NationStates Jolt Archive

Currently, your influence in the tax spending is minor.

But why is it? After all it’s your money.

So it would be nice to have this option when we are filling in our tax papers.

We should have a list with all major spending departments, by instance something like:

O Education
O Healthcare
O Army
O Internal Security (Police, …)
O Sport
O Religion
O etc…

Next to each department a % is displayed, showing how much % of the total budget is currently spend to the correlated department.

Now, you only have to enter the figures that are wise according you and only you.

If you’re an atheist and if you don’t like it that the government is spending money on religions (building and maintenance churches, etc…) then enter a low (or even zero) %

Sure, some people would enter dumb amounts, but the majority would take it rather serious.

It’s democracy at your fingertips.

By instance, suppose you have some obscure country with only 4 departments:

Economy: 25%
Healthcare & Education: 50%
Army: 20%
Sports: 5%

So currently Economy receives 25% of the total current budget.

If you now think that this department needs a raise then enter any amount between 26% and 100%.

The 4 departments together should never exceed 100%

An excellent idea. Not a chance, though, I'm afraid. The military wouldn't let it happen, knowing how much of its money would be lost to social spending and internal security.

There's a reason the department of finance is staffed with trained economists.

What about those of us who would put 0% for everything?

What about those of us who would put 0% for everything?

Arrested for tax evasion. Might get a reduced sentence for being nice enough to tell the government that you won't be paying your taxes this year. :tongue:

What about those of us who would put 0% for everything?

If anyone does that, the military comes round to their house. Don't worry though, as they won't be receiving any funding it will be you with a gun against a force of about three people, armed only with peashooters.

Arrested for tax evasion. Might get a reduced sentence for being nice enough to tell the government that you won't be paying your taxes this year. :tongue:

Will .1% work?

Will .1% work?

I think the OP's idea is that the budget is set, and the percentages an individual chooses must add up to 100...

EDIT: Evidently that wasn't the idea!

You don't have to be trained to have an opinion. If you don't want a huge spending on army forces then you just do it with this system.

People should be allowed to enter 0% everywhere. Most people are sane enough to know that a government can't work with any budget.

By the huge amount of people, most things will come in balance.

Currently, your influence in the tax spending is minor.


Could it be that it's because you're a whole lot less important then your inflated ego would have you believe?

You don't have to be trained to have an opinion. If you don't want a huge spending on army forces then you just do it with this system.

People should be allowed to enter 0% everywhere. Most people are sane enough to know that a government can't work with any budget.

By the huge amount of people, most things will come in balance.

I'm now getting slightly confused. The percentage you put down in each box is a percentage of what? The current spending? If the numbers don't have to add up to 100, it would seem that just as anyone could put 0% for everything, someone else could put 500% in each box and massively increase the budget. Trouble is, if a few people start doing that, that will start distorting the average of the sensible people who have kept roughly within the range of the original budget. But if you don't allow people to go over 100, and yet allow people to go below, the people putting 0 everywhere or lower than 100% overall will mean that every year the government's budget will shrink, ultimately to nothing.

You don't have to be trained to have an opinion. If you don't want a huge spending on army forces then you just do it with this system.
No, you just stop your income taxes from going to the military. Won't make much of a difference when the arms manufacturing industry puts all its tax revenue into the military so they'll get it all back next year.

People should be allowed to enter 0% everywhere. Most people are sane enough to know that a government can't work with any budget.
Most people don't want to pay taxes.

By the huge amount of people, most things will come in balance.

You think.

I'm now getting slightly confused. The percentage you put down in each box is a percentage of what? The current spending? If the numbers don't have to add up to 100, it would seem that just as anyone could put 0% for everything, someone else could put 500% in each box and massively increase the budget. Trouble is, if a few people start doing that, that will start distorting the average of the sensible people who have kept roughly within the range of the original budget. But if you don't allow people to go over 100, and yet allow people to go below, the people putting 0 everywhere or lower than 100% overall will mean that every year the government's budget will shrink, ultimately to nothing.

Check the original posting. I added some information to clarify my intentions.

I'd like to put 65% into pie and 30% into cake. *nod*

Budgeting is difficult enough without a bunch of uninformed people setting revenues for the various departments.

No, you just stop your income taxes from going to the military. Won't make much of a difference when the arms manufacturing industry puts all its tax revenue into the military so they'll get it all back next year.


Most people don't want to pay taxes.



You think.


Sure, some industries can influence some departments (it's currently, present times not better), but if a majority wants a low budget for army stuff then the arms manufactories can't stop it.

I doubt if most people don't want to pay taxes. Most people know that a governments needs money and funding. Anyway the issue is not about paying taxes or not, but how your taxes are distributed.

Yes, I am pretty sure that most people will enter rather wise spending figures. Or are most people just morons?

Check the original posting. I added some information to clarify my intentions.

Ah, ok. Can you just clarify why this isn't the case though. Given that you can't go over 100% in total, but people are allowed to put *under* a total of 100%, the average allocated would be under 100%, and government spending would thus every year be less than it was the previous year, until there's no funding at all available for everything. Or am I misreading that? I think I probably am. Maths isn't my strong point :p

Or are most people just morons?

