NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's an idea a friend and I were discussing over a couple of pints:

Let's suppose that instead of the government garnishing your wages for income tax purposes, and then possibly readjusting it at 'income tax time', that every month you received a bill from the government for services rendered.

For example, you get your cheque from work, without taxes deducted. You then, have to pay your health bill (if nationalised health exists), your education bill, your defense bill, etc.

Obviously, no government in the world wants to do this. It makes it harder to collect revenue. However, I believe it would make people far more aware of how their money is being spent, and thus more apt to vote and take an interest in politics.


So... waddaya think?

Might work better if the governmentknew how it was spending money...besides, I wonder how people would look at that item on their check that says "Iraq War Deduction"...

Might work better if the governmentknew how it was spending money...besides, I wonder how people would look at that item on their check that says "Iraq War Deduction"...

Well, that's the whole point of the idea...

So what happens when people say "My children have finished education, I'm not paying the education bill!"

Bad idea.

The administration would be a nightmare. And this wouldn't be just the Government's problem - taxes (or 'administration charges') would have to go up in order to pay for the collection costs.

People get interested in politics when something relevant to them comes up. Making them realise how much they pay will simply get all the cheapskates complaining they don't want to pay for things they don't use. Society couldn't function like that.

Making them realise how much they pay will simply get all the cheapskates complaining they don't want to pay for things they don't use. Society couldn't function like that.
Heaven forbid the masses realise that federal grants go to renovating the first McDonalds.:rolleyes:

People get interested in politics when something relevant to them comes up. Making them realise how much they pay will simply get all the cheapskates complaining they don't want to pay for things they don't use. Society couldn't function like that.
Why should they pay for something they don't use.

Although this system sounds like "full privatisation". Which, however wonderful as an idea, probably wouldn't work out in practice.

Why should they pay for something they don't use.

Although this system sounds like "full privatisation". Which, however wonderful as an idea, probably wouldn't work out in practice.

I wouldn't label it privatisation. It's still public funds, and the projects these funds go to are decided publicly.

Creating a scenario where the government has to collect individual cheques for each spending matter is obviously unworkable, but let's suppose another scenario: The government still garnishes your wages, but come tax time, you get a bill for their services, outlining expenditures, public debt, etc.

What I'm proposing, is that people get away from the idea that government knows better than you how to spend your money (even though, in some cases, that may be true.) If we believe in democracy, then everything should be transparent and visible for everyone to see, which should include how the government is spending your money.

300 dollars for a frigging screw what senator am i paying for.

Here's an idea a friend and I were discussing over a couple of pints:

Let's suppose that instead of the government garnishing your wages for income tax purposes, and then possibly readjusting it at 'income tax time', that every month you received a bill from the government for services rendered.

For example, you get your cheque from work, without taxes deducted. You then, have to pay your health bill (if nationalised health exists), your education bill, your defense bill, etc.

Obviously, no government in the world wants to do this. It makes it harder to collect revenue. However, I believe it would make people far more aware of how their money is being spent, and thus more apt to vote and take an interest in politics.


So... waddaya think?
If we want to keep the income tax, just eliminate withholding. Then the April 15th payment would be the bill you are talking about. Better than that would be to eliminate the IRS and the income tax.

so, since my kids are homeschooled I wouldn't have to pay the education tax?

I am trying to understand.........

If we want to keep the income tax, just eliminate withholding. Then the April 15th payment would be the bill you are talking about. Better than that would be to eliminate the IRS and the income tax.
ah, but then you have to pay penalty.

also, I support the fair tax (even though it would put me out of one of my jobs) it seems more.......fair.

ah, but then you have to pay penalty.

also, I support the fair tax (even though it would put me out of one of my jobs) it seems more.......fair.
Withholding is a fairly recent innovation. Roosevelt ruined yet another facet of American life when he proposed that idea in WW2. Of course, it was claimed to be a temporary, war measure at the time ...

If we want to keep the income tax, just eliminate withholding. Then the April 15th payment would be the bill you are talking about. Better than that would be to eliminate the IRS and the income tax.

Sorry, as a Canadian, I'm not familiar with the specifics of American taxation. I'm speaking more of a 'collective fiscal responsibility'.

Withholding is a fairly recent innovation. Roosevelt ruined yet another facet of American life when he proposed that idea in WW2. Of course, it was claimed to be a temporary, war measure at the time ...
recent or not, if your witholding or estimated payments are less than your tax burden by more than a certain amount then you have to pay a penalty. (http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch04.html)


it's just not good "money sense" to do something that would cost you more money than it benifits you.

Sorry, as a Canadian, I'm not familiar with the specifics of American taxation. I'm speaking more of a 'collective fiscal responsibility'.
I think we're on the same page. We have a portion of our salary 'withheld', although I prefer to consider it extortion, to finance the government. Then a final bill is due on April 15th. Eliminating the withholding from each check and make a single payment on tax day would make every taxpayer acutely aware of his share of the burden.

I think we're on the same page. We have a portion of our salary 'withheld', although I prefer to consider it extortion, to finance the government. Then a final bill is due on April 15th. Eliminating the withholding from each check and make a single payment on tax day would make every taxpayer acutely aware of his share of the burden.
aren't you aware now though?

I think he is more talking about knowing where your money goes, for example

education $200
defense $1000
welfare $500

then if you thought that education was more important than defense (or whatever) you would be more involved in trying to change the way the govt. allocates money.

I mean in the US right now we are pretty aware of how much we pay, you can look at your 1040 and see how much tax you owe.

I think we're on the same page. We have a portion of our salary 'withheld', although I prefer to consider it extortion, to finance the government. Then a final bill is due on April 15th. Eliminating the withholding from each check and make a single payment on tax day would make every taxpayer acutely aware of his share of the burden.

Thank-you!

I believe that as a tax-paying citizen, you should be able to see the services rendered for that tax. I'm definitely not against taxes, or public spending, but if people were aware of what precisely goes on with their money, it would be more apt to be in public discourse.

Also, if the average tax-payer was aware of the size of the public debt, they'd be more apt to vote for a politician or party that would advocate eliminating that debt.

aren't you aware now though?

I think he is more talking about knowing where your money goes, for example

education $200
defense $1000
welfare $500

then if you thought that education was more important than defense (or whatever) you would be more involved in trying to change the way the govt. allocates money.

I mean in the US right now we are pretty aware of how much we pay, you can look at your 1040 and see how much tax you owe.
I am and I'm sure you are too, but I think we're a few of the exceptions. When you ask someone how much income tax they paid last year, how often do you hear the confounding reply, "I didn't pay anything, I got money back!" You know it isn't true, but there are so many people that are blissfully unaware of what they actually pay to run the government. Ask another question like "How much do you make?", and I'll guarantee that the majority of the answers are only referring to "take-home" pay. They have no idea what their gross pay is.

Here's an idea a friend and I were discussing over a couple of pints:

Let's suppose that instead of the government garnishing your wages for income tax purposes, and then possibly readjusting it at 'income tax time', that every month you received a bill from the government for services rendered.

For example, you get your cheque from work, without taxes deducted. You then, have to pay your health bill (if nationalised health exists), your education bill, your defense bill, etc.

Obviously, no government in the world wants to do this. It makes it harder to collect revenue. However, I believe it would make people far more aware of how their money is being spent, and thus more apt to vote and take an interest in politics.


So... waddaya think?



I would pay my health care, education, and transportation bills -- but I will NOT pay my defence/ "Iraq War"/ "Feigned War on Terror" bill. If they want to burn the Middle East to the ground, they're not going to spend my money doing it.