New Tax Idea

[Technosoul]

Here is my plan for a new tax system.

In my plan you would have a sheet as part of your return upon which you (the voting public) can earmark just what you want your tax payment to be used for.

Like cutting a pie, you can give what ever percentage to whichever program you support and nothing to programs you do not like. Based on a total of 100 percent. However 10 percent would automatically go to general funds.
Leaving you 90 percent to control.

The form would have different things listed.

Military.
Welfare.
Schools.
Pay hike for Congress.
Fire and police departments.
Welfare for other countries.
The intelligence community.
Transportation and roads.
National Parks and environmental protection.
Health care for the needy.
Nuclear bomb development and missle shields.
Domestic oil exploration.
Jails.
Space exploration and study.
AIDs research.
The war on drugs.
Paying off debts to banks to balance the budget.


and so on, each main expendature of the government would be listed or be known as part of one of the listings.

That way you the taxpayer can determine what areas the government will spend our money. They (the government) could not use the money you intend for the military for schools, or visa versa.

Would you trust the taxpayers when it comes to controlling the national budget?

Whatcha think?
Technosoul.

[Samildanach]

Sounds brilliant, a natural extension to democracy, however you are taking power out of some politicians hands so it will never happen. I suspect the US govt would have to cut their military expenditure by a great deal if someone could ever force the bill through.
You would have to also provide a category for discretionary expenditure just in case a single category was so woefully underfunded that it needed to be shored up.
It would be better to do it on a state by state basis as well I think because what affects one state may well not affect another.
For example there must be states that are more subject to crime so they may want a larger portion of taxes spent on police and jails.
I would trust the average taxpayer to do this, after all its their money, why should they not get the right to spend it as they see fit, so long as all categories have a minimum of say 2% in them the remaining percent could be re-allocated pretty much how they liked.

[Compugasm]

Hmm, missle shields falls under military, but I understand the concept. The problem I see is when the media reports bad things about a particular program, people retaliating by not earmarking funds for it. As a result, some programs become overfunded. So, one year you might have $1bil budget, then the next is the "Screw the CIA" and now you get 500mil the next year. Swings like that would be devestating and the quickest way to trim any budget, is to cut jobs.

You're still giving to programs you don't support, just not as much. I've got no idea how much that stuff costs. Apparently, neither does the government. I'd rather approve, or disapprove of the programs/policy to spend money on a case by case basis. Your system could give them all the money upfront without having to request it from Congress.

As an experiment, pie out your expenses for food, cigarettes, etc.. if there isn't enough for Food, do you go hungry or take from the general fund? What you have is a good "piece of mind" basis for a tax system, but it doesn't address overspending, or overtaxation.

[gr8fuldaniel]

In the real world...
Then who is going to tell the military-Industrial complex they are'nt going to get their usual 1/2 of the pie (or something close to that) Is anyone gonna ask that their tax money goes to the School of the Americas, where they train terrorists and dictators and violent torture of prisoners? They get Millions in tax dollars each year. They need money too. Who is going to pitch in on nuk-u-lar weapons development and suitcase nukes? And Anthrax stock has to be replenished. We need to send depleted uranium overseas too. We need to supply dictators with sarin and mustard gas.
Click to enlarge

The Government Deception The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (above). Here is where I grabbed these charts

"Raise the pie higher!" GW Bush

[Autolykos]

Originally posted by Technosoul, Here is my plan for a new tax system. In my plan you would have a sheet as part of your return upon which you (the voting public) can earmark just what you want your tax payment to be used for. Like cutting a pie, you can give what ever percentage to whichever program you support and nothing to programs you do not like. Based on a total of 100 percent. However 10 percent would automatically go to general funds. Leaving you 90 percent to control. The form would have different things listed. Military. Welfare. Schools. Pay hike for Congress. Fire and police departments. Welfare for other countries. The intelligence community. Transportation and roads. National Parks and environmental protection. Health care for the needy. Nuclear bomb development and missle shields. Domestic oil exploration. Jails. Space exploration and study. AIDs research. The war on drugs. Paying off debts to banks to balance the budget. and so on, each main expendature of the government would be listed or be known as part of one of the listings. That way you the taxpayer can determine what areas the government will spend our money. They (the government) could not use the money you intend for the military for schools, or visa versa. Would you trust the taxpayers when it comes to controlling the national budget? Whatcha think? Technosoul.

What about the option "Keeping it for oneself"? In other words, I personally would choose to keep all of my tax dollars.

- Autolykos

P.S. To my knowledge, the federal government does not pay for fire and police departments.

[Technosoul]

Sorry, no section for tax refunds.

I think the Federal government authorized additional monies for those departments relative to the Homeland Security Department.
Correct me if I error.

The idea to test this idea in a state before using it nationally might be more worth concideration.

Technosoul.

[Scribbler1]

Can't do it. The government should have the power to earmark revenue for whatever purpose it deems NECESSARY. Your suggestion is only one of a two sided problem. Just as the political and social climate swings wildly between liberal and conservative, the mindset of the populace swings as well. Simply put, the "people" don't have the brains to wisely utilize the money.

