NationStates Jolt Archive

I had a discussion with a couple of friends just yesterday. The issue:

Can tax payers be given a choice in what their contributions should be spent on?

The prevailing position was a "no way". In the end everyone would decide for herself, in favour of herself even and that is totally antisocial and undemocratic.

My point here was that
1) the argument "what if everyone got to doing this?" is always a blatant sophism, as bearing no reality value;
2) it should not be a yes/no issue: intermediate solutions are possible, eventually boosting the social and democratic content of tax paying.

Does anyone know of previous discussions on the web or of sites dealing with the issue? All I found was this:

http://www.nwtrcc.org/


Thanks for your opinions and help!

No, for two reasons:

1. People would choose to only spend their tax dollars on themselves, which would prevent any sort of unified, common-good project like a new highway or a new school.

2. People are remarkably unaware of what government services they actually use. Most people cry out against taxes being used for things like welfare or the military, and how they shouldn't have to pay the taxes because a large proportion of the money they pay isn't used on them, but these people almost invariably forget about the numerous publicly-funded services they use, from government-maintained roads to garbage service to the mail. If people had complete control over the use of their tax dollars, many would most likely completely ignore many vital services they now count on, and it would be up to the government to bail them out when they started complaining.

The real way you choose how your tax dollars are spent is by who you vote for.

Would that mean that everyone would have to sit down, work out not only how much tax they pay directly, but also things like GST and petrol tax before they then decide to divide it up? Not worth the effort for most people I'd think.

[QUOTE]No, for two reasons:

1. People would choose to only spend their tax dollars on themselves, which would prevent any sort of unified, common-good project like a new highway or a new school.

This depends entirely on how the taxation system is structured.

[QUOTE]2. People are remarkably unaware of what government services they actually use.

True. But by giving them the opportunity to vote on how the budget is spent wouldn't this provide them with an incentive to become more informed and, more importantly, an incentive for politicians to inform them?

Most people cry out against taxes being used for things like welfare or the military, and how they shouldn't have to pay the taxes because a large proportion of the money they pay isn't used on them, but these people almost invariably forget about the numerous publicly-funded services they use, from government-maintained roads to garbage service to the mail. If people had complete control over the use of their tax dollars, many would most likely completely ignore many vital services they now count on, and it would be up to the government to bail them out when they started complaining.

Again this depends entirely on how you structure the taxation system. If tax payers are given a choice on how much tax they pay, obviously they will only choose to give when it benifits themselves. However if the tax rate is set, but voters are given a chance to vote on where it is allocated, then you have government spending that is more democratic.

The real way you choose how your tax dollars are spent is by who you vote for.

Are politicians compelled to provide a spending budget prior to being elected. Are they compelled to keep their campaign promises?

Its unworkable....the reason we elect representatives to decide our will on what taxes should be spent on... Direct Democracy among a large population is not a feasible means of governance...

Its unworkable....the reason we elect representatives to decide our will on what taxes should be spent on... Direct Democracy among a large population is not a feasible means of governance...

Why not?

the argument "what if everyone got to doing this?" is always a blatant sophism, as bearing no reality value

I just want to point out that your statement, criticism (?), doesn't make any sense. A sophism being a false, but seemingly true, arguement means you need to apply it to... wait for it... an arguement. "What if..." is a hypothetical, very much not an arguement.

Are you trying to say that it is an inappropraite hypothetical? I mean, what situation, other than the system you propose actually being used by a large majority of the population, would you prefer to consider? If only a few people used it? If only Bob used it?

But anyway, on principle I don't see any thing wrong with the proposal. But practically speaking it is unwise to implement such a policy.

Every two years I have to vote on 30+ officials and countless judges. Honestly, I can't give all elections the attention they deserve. But in your proposal, I would also have to know how much the government is spending in a particular area, know how much is needed in that particular area for a particular goal or goals, and decide if that goal(s) is ideologically consistant with my beliefs. That's a lot of work to do on the federal budget alone, forget about state and local government budgets.

So then what do you suggest? Maybe if I don't know or have the time to learn I should just let others worry about it like I am already, more or less? Well fine but just because I know that I don't know enough to go poking around the federal budget doesn't mean that others will follow my lead.

