I've always wondered what government funding would look like if taxpayers could allocate their tax dollars at their own discretion. I don't think it would be all that functional in practice, but the idea of it seems interesting.
It would be quite interesting to see what got funded, if they let us pick projects to fund while doing our taxes. It might even be a worthwhile experiment to do; let tax payers decide how to allocate, say, 10% of their taxes.
I always thought it would be a good idea to let people decide how part of their tax dollars were going to be spent. Set aside maybe 20-30% and let them choose which programs to give extra funding to. I imagine most of it would end up in education and social programs.
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.
The government decides naturally and typically the spending is on things like infrastructure or unemployment benefits. I'm not quite sure how you would game it in a practical way.
I feel at some point tax payers should be allowed to select where their money goes, in a broad sense (military, education, arts, infrastructure), but allowing a portion to go a mixed-use fund for government flexibility.
On that note, how come no government has entertained the idea of opening up tax money budget allocation, e.g. by letting citizens vote on where they want their money used? I understand that the average citizen has little or no idea of how to run a country, but still, surely decisions like whether to build a stadium or send people to Mars could be debated.
How would you exactly be paying for other people's decision? If you think your tax money is spent to fund the federal government, then you will be surprised to find out that the federal government doesn't use tax money for paying for anything.
Only downside would be more economic activity because well educated people can spend more of their money on things....oh wait, that isn't a downside.
Aside from the basic federal and state budget, such as costs of running government operations, would it be possible to allow voters to choose where their tax dollars go?
If so, what are the pros and cons compared to the current system in the US?
Concept:
Once the essential government costs are budgeted, the remaining portion will be allocated by voters based on their share of tax contribution.
Now imagine a world where every taxpayer can vote where their money goes, and there are institutions making sure that this money is spent where it's meant for, like: education, healthcare, local infrastructure, research, military, military operations, etc I wonder if things would be different..
I wonder what would happen if we allowed everyone paying taxes to dedicate a small percentage to a field they feel is important and underpaid, e.g. by choosing a category like education, road infrastructure, social services, military... for planning reasons this could be done a year in advance.
Would that make people feel more agency and ownership in their nation? Or would it produce (small) chaos?
That would be a fantastic idea in general (tax money funds a specific project), but you'd still have the problem of the unpredictability of the tax revenue.
It would be great to fund a new program using a gas tax like the one you suggested, but could you imagine the blow-back if oil prices went back up and suddenly closed the new program down?
reply