Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

What are some flaws to this idea?

keepinitreal
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 4:28:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For those who are employed and are paying federal and state taxes every year. Since we work hard (or appear to) to and we pay our taxes to the IRS or state treasury and a bunch of politicians decide how to spend it. We should be given the option of determining where our tax money should be allocated every year. Since the tax rate is established and we/they know how much of our money will go to the government. Based on that tax amount (depending on the tax rate), we will be given a list of necessary programs/areas that we can choose to allocate our tax money to. We have to allocate some percentage of our tax money to this list even if it is 1% but of course it will add to 100%.

What would be wrong with the idea of giving us an option to choose where to allocate/budge our tax money to?
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 6:06:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Our Government is here to do that for us. Are the American people happy with the way it works? No, they never are. But the fact is, we elect people to do things like choose which programs to fund, etc. They do it, so we don't have to. But of course, when the vast majority of people vote party lines, and don't care what the politicians say or do, we end up where we are. So the problem is, it's pretty counterintuitive to elect officials to do things like allocate tax money whils also wanting to do their job for them. Just my opinion...
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 6:23:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I kind of like the idea. I think some of the flaws would be that the average US citizen probably sucks at budgeting and has no idea what programs need what. Not to mention, the fact that its really hard to figure out what should be on the ballot. In reality, the US federal government has hundreds, if not thousands of different programs. What you put on the ballot determines how much funding it gets. For example, currently PBS funding makes up like 0.01% of the budget or some absurdly small number like that. Put "PBS funding" under the ballot along with some other program,s and it would get something like 10%, which would just be absurd, considering that means it would be getting $300 billion annually.

There's been interesting stuff won how earmarking charity donations has been said to cause problems.

http://goodintents.org...

For example, during hurricane katrina programs that were considered to be more "sexy" had resources overallocated, causing absurd things like mini-mansions being build when food and water was what was really needed.

But its not like I thing the Us government does a good job of allocating the budget either. So, don't know.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 6:26:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
- Alexander Tyler

That summarizes the problem of your proposal.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
keepinitreal
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 7:34:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
so far, these politicians are doing a fabulous job doing it [sarcasm]

That quote is irrelevant to this idea-Not suggesting we get to control how much we pay our taxes. The suggestion is that we decide allocation of taxes go into certain programs/area of the government. By no means are we fattening our wallets by doing this.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 8:14:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 7:34:44 PM, keepinitreal wrote:
so far, these politicians are doing a fabulous job doing it [sarcasm]

That quote is irrelevant to this idea-Not suggesting we get to control how much we pay our taxes. The suggestion is that we decide allocation of taxes go into certain programs/area of the government. By no means are we fattening our wallets by doing this.

The point is that people will chose the candidates which not are not necessarily best for the country, but best for themselves. Usually, this is done through economic benefits. I see that problem exacerbated with your position because people get to vote directly on the programs that they want government funding, and most will surely vote for programs that give them better healthcare, better schools, or some other nonsense. Ultimately, you're going to have a socialist State which keeps on more and more spending. This is the quintessential problem with democracy and it is at least somewhat kept in check by the fact that politicians are lying scumbags.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."