Here is an entirely new government spending concept ...

[szh]

Years and years ago, a friend of mine came up with an idea that I thought had a lot of merit. Let me dump it on the table now and see what you all think.

We often whine and moan that the Government spends money in ways that we would not. True in some cases, not necessarily true in others. However, we do not have an accurate way to exactly tell the Government how we want our tax dollars spent - we rely on our elected officials to do that.

Yet, if the elected office is not of our choice (I can't stand the two California Senators for example), the spending of MY tax dollars is not done the way I want. Or, more accurate, not allocated the way I want (since it does not have to be exactly my tax dollar. ).

So, what if we came up with a simple solution. Add some information to our tax forms as follows. Put in some Basic Categories of government spending. For example: Defense (pretty obvious), Government Overhead (salaries, wages, cost of operating the government, etc.), Medical (insurance, Medicare, et. al.), etc., etc., etc.

And there are other rational ones that could be done, including "Other" where you get to say where you want your money to go, and including "Government Decides" where you let your Senator/Congressman make the decision (in case of emergency for example).

Then you get to put down exactly what percentage of your tax dollar needs to be allocated to which group. The form, for the first few years, could even make only some percentage of your total money be allocatable this way, till people got the hang of it - at which point, all (or most) of it would be allocatable in this manner!

If you add up to more than 100% or less than 100% in any allocation, the number gets changed (up or down) proportionally.

There would be folks who would put all their money into the Military category, some who would put it all into social spending, some who would think it through and allocate rationally, etc., etc., etc.

But, on the whole, it would statistically even out to the point where the Government would know exactly what the people wanted their tax dollars spent on!

Without guessing, without confusion, without whining, it would be the most equitable way to ensure that the will of the people was met!

Corporate taxes would be evened out proportionally along the same percentages as the individual selections.

This is a way idealistic proposal, of course, but, given this day and age of computers (all the IRS stuff is computerized), it would be a perfect way to gather the information and make it happen. (For the same reasons that I think the electoral college system is way overdue for removal - in this day and age, we can count the popular vote fast enough!)

What do you all think of this idea? Wanna expand on it? Shoot it down? Love it? Hate it? What?

Z

[Encryptshun]

Question: Most Americans, come 4/15, aren't really paying all their taxes -- they are just paying the balance of what they owe or calculating what the government owes them back.

How do you account for where your money is going if 99% of your money has already been given to the government by the time 4/15 rolls around? Granted, this would not apply to self-employed individuals who pay in quarterly and therefore have to file rather than contribute via witholding, but you get my point.

[szh]

How do you account for where your money is going if 99% of your money has already been given to the government by the time 4/15 rolls around? Granted, this would not apply to self-employed individuals who pay in quarterly and therefore have to file rather than contribute via witholding, but you get my point.

A good point. How about applying the percentage allocation to the next year? Budgets could start a few days or weeks after 4/15. Maybe even 6/1 or something.

Z

[Encryptshun]

Okay, that could be plausible. So long as there are special dispensation options that account for unpredictable shifts in spending needs (12 months in advance is a long time to plan, considering how quickly economies, emergencies, and military needs change.

[wingFeather]

Present.

j/k

I'd like to see something along this concept. Let me ponder it & come back with an educated guess.

[szh]

So long as there are special dispensation options that account for unpredictable shifts in spending needs (12 months in advance is a long time to plan, considering how quickly economies, emergencies, and military needs change.

Agreed! That would be the emergency fund marked as "Government Decides" in my original post.

Or maybe make some/most/all of Corporate taxes be used in that manner.

Z

[96Qowner]

So, what if we came up with a simple solution. Add some information to our tax forms as follows. Put in some Basic Categories of government spending. For example: Defense (pretty obvious), Government Overhead (salaries, wages, cost of operating the government, etc.), Medical (insurance, Medicare, et. al.), etc., etc., etc.

Z

Don' mean to be a party pooper - it's a nice concept and it's occurred to me in the past, but ...

If I check the Defense box, can they just go waste the money on anything that has to do with Defense? If I want Medical, does that mean they get to create a huge inefficient bureaucracy with my money?

This is the problem with "issues". They're just labels. There's never any detail, and only the detail is what's important.

[wingFeather]

There definitely needs to be accountability... almost like shareholders' communicae. Is my medical money buying $900 toilet seats? $8,000 lunches for Blue Cross's CEO?

[srellim234]

I like the idea.

Do the percentages apply to the total dollars collected or am I selecting where MY tax dollars go?