American Idol is the #1 show.

Currently, your influence in the tax spending is minor.

But why is it? After all it’s your money.


It's not your money. It's the government's money.

American Idol is the #1 show.

Sure, but not all tax payers are voting for American Idol, only the morons. And even these morons select pretty well a descent performer.

It's not your money. It's the government's money.
It was your money, until the government taxed it out of you.:p
Sure, but not all tax payers are voting for American Idol, only the morons. And even these morons select pretty well a descent performer.
*Snickers, puts on a straight face* Did they?

It was your money, until the government taxed it out of you.:p


Arguably, no. The government made it, and they didn't give it to you. One could reasonably state that they merely let you borrow it.

Arguably, no. The government made it, and they didn't give it to you. One could reasonably state that they merely let you borrow it.
And tell me, where did the government get the means to make it?

And tell me, where did the government get the means to make it?

From whomever makes money printers and mine gold?

From whomever makes money printers and mine gold?
And how did they get those who make the printers and mine gold to give them what the government needs?

Check the original posting. I added some information to clarify my intentions.
You've only made it more confusing. From what you're saying it looks like people can choose how much of their taxes go to each department, and can choose to pay less that 100% of their tax bill. What you've added makes it look like people can vote on what percentage of the next budget each department will get.
Sure, some industries can influence some departments (it's currently, present times not better), but if a majority wants a low budget for army stuff then the arms manufactories can't stop it.
They make more money than most people. They can give the government millions and I can deny them thousands. And not just the company owners. The people who work in the arms industry at every level, and their families, and everyone in the military and their families has a vested interest in how much funding the military gets, and can influence it directly.

I doubt if most people don't want to pay taxes. Most people know that a governments needs money and funding. Anyway the issue is not about paying taxes or not, but how your taxes are distributed.
You said people could enter 0% for everything. Most people would. Because most people have bills to pay and families to feed and that is a far more immediate concern than funding the government.

Yes, I am pretty sure that most people will enter rather wise spending figures. Or are most people just morons?
Yes, most people are morons to some degree.

yes I'm sure government accountants will be screaming with glee as they have to try and predict how much money will be spent where (nevermind the headache of crunching these numbers into bar form)

fuck the police? no worries Mr Murdock! just print some bullshit stories to get everyone riled up around about tax time

yes I'm sure government accountants will be screaming with glee as they have to try and predict how much money will be spent where (nevermind the headache of crunching these numbers into bar form)

fuck the police? no worries Mr Murdock! just print some bullshit stories to get everyone riled up around about tax time

Things would just go from a crisis in one department to a crisis in another. Hospitals might have to be closed, so everyone sends the health dept. money, then the police force is underfunded and crime increases, then the new motorway system will run out of money without more funding, then the teachers go on strike for fair pay, the the hospitals are fucked again.....

Things would just go from a crisis in one department to a crisis in another. Hospitals might have to be closed, so everyone sends the health dept. money, then the police force is underfunded and crime increases, then the new motorway system will run out of money without more funding, then the teachers go on strike for fair pay, the the hospitals are fucked again.....

They wouldn't, because no one would be paying their taxes. Why would you pay when you can get a free ride off the other suckers? And why would those guys continue to pay when they realise they are paying the taxes of thirty for the services of one? With no rule of law, it becomes survival of the most powerful. And then the most powerful realise they'd do better if they could ensure law and order and they decide to do this through a system of government, funded by mandatory taxes.

So we're back where we started with only with a slight meltdown of civilisation to show for it.

...so if I put 100% into "Trying George W. Bush for war crimes"....hmm...

Oh, and they'd use the percentages as ratios, not percentages (so if the total was 200%, they'd each get have the percentage the taxpayer asked for). 0% on everything would be interpreted as equal amounts on everything asked for.

Powerfully simplistic. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of areas that tax dollars go to, and most people don't even think of most of them. Any list that included all areas that a person had to send their tax money would overwhelm most people.

Powerfully simplistic. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of areas that tax dollars go to, and most people don't even think of most of them. Any list that included all areas that a person had to send their tax money would overwhelm most people.

True

That is the problem. The areas should be cut down. There are many areas where all you are doing is paying for someone elses life style.

I would also support a tax on things to directly pay for their costs. ie alcohol taxes to pay for police and hospitals, petrol taxes to spend money on fixing pollution and to be spent on roads and so on

I believe that people should pay for their own life styles. However there are many areas that must be taxed. I dont want an individual paying for the police or military. But if someone wants to be involved in the arts or sports why cant they pay their own way?

Im not interested in seeing pictures of nude children or other "modern art" that tax money gets spent on. I dont care if my country wins 0 golds in the olympics. Charge the people who want to see the events. That way it can opperate in a free market.

I'd like to put 65% into pie and 30% into cake. *nod*

Do I even want to know where the last 5% is going? :tongue: