Taxation

[paulpablo]

I've been watching a lot of videos recently about taxation being theft, and listened to the opinions of people who believe a government is not essential in maintaining a civilization.

I don't necessarily believe that would work but it did make me think of another idea, please tell me what you think about it, if you think it's totally fucking stupid I'd appreciate knowing why.

I was thinking what if a part of the taxation process was the person being taxed gets to decide which part of the countries upkeep their money is going to. 

Maybe their would be certain areas considered absolutely necessary with a fixed percentage of how much tax goes towards them for example health care, education, road maintenance and a few others.

But say for example when people complain about immigrants getting free money from the government they can choose to not use any of their taxes towards this cause and instead direct towards health care.  Or if a political party wants to erect a monument, functional building for the local people then it's the local people who decide with their money if they want to spend it on that or they might rather spend it on more police officers.
Say if a countries leader wanted to go to war, the people of that country could decide that country is not a threat to national security at all and refuse to pay for it.

I realize it would be a complicated process but it's just a thought that's been going round my mind, wondered what other people think.

[Minimalist]

Impractical.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Dangerous.  Suppose a significant number of taxpayers elected to have their tax payments be used for incarcerating minorities for being minorities (racism is always bubbling beneath the surface).  Of imagine what would happen if 9i0% of the tax base refused to have their money pay for police, or care for the truly indigent? Or vaccines? Or public sanitation?  Education?

Thanks for the nightmares.    

Boru

[paulpablo]

Dangerous.  Suppose a significant number of taxpayers elected to have their tax payments be used for incarcerating minorities for being minorities (racism is always bubbling beneath the surface).  Of imagine what would happen if 9i0% of the tax base refused to have their money pay for police, or care for the truly indigent? Or vaccines? Or public sanitation?  Education?

Thanks for the nightmares.    

Boru

Well this is what I was thinking, that's why if you read my post more carefully I said that some important areas could have a fixed percentage of how much funding goes towards them.

Additionally, laws would still be in place preventing discrimination of all kinds, so you couldn't just start using your tax money to fund a military organization to kill ginger children because you believe they're from the devil.  The same laws would still be in place.

It would be mainly a method to decide in applicable circumstances what the public actually wants to try and prevent expensive mistakes, unnecessary wars, people complaining about immigration.

I also agree that on the face of it, it is over complicated and impractical, but I don't think it's totally in the realms of fantasy.

[Minimalist]

As long as they can spend more things get done.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/c...index.html

Lawmakers strike major budget deal

Bipartisan congressional leaders and the White House struck a major fiscal deal in principle Monday that would raise the debt ceiling and lift budget caps on both defense and domestic programs, according to congressional sources familiar with the deal.

Sure.  Piss more money away on war toys.

[paulpablo]

As long as they can spend more things get done.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/c...index.html

Lawmakers strike major budget deal

Bipartisan congressional leaders and the White House struck a major fiscal deal in principle Monday that would raise the debt ceiling and lift budget caps on both defense and domestic programs, according to congressional sources familiar with the deal.

Sure.  Piss more money away on war toys.

So then if it was implicated what percentage of your taxed could go to different areas you would have the choice to spend less on defence and more on other areas.

[Chad32]

One of the founding principles of the USA is "no taxation without representation". Meaning we pay taxes in exchange for having a say in what our tax dollars are spent on. It isn't theft by default, because if you're going to have a country, you should all put in for things the country needs. infrastructre, basic needs, and so forth. I wouldn't think a country could run without some form of government, but they tried taking it the right way where the power of the federal government was limited, and regulated by the people. Unfortunately this has become corruptd to the point where the USA is an oligarchy now, and people think the only way you can be president is getting the rich to fund your campaign. You can start a good system, but you have t keep your public servants on a short leash.

[Minimalist]

I stand by my earlier comment.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I've been watching a lot of videos recently about taxation being theft, and listened to the opinions of people who believe a government is not essential in maintaining a civilization.

I don't necessarily believe that would work but it did make me think of another idea, please tell me what you think about it, if you think it's totally fucking stupid I'd appreciate knowing why.

I was thinking what if a part of the taxation process was the person being taxed gets to decide which part of the countries upkeep their money is going to. 

Maybe their would be certain areas considered absolutely necessary with a fixed percentage of how much tax goes towards them for example health care, education, road maintenance and a few others.

But say for example when people complain about immigrants getting free money from the government they can choose to not use any of their taxes towards this cause and instead direct towards health care.  Or if a political party wants to erect a monument, functional building for the local people then it's the local people who decide with their money if they want to spend it on that or they might rather spend it on more police officers.
Say if a countries leader wanted to go to war, the people of that country could decide that country is not a threat to national security at all and refuse to pay for it.

I realize it would be a complicated process but it's just a thought that's been going round my mind, wondered what other people think.

First of all, all of the money belongs to the government.  It only lets you use it. If you don't want to spend your slice on toilet paper for your own butt you don't have to but the government will spend it on toilet paper for the troops and the politicians.  And if it wants to spend a chunk of it to build pyramids it will do that as well.  It might even spend some to throw your behind in prison if it thinks you have become a problem.  

Now don't bother them because it has to send some money to at least 143 foreign countries, including Russia and China.

[abaris]

I was thinking what if a part of the taxation process was the person being taxed gets to decide which part of the countries upkeep their money is going to. 

How would you do that with the majority of taxes? Such as VAT. The cashier giving you a list of options while the queue gets longer and longer? Or the barkeeper asking you, what your beer should pay for?

Personal taxes such as income and such are only the peak of the iceberg.