Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

Discussing Taxes

I found this interesting article that considers the drawbacks of raising taxes and what to do about that. I am not really a fan of high taxes, although I believe that rich people and companies have done an unfairly thorough job of dodging their share of taxes, leaving the burden on middle and lower class people who can least afford it but have fewer loopholes. The thing is, that point this article raises -- that people resist when they feel the taxes are unfair -- applies everywhere not just at the top. Tax structure needs to be fair, and perceived as fair, or people will balk and cause problems. Big tax increases are rarely a good idea.

I think a good solution would be to give people more control over how their tax money is spent. They should be able to indicate on their tax forms what government projects they wish to fund, and what they wish to avoid. Do you want to fund roads, education, national parks, and the space program? Do it. Do you want to fund the military and government offices? Go ahead. Maybe you don't want your money to go towards abortion or warfare; mark the "never fund this" box. After a couple years, maybe you realize that something is falling apart, and you aren't happy about that -- give that project your support next time. The system would need some "overflow" controls so that one or two things didn't get funded to the total exclusion of everything else; maybe say "Mark these items in order of preference" so once a certain program was fully funded, any further money aimed for it would be shunted to the next item down. Crucial core items should also be funded before fringe benefits. But in general, people would probably be a lot more willing to give the government their money if they had more control over how it was spent, so they wouldn't feel as much like they're just getting robbed.
Tags: discussion, economics, politics
Subscribe

  • A Little Slice of Terramagne: YardMap

    Sadly the main program is dormant, but the YardMap concept is awesome, and many of its informative articles remain. YardMap was a citizen science…

  • Winterfest in July Bingo Card 7-1-21

    Here is my card for the Winterfest in July Bingo fest. It runs from July 1-30. Celebrate all the holidays and traditions of winter! ( See all my…

  • Bingo

    I have made bingo down the B, G, and O columns of my 6-1-21 card for the Cottoncandy Bingo fest. I also have one extra fill. B1 (caretaking) --…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 5 comments
reileen

reileen

May 21 2009, 01:59:33 UTC 12 years ago

But in general, people would probably be a lot more willing to give the government their money if they had more control over how it was spent, so they wouldn't feel as much like they're just getting robbed.

This.
christinaathena

christinaathena

May 21 2009, 02:08:06 UTC 12 years ago

I've argued for that idea myself, too. Not only would improve the perception of fairness with taxes, but it would be a particularly involved form of democracy. I think you'd also need precautions in place to avoid rapid fluctuations in funding, and some form of averaging in place (otherwise, those who pay the most taxes would also have the most influence in where that money is spent). But, the basic idea, I think, is very sound.

Deleted comment

ysabetwordsmith

Thoughts

ysabetwordsmith

May 21 2009, 04:54:20 UTC 12 years ago

>>One is, of course, nothing is ever "fully funded." I don't care what government program you can possibly think of, I can tell you eight ways they could spend ten million more dollars that would make a real, solid, appreciable difference in taxpayers' every-day lives. <<

That's if you just give people wads of money. If you ask them for plans then those take time to draft, which limits the supply somewhat.

>>The second is that this: After a couple years, maybe you realize that something is falling apart <--doesn't work in many of the most crucial places. <<

That's a problem all right -- but it wouldn't be a NEW problem under my proposed system. (Think New Orleans, where the neglected infrastructure broke down and flooded most of the city.) It would just switch the blame from mostly politicians to mostly taxpayers.

I'm not saying a taxpayer-controlled funding system would be perfect. I just think it would be an improvement over what we have now.

veronica_milvus

veronica_milvus

May 21 2009, 08:52:17 UTC 12 years ago

Well I don't want to pay for the education system because I have no kids. I don't want to pay for buses because I have a car. I don't want to pay for the public swimming pool or the park or the library because I don't use them.

A lot of people would not want to pay for theatres or the Arts or home helps for the elderly or Universities or definitely not defense, and the space programme is a waste of money and who needs astronomers or statisticians or tax officials or drug rehab units or speed cameras...?

Let everybody pay for what they need. Drug users to pay for their own rehab! Prisoners to fund the jails out of their salaries! Let the sick and elderly pay for the hospitals! Tax those giving birth, to pay for midwives!

There is no such thing as society, only the individual!
fayanora

fayanora

May 22 2009, 11:27:17 UTC 12 years ago

Brilliant idea! Smashing!