If it only applies to my tax dollars and not collectively, I only think it works if we go to a flat % income tax system with no deductions, which I favor anyway, and eliminate all the other taxes. The government collects way too many taxes from sources that would have no input in your system.

Corporate taxes, if retained, could be allocated by shareholder proxy votes, but a lot of other money isn't covered under the plan.

[AZhitman]

This is the problem with "issues". They're just labels. There's never any detail, and only the detail is what's important.

LOL - i just posted almost the exact same sentiment in another thread.

[szh]

There definitely needs to be accountability... almost like shareholders' communicae. Is my medical money buying $900 toilet seats? $8,000 lunches for Blue Cross's CEO?

Accountability would still be required ... the GAO would not cease to exist.

Z

[szh]

I like the idea.

Do the percentages apply to the total dollars collected or am I selecting where MY tax dollars go?

Total dollars collected would be easier to manage. This allocation scheme would identify the specific percentages used to allocate the tax revenue brought in.

Corporate taxes, if retained, could be allocated by shareholder proxy votes, but a lot of other money isn't covered under the plan.

Umm. Elaborate on this please? Did you mean taxes other than income and Corporate? Did you mean, for example, Sales and Excise tax. These could be allocated using the same percentages.

Or targetted directly (hypothetically, auto excise revenue could be used for roads infrastructure). Might be complicated for this to work though.

Z

[szh]

Don' mean to be a party pooper - it's a nice concept and it's occurred to me in the past, but ...

I agree that there is a lot of idealism that I present there!

If I check the Defense box, can they just go waste the money on anything that has to do with Defense? If I want Medical, does that mean they get to create a huge inefficient bureaucracy with my money?

A. I think the categories I mention above could be corrected to account for the same kinds of overall categories that the government budget is split into now. That would solve the definition problem you mention here.

B. Accountability would still be required. We currently have the same kinds of wasted money you mention above!

This is the problem with "issues". They're just labels. There's never any detail, and only the detail is what's important.

Point taken. So, let's use clear lumped categories from the current National Budget rather than issues.

Z

[Encryptshun]

Agreed! That would be the emergency fund marked as "Government Decides" in my original post.

DOH! Okay. I read that as you can opt to have part of your money pre-allocated to an emergency fund. I was talking about an override of taxpayer bucket preference if, say that 'emergency fund' bucket wasn't enough to cover the expenditures of that year (calculated in arears, of course).

[szh]

DOH! Okay. I read that as you can opt to have part of your money pre-allocated to an emergency fund. I was talking about an override of taxpayer bucket preference if, say that 'emergency fund' bucket wasn't enough to cover the expenditures of that year (calculated in arears, of course).

Could be worked in.

Give the Senate and Congress the right to PUBLICLY make a change for some budget year - no hidden money spending allowed. With Presidential veto rights.

Z

[Encryptshun]

[srellim234]

Total dollars collected is definitely the way to go. That would solve the things mentioned like sales and excise taxes. You will get some flack as to how much each "vote" for a % should count. Should the kid paying $5 in taxes on a minimal income be allowed to have the same say as Bill Gates, paying millions into the system? Proxy votes in business are weighted by the # of shares you own. Would this system do the same?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here in order to help solidify the plan.

[AZhitman]

Should the kid paying $5 in taxes on a minimal income be allowed to have the same say as Bill Gates, paying millions into the system?

YES!

True democracy.

Of course, his parents are influencing his directive, but that should counter the influence of special-interest groups and all the Raytheon / Halliburton employees directing theirs 100% to 'defense'.

[HashiriyaS14]

YES!

True democracy.

Of course, his parents are influencing his directive, but that should counter the influence of special-interest groups and all the Raytheon / Halliburton employees directing theirs 100% to 'defense'.

See, my problem with this isn't that those with little cash get the same say as those with lots of cash, I like that aspect of it.

My problem with it is that the idiots get the same say as the bright people, which is an issue I take with our current system. I'd love to see an IQ cutoff of 120 to vote...but obviously that ain't in the cards.

Additionally, this wouldn't work because it would require Americans to add, and as many educational reports show, not all of us can apparently do that competently. You'd get back a ton of reports that add up to 136% or 72.7% or whatever. Hell, maybe some people would just give up and answer "False".

[szh]

My problem with it is that the idiots get the same say as the bright people, which is an issue I take with our current system. I'd love to see an IQ cutoff of 120 to vote...but obviously that ain't in the cards.

Nope!

Additionally, this wouldn't work because it would require Americans to add, and as many educational reports show, not all of us can apparently do that competently. You'd get back a ton of reports that add up to 136% or 72.7% or whatever. Hell, maybe some people would just give up and answer "False".

