Just mention taxes, and everyone gets their panties in a bunch.
"The Death Tax", property taxes, gas taxes, state taxes, sales tax, capitol gains tax, blah, blah, blah. We all think our tax burden is unacceptable, unreasonable, or having to support programs and gov't functions which threaten our faith, family, or moral code.
Why isn't there a way for federal taxes, which are deducted each paycheck, to be paid quarterly instead.
Every three months, we would write a check to pay what we must, BUT..one of those checks, (of our choosing) goes directly for whichever area of the gov't we decide is best.
Got kids? and a parent in poor health? give some to D O Ed and some to HHS or Medicare. Generations of your family served in the military? to the VA or military appropriations.Just one quarter of the taxes we pay. They would have to find a way to function with the money they end up with.
And if the residents of those 2 small Alaskan towns want a bridge,let them foot the bill.
2006-09-16 17:15:50 · 6 answers · asked by dollbrains 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
could citizens of a state try to test the waters by getting an initative on the state ballot which would be an attempt (experiment) but on the state level?
2006-09-16 17:43:08 · update #1
Because there are times when certain agencies need more money than people would give them. Take a look at how much money has been spent on the war in Iraq, or the money needed by FEMA after Katrina. Plus, we don't even have the money we're spending. We have to borrow from other countries. As for the bridge in Alaska, it seems Alaska or the locals should foot the bill since that's what other states do (as far as I know). This is why we pay so much in fuel taxes. If you're looking for another way to pay less to the tax man, you can donate money to certain causes like you mentioned, and it might be tax deductible at least. Also, I wish that donations were tax deductible whether you itemize or not. I think more people would donate if it benefited everyone.
2006-09-16 17:37:49 · answer #1 · answered by LIl One 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The answer is not to have the citizens specify where their money goes. The answer, as spelled out in the Constitution, is for you to work to elect people who will spend the money on the things that are important to YOU.
If 25% of the federal revenue were spent on citizen-targeted items, all that would happen is that Congress would allocate the remaining 75% to cover all the same things that it does today. Net result, no change.
I do agree, though, that Federal revenue gets used way too often for local issues. I believe that Federal tax money should only be spent on things that affect the entire country in some way. A bridge from one Alaskan island to another sounds like a local problem to me.
2006-09-16 17:31:00 · answer #2 · answered by Chredon 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because Congress controls the budget, and controls where expenditures of money go. So, unless Congress is willing to limit itself to this proposal (which is not a bad idea), it won't ever happen.
2006-09-16 17:29:46 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would take too many politicians to try to explain it to other politicians, who got the info from CPA's who heard about it from the IRS...
Wow! Now I'm confused!
2006-09-16 17:20:54 · answer #4 · answered by grrl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You won't have to worry about taxes much longer. The government has other plans for its citizens!...
http://www.global-conspiracies.com/fema_concentration_camps.htm
2006-09-16 19:13:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they can
2006-09-19 23:49:18 · answer #6 · answered by Moupai 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