5 ms·

For US income taxes the only amount of your taxes that you can direct is $3 for the presidential election fund. Why not expand this and let you pick from a doze

For US income taxes the only amount of your taxes that you can direct is $3 for the presidential election fund. Why not expand this and let you pick from a dozen or so categories?

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
Then people would be gravely offended by who was and wasn't on the list of choices.
- Brockenstein 8y ago
  Well they're already greatly offended by taxes and the idea that civilization requires money to run... I think outside of being offended, you'd just have a hard to getting any agreements on what would qualify.
  - asah 8y ago
    I'd love to see a large scale survey where people allocate their taxes, and see what the allocation actually comes to! The HN crowd might over-allocate $1000s per person to NSF, NIH and NASA and short Social Security while 100+M people contribute $0 to science, but depend on SS to survive. We might end up with the same budget but people feeling more in control. We'd also see large scale advertising which is actually a good thing: ads are pretty cheap/efficient, make people feel better about their government and society, and employ an army of creative people. I imagine you wouldn't see branches of government running negative ads against each other - it would be more like the feel-good military recruiting ads today. Sorry if this sounds utopian, I've had a rough week (in addition to everybody's rough week) and need something to feel good about.
    - jfim 8y ago
      That would end up in a popularity contest between agencies, which I doubt is desirable, especially considering some of those disliked agencies [1] are actually useful (like the FDA and the department of education). And hang in there, the weekend is almost there. :-) [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/which-federal-agencies-do-americans-hate-most%3f_amp=true https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/whic...
      - jasonbarrah 8y ago
        I agree, I'm afraid we'd end up with the government spending equivalent of a poorly planned college potluck. Everyone brings chips and paper plates and there is no actual food.
    - killerdhmo 8y ago
      There is a game if you want to try it for yourself. I agree I would be curious to aggregate https://www.federalbudgetchallenge.org/ https://www.federalbudgetchallenge.org/
      - asah 8y ago
        awesome! I took it, did pretty well: $2.61T spending decreases $3.94T increased revenue $2.85T deficit (i.e. tackle via economic growth aka increased revenue due to increased GDP) interesting to see how impactful a public health plan is ($158B) and raising the limit on social security income ($633B) and 2% VAT ($885B).
        asmithmd1 8y ago
        Yeah, adding a public option (a.k.a. Medicare for all) actually decreases the budget deficit. So why aren't we doing this? If Social Security is an entitlement program like any other, why is there any max income? Why is it only on "earned" income?
        androidgirl 8y ago
        Because that would essentially kill a lot of private healthcare jobs and industries. No administration* or congress wants to be the one to axe, say, Kaiser. It'd be a PR disaster. * Theoretical Sanders administration aside.
        barrow-rider 8y ago
        Because powerful lobby groups dictate government policy. Plus the Better-Dead-Than-Red strain of US Libertarianism. We may be poor, unhealthy, and beholden to wealthy political donors... but at least we ain't no Commie!
mempko 8y ago
I think because, at the federal level, taxes don't dictate how much one part of the pie gets vs the other. Budgets determine that. The federal government doesn't use taxes to pay for different parts of that pie. Taxes are a way to control inflation and influence behavior, that's it.
dorfsmay 8y ago
So people educated with public funds but without kids will allocate 0$ to education, then complain that youths these days just hang in the street doing no good, and allocate more of their tax towards policing?
- karmelapple 8y ago
  We could set minimum amounts to go to schools so that even if every single person in the country allocated $0 of their discretionary fund to public education, the public education system would still have the funds needed. And the default, if someone doesn't choose any categories, would go to some proportion that Congress would decide. However, allowing even a "small" portion - which could still be billions of dollars - to be allocated directly by taxpayers would gather some very interesting data. It would be very interesting to see which agencies would attract the most money, and what strategies they'd use to attract people to give their discretionary tax dollars to them. Would people give more to the CDC, NIH, NASA, the Dept of Housing, Dept of Transportation, Dept of Homeland Security, ... ? We could start to get a direct temperature of what is ailing people the most and what they want their money to fund. Government agencies could even "advertise," or at least try to get positive news articles that really highlight what they're accomplishing, to spread the word about the good they're doing. It could engage people more in exactly how their money is being spent, and care further about government, because they have at least a small hand in directly funding different departments.
  - monetus 8y ago
    Quakers have been trying to implement a form of this on religious grounds. At a used bookstore, I found a book(1) about Marian Franz that illuminated the history behind their attempts. Weirdly enough, there was a personal dedication in the front by David Gross(2), one her colleagues and someone who wrote extensively about the 'War Tax Resistance'. I'm not religious, so it kinda made me sad, but that book sent me down a rabbit hole. Could you live on 20k a year to avoid income tax and contributing to a war effort? Its impressive. (1) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6553714-a-persistent-voice https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6553714-a-persistent-voi... (2) https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/can-quitting-your-job-help-stop-war/382648/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/can-qui...
aidenn0 8y ago
You an direct a massive amount of your taxes to any charity you want, so long as you are not hit by AMT: donations are tax-deductible.
- moonka 8y ago
  That just means you don't have to pay tax on the amount you donate, it's not a 1:1 reduction in taxes.