The other side of the problem is that we have allowed mediocre, innefective, wasteful and downright stupid government to lead this country for decades. There would be NO problem with the effective use of revenue if the government was any damn good to begin with.

If you disagree with my assessment of the collective intelligence of the general public, just ask yourself who put the mismanagers in government in the first place?

If they are too stupid to elect decent representation they are CERTAINLY too dumb to manage our money.

[Technosoul]

What is the difference between electing stupid people to manage the national budget and having the voters who elect stupid people to do that management. At least we would have no one (like Bush) to blame for our own goof-ups. Do we just elect people to be our escape goats?

Should we make all canidates for the White House and Congress take a test on money management before they can run for office? And those who score low on the test could not be authorized under law to run for or to hold public office?

Should people who cannot read or write be allowed to vote? (never mind, we made that choice already).

What do you think about potential wanna-be canidates taking a standard test, about money management, about the consitution, and even a pychological test, which they must pass before being concidered for nomination?

Technosoul.

[katar]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, In the real world... Then who is going to tell the military-Industrial complex they are'nt going to get their usual 1/2 of the pie (or something close to that)

Whoa, that is a really misleading pie chart. $280B (most) of the "Past Military" slice represents estimated debt repayments from past military action. Like WW2 and Marshall Plan, I'm guessing.

About the tax plan, it's horribly impractical. People forget that half of the framers were terrified of an overly democratic system (eg, Hamilton, Madison- especially before he joined TJ as an anti-federalist). Pennsylvania tried an extreme democracy and it didn't go so well.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Technosoul, potential wanna-be canidates taking a standard test, about money management, about the consitution, and even a pychological test, which they must pass before being concidered for nomination?

The House of Representatives and the Senate come up with a budget. However, I would be in favor of Kerry taking that test. At least we might find out the names of the imaginary friends he thinks he's preaching too. What all politicians know, is how to use the tax laws to their advantage. So, thanks to Osborne Enready and Patrick Henry brainwashing me with tax laws, I'm in favor of the libertarian position.

[Technosoul]

Give them all a test, even those in local city governments.

Make that a lie-detector test (just in case) and have the UN monitor them so they do not cheat during the test.

Test them also about what they know about environmental egosystems, about forien countries, about the tax system, about whatever they are in chagre of masterminding or supervising.

Lets get intelligent people in office.

Technosoul.

[castille]

Intelligence is not equal to good.

Some psychopaths are intelligent people. You want them in office?

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by castille, Intelligence is not equal to good. Some psychopaths are intelligent people. You want them in office?

You're right, castille. I'll never vote for you!

[Evil Baby]

Would this just be personal tax or corporate taxes as well?

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Technosoul, What is the difference between electing stupid people to manage the national budget and having the voters who elect stupid people to do that management.

There is no difference. The two are the same.

At least we would have no one (like Bush) to blame for our own goof-ups.  Do we just elect people to be our escape goats?

No, we are just dumb, that's all. Barry Goldwater pretty much lost the presidency to Lyndon Johnson as a result of just ONE T.V. ad. The one with the little girl with an a-bomb blast in the background. This made the rumors that Goldwater would push the imaginary "red button" the minute the inauguration was over seem true to the people who didn't have a clue as to where BG really stood on ANYTHING!

The sheeple really went for the ad where all the little toy soldiers were swept off a table in an anti McGovern (I think. Might have been McCarthy) ad. This proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the man was going to scrap the entire military if elected.

Joe McCarthy was waving blank sheets of paper, claiming they were "lists" of communists, and we swallowed it whole.

The examples go on and on, proving (to me at least) that we are so much in love with style over substance as well as being so incredibly gullible I don't believe we are capable of electing a competant leader anymore.

Should we make all canidates for the White House and Congress take a test on money management before they can run for office?  And those who score low on the test could not be authorized under law to run for or to hold public office?

No. Part of the measure of a politician is the advisors he/she selects to cover all the technical areas the politician is weak on. Crazy old Henry R. Perot put is best when he said (something like) "I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but when I'm president I'll appoint the smartest people in this country to help me". OTOH, I am beginning to think a test for VOTERS would be in order to see if they are competant to vote. Since most Americans forget the RIGHT to vote also carries the RESPONSIBILITY to be educated enough to make an informed decision, we should have a test, similar to the ones they used to give in elementary school civics class. If you don't know anything but slogans or if you don't know the NAME of the person you are voting for but only know (or care about) his party affiliation, you don't vote.

Ideally, the electorate should have the same level of knowledge about how our government works as they do about sports teams and scores, or who's banging who in Hollywood.

What do you think about potential wanna-be canidates taking a standard test, about money management, about the consitution, and even a pychological test, which they must pass before being concidered for nomination? Technosoul.

That's a bad idea as it would render Washington a veritable ghost town overnight. :)

[castille]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-castille, Intelligence is not equal to good. Some psychopaths are intelligent people. You want them in office?

You're right, castille. I'll never vote for you![/b][/quote]
You don't need to - they don't have elections where I come from.

(Now you're gonna call me barbaric and spout on about how white people know better)

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Technosoul, and have the UN monitor them

No. No thank you. I don't want foreigners doing anything to our politicians, thanks.
The UN has already shown it is not the organization it is supposed to be.