way campaign, a group of several dozen charities that band together for advertising and office fund raising drives. I can choose to put all my contribution to one charity or another. Of course, if I put all mine in a pro-X organization, and someone else puts all hers in "distribute where ever it's needed most", hers will go to the anti-X organization. In the end, both organizations will be funded to the amount they originally requested, and both I and the other gal will feel better about what we did than if we both just threw money into a generic pot.

Even if we don't set up the tax distribution as you suggest, we are doing the same thing. A small group of people are heavily lobbying pro-war, another small group is lobbying anti-war, and the rest of America is too busy watching TV, saying "distribute as needed, don't bother me now".

It's kinda like "Everybody talks about the weather but no body does anything about it." How many hours last week did you-all spend on getting the bum out, if he/she isn't representing you to your satisfaction? I agree there isn't enough voice from the People, but that's because we People are not speaking loudly enough or often enough. Most of us are not speaking at all. I for one am too busy making a living, visiting family, pursuing hobbies, and hanging out on the Internet. I don't like the current regime, and badmouth it every chance I get, but I'm not actively working for the opposing party, which is what has to happen, on a grand scale, before things will change. I have earned the representation I have, sadly.


Top
Profile Quote
RELStuart
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Jul , 2007 3:01 am
Legendury speller
Offline
 
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon 14 Mar , 2005 2:06 pm
Location: US of A
 
The only problem I see from a practical standpoint is what does the nation do if we have another LA riot or world war? Suddenly that money that has all been designated to other areas is needed to law enforcement or war. Then what?

I like the idea behind the idea. That we get a bigger say in what goes on. But on a practival level we only give once a year and a lot things can change before the government.

Plus then we would have DHS an other departments spending money on advertising to get people to know why they should get more of their tax dollars sent to them than part X of the government.

_________________

"When people don't believe in you, you have to believe in yourself. "
Pierce Brosnan

"Please don't disillusion me. I haven't had breakfast yet." Card


Top
Profile Quote
Lord_Morningstar
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Jul , 2007 9:31 am
Offline
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia
 
I’m suspicious of the proposal, just because so much could potentially go wrong. For example, if everyone opposed to the Iraq War stopped granting any funding to the military, the results would be catastrophic. Also, public opinion can be fickle – I can imagine a situation where Government departments would be forced to run campaigns for money, and where a single event like a terrorist attack could result in a lot of people giving everything to one area.

Some things are just better planned centrally.

_________________

[Space for Rent]


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 30 Jul , 2007 2:48 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
And some people are just silly about things like that. When I was young, and in the military, our arms were twisted to contribute to the United Way.

Not liking to be coerced, but also unwilling to buck the system, I signed up for the "recommended" donation level... but assigned it all to the "Society for Creative Anachronism".

:)

I can't imagine being the only one with a contrary attitude like that...

_________________


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 7 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium”
Jump to: