What would be the positives/negatives of a tax system in which Americans were able to determine the individual policies/programs their tax dollars would support? For example, after it was determined how much tax you owed, you could then fill out a sheet stating which programs those tax dollars would fund. Therefore, if someone was against the Iraq War, they could decide to not fund it, if someone was against a particular social program, they could decide to not fund it. If a person did not want to take the time to do this, they could leave it blank and Congress could allocate the money. I realize this could cause some programs to be "underfunded" and others "overfunded", but wouldn't that mean that citizens were letting their voices be heard regarding what they want their government to do for them? Additionally, this is in no way changing how much people pay, it is simply saying that citizens say where it goes, instead only voting every couple years for other people who then decide.
2007-02-05 09:49:52 · 8 answers · asked by aDWsd 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Another positive would be that it would take a lot of partisanship out of society today, as Democrats (Reps.) could fund environmental programs(or any other program) regardless of what Republicans (Dems) said.
2007-02-05 09:51:42 · update #1
Its not a bad idea. However, like every other policy based on public opinion it would end up going horribly wrong. For most people the military is an afterthought or worse a despised portion of our government, but it is very necessary to have a strong military. Don't you think the average American would take money away from the soldiers and give it to say Puppies, thats kind of how the public works. Cute and fuzzy sells hard and pragmatic doesn't. Thats just one aspect I can think of that would get swept under the rug. I mean look at that white haired tool they voted to be American Idol.
2007-02-05 10:03:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Upon reading your question I assumed you must be very young, but I checked your other answers and I see you're not. Do you know the only time in our history when a sitting president led troops against the American people? It was George Washington, the whisky rebellion. The government isn't going to let us decide anything. The whole idea of "ear marking" money is a farce. To make state lotteries legal they "ear mark" all the profit for schools. But then they just use less general funds to pay for schools, and use the freed up funds for their own crooked programs. Besides that, how about something like hurricane Katrina? No one would have funded FEMA when they filed their tax return, and FEMA can't wait for the next tax season.
Nice to see you're thinking.
2007-02-05 10:13:17 · answer #2 · answered by kimmyisahotbabe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure! That will really work! We all vote on the budget! Whew, though you might think it is fair it is not in many instances. As most people today don't have children, they would probably feel no obligation to give any of their tax dollars to schools, which they are forced to do!
Moreover, what do you do about all those rich people who pay no taxes. Or corporations who gets rebates of taxes they never paid! Why would anyone give a mismanaged company like GM a tax rebate? They should not get a vote.right?
So you are proposing that we throw out the principle of one man, one vote?
And if you paid the same amount but wanted to just salve you conscience, what is the point? Just pretend you voted for the money to go where you wanted it to. It would be far cheaper!
2007-02-05 10:00:20 · answer #3 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, this might work. But no one is currently funding the Iraq War, it is paid for with credit. But you are kind of doing this by electing people who you feel will support, and fund, programs you are in favor of.
2007-02-05 09:55:29 · answer #4 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i love the idea and have been thinking about it for a while, the big problem i ran into is that no one would check the box to pay government salaries, so at best you'd only be allowed to allocate 2/3 of your tax, welfare would go under, ridiculous research grants ( like mating habits of the north American cockroach )
would go under, sports teams would have to pay half if not all of their new stadiums, and so on, which is why i love the idea
2007-02-05 09:55:27 · answer #5 · answered by eyesinthedrk 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the problem with ur whole idea is that ur assuming that "tax dollars" pay anything into govt programs ... they do NOT ... tax dollars pay the banks interest on the LOANS they give the govt ... so in all reality ur tax money is nothing but profit to rich Aholes and thats not an exaggeration .. its the hard truth ... and if u think they are going to let u decide what to do with their profits ur sadly mistaken ...
2007-02-05 09:55:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It would not work due to the high amount of Americans that have no idea about public policy.
This is why we elect officials on behalf of the public.
2007-02-05 10:01:46 · answer #7 · answered by Culture Warrior 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What if I wanted a no personal income tax system?
2007-02-05 10:05:06 · answer #8 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