4 ms·

I wish that there would be an option to say how I want my taxes spent. For example, give 10 categories, like education, military, health, infrastructure, govern

by nekopa 9y ago

I wish that there would be an option to say how I want my taxes spent. For example, give 10 categories, like education, military, health, infrastructure, government etc. Require a minimum for each, say 2%. Then its up to me to allot the rest of my taxes. So if I am a hawk, I can dump 80% of it in the military. Or education if I have kids. I think technically this could be done, but it would be interesting to see what the result would be, and if a country could run on this principle.

krath94 9y ago
I think it really comes down to what roles you assign to each level of government. For example, I think one of the main roles of the federal government is to maintain the military. I think a role of state and local governments is to maintain the infrastructure and education. I'd rather send more tax money to state and local governments, because I'd see the results. A lot of the money that states use to build and maintain their roads comes from the federal government anyway, so why not cut out the middleman and have the taxpayer give it directly to the state. Obviously there are some places where you will have overlap between the different levels. For example, I don't think the federal government should be completely, 100% out of education, but rather should have a reduced role so the teachers can do their jobs and educate. Obviously these ideas would be difficult to implement and are also idealistic. For example, some states are poorer than others so their tax revenue may not be enough. But even given that, I think state and local governments having more power would be better for the people. And no, this isn't some states' rights dog whistle or whatever (I doubt any of you would accuse me of that, but people have).
- nekopa 9y ago
  Good points. Side note: I am a US citizen, but I live in the Czech Republic at the moment, so I would be interested to see a system which would be flexible enough to allow any government to utilize. This actually seems like an interesting enough problem that I may try to code up a website where people can anonymously enter how much tax they pay (in currency amounts) and how they would allocate it (in %). Then try to do some aggregates to see how countries would compare.
dagw 9y ago
The big problem is how could you possibly make a 5 year health care or defence plan if you from year to year will get anywhere between 2%-80% of the available money
neuronotic 9y ago
This sounds like you are yearning for a more democratic system of government? I think a key thing is to view 'democratic' as meaning more than merely the opportunity to choose - the common narrative around what a 'democracy' is. Rather, it is the opportunity to participate in framing of the choices, without pre-existing powerful interests having disproportionate influence. Noam Chomsky is an easy reach for a reference to some thought on the matter. He's written so much, but here's the first thing that I find: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_nothing_like_a_democracy/ http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_noth...
alistairSH 9y ago
Indirectly, you have this power through elections. Lack of interest (in the US) in local elections is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Local government has a much larger impact on a person's day-to-day life. Spending on education is largely at the county/city level (while the state and federal governments provide funding, localities can increase the amount and has some discretion in allocation). Development, local roads, police & fire, healthcare - all by and large controlled locally. But, I do agree, at the federal level, it often feels like we have very little control over taxation and spending.
- neuronotic 9y ago
  This is a rehash of a sibling comment I made: The opportunity to select from a curated set of options is better than no choice, but I think having the opportunity to participate in curating of the options is even better and more democratic. See the link I posted in the other comment.
pavel_lishin 9y ago
Could we actually break government spending down into 10 simple categories?

by nekopa 9y ago

krath94 9y ago

I think it really comes down to what roles you assign to each level of government. For example, I think one of the main roles of the federal government is to maintain the military. I think a role of state and local governments is to maintain the infrastructure and education. I'd rather send more tax money to state and local governments, because I'd see the results. A lot of the money that states use to build and maintain their roads comes from the federal government anyway, so why not cut out the middleman and have the taxpayer give it directly to the state. Obviously there are some places where you will have overlap between the different levels. For example, I don't think the federal government should be completely, 100% out of education, but rather should have a reduced role so the teachers can do their jobs and educate. Obviously these ideas would be difficult to implement and are also idealistic. For example, some states are poorer than others so their tax revenue may not be enough. But even given that, I think state and local governments having more power would be better for the people. And no, this isn't some states' rights dog whistle or whatever (I doubt any of you would accuse me of that, but people have).

nekopa 9y ago
Good points. Side note: I am a US citizen, but I live in the Czech Republic at the moment, so I would be interested to see a system which would be flexible enough to allow any government to utilize. This actually seems like an interesting enough problem that I may try to code up a website where people can anonymously enter how much tax they pay (in currency amounts) and how they would allocate it (in %). Then try to do some aggregates to see how countries would compare.

dagw 9y ago

The big problem is how could you possibly make a 5 year health care or defence plan if you from year to year will get anywhere between 2%-80% of the available money

neuronotic 9y ago

This sounds like you are yearning for a more democratic system of government? I think a key thing is to view 'democratic' as meaning more than merely the opportunity to choose - the common narrative around what a 'democracy' is. Rather, it is the opportunity to participate in framing of the choices, without pre-existing powerful interests having disproportionate influence. Noam Chomsky is an easy reach for a reference to some thought on the matter. He's written so much, but here's the first thing that I find: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_nothing_like_a_democracy/ http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_noth...

alistairSH 9y ago

Indirectly, you have this power through elections. Lack of interest (in the US) in local elections is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Local government has a much larger impact on a person's day-to-day life. Spending on education is largely at the county/city level (while the state and federal governments provide funding, localities can increase the amount and has some discretion in allocation). Development, local roads, police & fire, healthcare - all by and large controlled locally. But, I do agree, at the federal level, it often feels like we have very little control over taxation and spending.

neuronotic 9y ago
This is a rehash of a sibling comment I made: The opportunity to select from a curated set of options is better than no choice, but I think having the opportunity to participate in curating of the options is even better and more democratic. See the link I posted in the other comment.

pavel_lishin 9y ago

Could we actually break government spending down into 10 simple categories?