Those are easy to address:

1. If the math is wrong (total percentage is not right), proportionally change the percentages entered to make it so. I mentioned this in my OP.

2. If people fail to select anything (like marking it false), then their entire percentage is allocated to the "Government Decides" category. They voluntarily gave up their right to allocate ... the "Hanging Chad" analogy.

Z

[Encryptshun]

"C"

[szh]

You will get some flack as to how much each "vote" for a % should count. Should the kid paying $5 in taxes on a minimal income be allowed to have the same say as Bill Gates, paying millions into the system?

Yes! Remember that each is allocating percentages. We could add each one's dollars separately too, but that is a complication ... not a compute-bound issue though!

As long as we have a requirement today that "One Man, One Vote" is relevant in the same way for selecting politicians, then this above is just fine too, no?

Regardless of how much you put in, all people get an equal vote. We do not allow Bill Gates to cast proportionately more votes for electing our elected representatives today!

Z

[Encryptshun]

We do not allow Bill Gates to cast proportionately more votes for electing our elected representatives today!

Z

True, but he could donate vast quantities of money to ensure the candidate of his choice has the campaign financing to waste his competition.

The status quo is that money wins elections in this country.

[szh]

True, but he could donate vast quantities of money to ensure the candidate of his choice has the campaign financing to waste his competition.

Off-topic, but worth an answer: That is not allowed per rules today ... each person can only do $2300 (I think that is the number) on political contributions to any candidate! That link I posted in another thread shows these facts.

Z

[Encryptshun]

I thought the contribution amount to the Party could be vastly more. How else could McCain be trying to raise $50 million per month.

I know it's off-topic, but so is the tax $ = votes tangent, no? I thought we were talking about citizens picking where their tax dollars go, not voting for anything...

[szh]

I thought the contribution amount to the Party could be vastly more. How else could McCain be trying to raise $50 million per month.

Nope, the limit is clear! Maximum of $2,300 per person per POTUS candidate. And, you have to be of voting age and a citizen. So, my wife and I could do $4,600 to any given POTUS candidate, but my 10 year old son is ineligible to contribute (even if someone could do it in his name)!

Note than I can contribute $2,300 to McCain (or Obama), but, AFAIK, I cannot contribute separately to Palin (or to Biden ... now that he is not running for POTUS).

At http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/, the reason Biden shows up at all on the charts, is because of the money he raised for his original POTUS bid, not the current VP-to-Obama selection.

In any case, think of it this way for an upper limit: if about 50,000,000 eligible voters put in 2,300 dollars each, that is a potential maximum of $ 115 Billion dollars available for a campaign. Obviously, not likely, but it is near the upper limit.

So, the current intake of $ 1 Billion by the end of the election is very possible and realistic. Averages out (if you assume 50 million voters) to about $20 per person.

I thought we were talking about citizens picking where their tax dollars go, not voting for anything...

Correct. I was pointing out that the same way we count Bill Gates and I for a vote apiece, we would weigh his allocation and my allocation of tax revenue equally. The thread went sideways when you asked whether his campaign contribution could be higher - the answer to that is no, not legally.

I am getting confused too ... so let's get back to the topic.

Z

[Encryptshun]

^ agreed

[dusred]

The first thing you would have to do in order to have this system work is get through to the government that you know how to spend your money better then they do.

And, Income tax isn't the only tax we get to pay. There are hundreds of other taxes; I would guess income tax is only 30% of the tax we have to pay.

[szh]

The first thing you would have to do in order to have this system work is get through to the government that you know how to spend your money better then they do.

Ummm ... what happened to "government of the people, by the people, for the people" -- Abraham Lincoln.

The question is: Should we get to say how our money should be spent? We do it - highly indirectly today - by our choices of elected officials who currently make those "decisions".

The problem is that the "majority" rules are too unfairly applied. For example, I detest both my state Senators spending habits - why can't I explicitly tell them how I want MY tax money to be allocated or spent?

And, Income tax isn't the only tax we get to pay. There are hundreds of other taxes; I would guess income tax is only 30% of the tax we have to pay.

Correct. As I mentioned earlier, my approach would allow for some possibilities (pick and choose from one or more of the following):

1. Proportion those to the same percentages!

2. Allocate those to the "Government Decides" category for a few years till the people got the hang of it.

3. Allocate those other taxes to specific targeted purposes (for example, vehicle - cars and trucks - excise tax is dedicated to fixing highway and road infrastructure)

Z

[szh]

One more bump ...

Z