Two kinds of people will take advantage of this proposal, those who are in the know and those who are uniformed, partisan, lunatics. Should we sink foreign aid because half of the U.S. population is lead to believe it takes up a third of our budget (or insert your prefered ridiculous situation here)? No of course not.

But while we are on the topic of information, let's remember that even experts in a particular field disagree regardless of idealogical stance. Let's, for example, we pull aside two moderate Republicans who work in the Pentagon on logistical matters. Do you suppose that both will give you the same number, down to the $100,000, assuming they didn't work on the same team or in the same office? Probably not. Will they each have good reasons for their own estimation? Certainly.

Now what if we do start allocating funding in peculiar ways? What if the military get's so much funding it merely increases the number of DOA projects it takes on? What if the military get's too little to properly defend even our own borders (let alone our foreign commitments) but every art student in New York get's to live in a penthouse apartment?

So we have three primary problems: Lack of information and misinformation, the 'expert' problem, and misallocation.

I demonstrated those problems by hypotheticals, so not a lot of concrete stuff there. That being the case, let me offer something a little more solid:

If I'm up to my elbows in federal, state, and local budgets, what the hell am I paying my representatives for?

Why not?

Hanging chads.

But if direct democracy were done online, I think it would have a beter chance of working. Everyone is already hooked up, pretty much. ANd its easier to do something online than hike out to the polls and sit in the cubicle.

If people individually planned out a budget for their own tax money, there would be no need for taxes in the first place. That is the point of taxes, you give the government control of your money in exchange for their governing of society.

Are politicians compelled to provide a spending budget prior to being elected. Are they compelled to keep their campaign promises?

They aren't compelled to, no. But invariably, if they do not do what they were elected to do, they get voted out of office.

Its unworkable....the reason we elect representatives to decide our will on what taxes should be spent on... Direct Democracy among a large population is not a feasible means of governance...
I fill in my tax form over the web ...

Would that mean that everyone would have to sit down, work out not only how much tax they pay directly, but also things like GST and petrol tax before they then decide to divide it up?
Let's stick to direct taxes to start with.


Not worth the effort for most people I'd think.

That's what I mean by 1)

If people individually planned out a budget for their own tax money, there would be no need for taxes in the first place. That is the point of taxes, you give the government control of your money in exchange for their governing of society.
Not the issue here: see 2)

They aren't compelled to, no. But invariably, if they do not do what they were elected to do, they get voted out of office.

Don't be too certain about that.
They can fool a lot of people a substantial part of the time ...

It isnt a feasible solution. Things like education and the police would be overfunded while programs like welfare, and medicare would go bankrupt. Not to mention that the salary of politicians would mysteriously cease to exist as no one would put money into that.

As for why direct democracy wouldnt work? Most people are not educated enough to read a legal document like a new bill, and those who are are way too busy to wade through the countless bills that make it to the legislature.

[QUOTE]It isnt a feasible solution. Things like education and the police would be overfunded while programs like welfare, and medicare would go bankrupt.

How do you know it isn't a feasible solution until you try?

Not to mention that the salary of politicians would mysteriously cease to exist as no one would put money into that.

You say this like it is a bad thing.

As for why direct democracy wouldnt work? Most people are not educated enough to read a legal document like a new bill, and those who are are way too busy to wade through the countless bills that make it to the legislature.

Then it will be up to politicians to ditch the legal jargon and use simple, straightforward language.

Yeah, I was thinking on the same lines as 'no taxation without representation" came up today in history class...

here is the minimum of what I decided, any contributions or critques gladly welcome:

The people are only given specific categories for which they can alott their taxes. (no fill in the blank stuff like..."my dog!")

The public will be constantly notified on the choices that their fellow people have made in deciding the categories (not specifically who decided it, just "Education...5%, Military...75%" oh, that would be sad... but anyways, in that form) in this way they could make adjustments to their wishes if a particular section is already recieving a large percentage.

There should be SOME restriction on how much each category would recieve... not a lot though, just as long as there is no outrageous off balance.

Those reciving the tax money would have to use it on aggreeably appropriate purchases (I'm pretty sure there is enfourcement for this already...I hope >.>)

That's all I can think of for now, maybe I'll remember more later...


Not to mention that the salary of politicians would mysteriously cease to exist as no one would put money into that.

What exactly is wrong with this? I (if I were a politician) would be more than happy to live in a carboard box if it ment taxes were spent on more important necessities...