For US income taxes the only amount of your taxes that you can direct is $3 for the presidential election fund. Why not expand this and let you pick from a dozen or so categories?

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

Then people would be gravely offended by who was and wasn't on the list of choices.

Brockenstein 8y ago
Well they're already greatly offended by taxes and the idea that civilization requires money to run... I think outside of being offended, you'd just have a hard to getting any agreements on what would qualify.
- asah 8y ago
  I'd love to see a large scale survey where people allocate their taxes, and see what the allocation actually comes to! The HN crowd might over-allocate $1000s per person to NSF, NIH and NASA and short Social Security while 100+M people contribute $0 to science, but depend on SS to survive. We might end up with the same budget but people feeling more in control. We'd also see large scale advertising which is actually a good thing: ads are pretty cheap/efficient, make people feel better about their government and society, and employ an army of creative people. I imagine you wouldn't see branches of government running negative ads against each other - it would be more like the feel-good military recruiting ads today. Sorry if this sounds utopian, I've had a rough week (in addition to everybody's rough week) and need something to feel good about.
  - jfim 8y ago
    That would end up in a popularity contest between agencies, which I doubt is desirable, especially considering some of those disliked agencies [1] are actually useful (like the FDA and the department of education). And hang in there, the weekend is almost there. :-) [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/which-federal-agencies-do-americans-hate-most%3f_amp=true https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/whic...
    - jasonbarrah 8y ago
      I agree, I'm afraid we'd end up with the government spending equivalent of a poorly planned college potluck. Everyone brings chips and paper plates and there is no actual food.
  - killerdhmo 8y ago
    There is a game if you want to try it for yourself. I agree I would be curious to aggregate https://www.federalbudgetchallenge.org/ https://www.federalbudgetchallenge.org/
    - asah 8y ago
      awesome! I took it, did pretty well: $2.61T spending decreases $3.94T increased revenue $2.85T deficit (i.e. tackle via economic growth aka increased revenue due to increased GDP) interesting to see how impactful a public health plan is ($158B) and raising the limit on social security income ($633B) and 2% VAT ($885B).
      - asmithmd1 8y ago
        Yeah, adding a public option (a.k.a. Medicare for all) actually decreases the budget deficit. So why aren't we doing this? If Social Security is an entitlement program like any other, why is there any max income? Why is it only on "earned" income?
        androidgirl 8y ago
        Because that would essentially kill a lot of private healthcare jobs and industries. No administration* or congress wants to be the one to axe, say, Kaiser. It'd be a PR disaster. * Theoretical Sanders administration aside.
        barrow-rider 8y ago
        Because powerful lobby groups dictate government policy. Plus the Better-Dead-Than-Red strain of US Libertarianism. We may be poor, unhealthy, and beholden to wealthy political donors... but at least we ain't no Commie!

mempko 8y ago

I think because, at the federal level, taxes don't dictate how much one part of the pie gets vs the other. Budgets determine that. The federal government doesn't use taxes to pay for different parts of that pie. Taxes are a way to control inflation and influence behavior, that's it.

dorfsmay 8y ago

So people educated with public funds but without kids will allocate 0$ to education, then complain that youths these days just hang in the street doing no good, and allocate more of their tax towards policing?

karmelapple 8y ago
We could set minimum amounts to go to schools so that even if every single person in the country allocated $0 of their discretionary fund to public education, the public education system would still have the funds needed. And the default, if someone doesn't choose any categories, would go to some proportion that Congress would decide. However, allowing even a "small" portion - which could still be billions of dollars - to be allocated directly by taxpayers would gather some very interesting data. It would be very interesting to see which agencies would attract the most money, and what strategies they'd use to attract people to give their discretionary tax dollars to them. Would people give more to the CDC, NIH, NASA, the Dept of Housing, Dept of Transportation, Dept of Homeland Security, ... ? We could start to get a direct temperature of what is ailing people the most and what they want their money to fund. Government agencies could even "advertise," or at least try to get positive news articles that really highlight what they're accomplishing, to spread the word about the good they're doing. It could engage people more in exactly how their money is being spent, and care further about government, because they have at least a small hand in directly funding different departments.
- monetus 8y ago
  Quakers have been trying to implement a form of this on religious grounds. At a used bookstore, I found a book(1) about Marian Franz that illuminated the history behind their attempts. Weirdly enough, there was a personal dedication in the front by David Gross(2), one her colleagues and someone who wrote extensively about the 'War Tax Resistance'. I'm not religious, so it kinda made me sad, but that book sent me down a rabbit hole. Could you live on 20k a year to avoid income tax and contributing to a war effort? Its impressive. (1) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6553714-a-persistent-voice https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6553714-a-persistent-voi... (2) https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/can-quitting-your-job-help-stop-war/382648/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/can-qui...

aidenn0 8y ago

You an direct a massive amount of your taxes to any charity you want, so long as you are not hit by AMT: donations are tax-deductible.

moonka 8y ago
That just means you don't have to pay tax on the amount you donate, it's not a 1:1 reduction in taxes.