I like the idea of being able to choose where taxes are spent, but maybe not in totality. If people choose for the whole attribution, they'll certainly spend ev

I like the idea of being able to choose where taxes are spent, but maybe not in totality. If people choose for the whole attribution, they'll certainly spend everything in healthcare when them or one of their family member will be sick, then on infrastructure when they'll want to make a road trip, etc. But totally agree that people should have a bigger role to play in governments decisions. That being said, thinking having a central government is the problem is extreme. Your examples and suggestions simply demonstrate we need more democracy, not less government. EDIT: yeah, thinking about it twice, it definitely needs to be only a part of the taxes you can choose where to allocate, and thus some kind of administration to decide about the rest. Think about this scenario: You live in a country where unemployment is high and sickness are low. People will naturally spend most of the budget in reforms allowing for more jobs, because they, or people they know, are unemployed. But there are sick people, with no budget. If the amount sick people pay in tax is enough to heal them, that's ok. Now, imagine it costs more, like, you need expansive medicine to cure a virus. People will still invest in job reforms, until they hear about a big epidemic that threatens them. Only then will they start to allocate taxes to healthcare, which will cost way more because the epidemic will be already there. With no fixed budgeting failsafe, such a system will naturally create a lot of epidemics, and other problems caused because small problems are not fixed early enough. Also, those who have rare problems are screwed and will fall first, so you'll probably having a less creative and risk taking society.