[el chupacabra]

What would you think of a system where you got to choose what taxes or causes your money would go to? There would still be brackets and you'd still pay the same amount. You could basically move money around to different government causes like you move cash around your retirement plan funds.

For example: If you were a really logical sensible person you might realize that the cause of the environment eclipses everything and is the root of all goodness. You could put 70% of your taxes into environmental preservation, parks, alt energy research, clean water, raising salmon populations (to decrease the food costs as well as getting long chain fatty acids & vitamins back in all our food-chain). You could put 20% into road efficiency, & 10% in education. if you're a humanist you could give all your money to social programs / to the poor. If you're a warhawk you could direct all your tax dollars to more drones & battleships; Or maybe helping veterans. If you want our government to put more time into devising trade treaties which overrule your national laws only to benefit corporations, you could put your money there.

I think this form of democracy would more accurately, more directly, represent the people and what they think is important. Could also hold politicians more accountable. You would be able to move your funds around once or twice a year essentially voting people/programs in or out of favor directly by funding / defunding them.
Of course this isnt actually ever going to happen. ALL people are too corrupt for the system to ever be anything better than what it already is.

[BadKosh]

So few know what the fedgov spends and on what that this would be a bad idea.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Can we choose to bypass the traditional BS and just directly buy our representatives blow and hookers? I'd be up for that, at least it would keep them distracted and away from further dicking with the economy.

[subego]

I like the idea, but my general feeling is it would break the government.

[andi*pandi]

interesting idea, but implementation would be.... complicated.

Also, if someone decides not to put any tax dollars into the firefighter budget, does that mean they don't get services?

[el chupacabra]

They could still get service andi, the idea is the fire department would receive the funding that the collective believes they should get based on what the collective gave. This makes the assumption there would always be plenty of people who think it's important enough to adequately fund fire-dep. BTW this wouldnt have to be with all taxes such as local. Maybe just federal.

Badkosh
So few know what the fedgov spends and on what that this would be a bad idea.

I think it would help fix this. I think even the dark side would choose to fund productive programs.

It's easy to believe we should put more funding to social programs when you're listening to a magician on TV say he's going to fix healthcare, create jobs, end corruption, secure borders, give everybody a free car, subsidize food, end homelessness, end poverty, balance the budget.... He's just going to fix it all. We feel good about doing our duty, participating in government by showing up to check a box on a paper every few years, for a person that represents all good things he says he's going to do.
By forcing us to allocate funds ourselves I think it would be hard to choose "give money away for free" when there's options right next to it saying build roads, fund research, fight terists, or whatever else government claims to do.

Cap'n Tightpants
Can we choose to bypass the traditional BS and just directly buy our representatives blow and hookers? I'd be up for that, at least it would keep them distracted and away from further dicking with the economy.

I mean.... they already do that stuff and still have time for dicking with the econmy.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I mean.... they already do that stuff and still have time for dicking with the econmy.

Obviously they just need even more blow and hookers.

[BadKosh]

So nothing for foreign aide, nothing for unions, nothing for PBS, nothing for community organization, nothing for welfare, nothing for sanctuary cities, nothing for 'the arts". Some for military, infrastructure, developing water trapping systems for California, some for developing farmland, some for heavy freight rail systems, some for unmanned space exploration.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So nothing for foreign aide, nothing for unions, nothing for PBS, nothing for community organization, nothing for welfare, nothing for sanctuary cities, nothing for 'the arts". Some for military, infrastructure, developing water trapping systems for California, some for developing farmland, some for heavy freight rail systems, some for unmanned space exploration.

Interesting that your biggest peeves are such tiny, tiny parts of the budget.

Why is it that the right is so keen on reducing spending (so they say), but these conversations always start with these sorts of virtual non-issues and not on the military and proposing health care reform, which dominate our tax dollar allocation?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Interesting that your biggest peeves are such tiny, tiny parts of the budget.

Welfare and social services are the largest part of the federal budget.

US Federal Budget FY16 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart

[besson3c]

I was referring to foreign aid, unions, PBS, community organization, and the arts, which was the bulk of his list.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Welfare and social services are the largest part of the federal budget.

US Federal Budget FY16 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart

According to the chart you've linked to the biggest ones are health care, pensions and the military. Welfare is #4.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

What would you think of a system where you got to choose what taxes or causes your money would go to?

Sounds intriguing at first glance, but you can't run a society this way. Funding the government is extremely complex, and the whole way a budget is appropriated would immediately collapse as any budget estimates would be in proviso of what the tax payers actually gave in the end. Moreover, it would give companies even more power than they have now (»companies are people«). IMHO it's a dumb idea.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

According to the chart you've linked to the biggest ones are health care, pensions and the military. Welfare is #4.

Federally paid healthcare is a social service, of course.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I was referring to foreign aid, unions, PBS, community organization, and the arts, which was the bulk of his list.

and all are dwarfed by entitlements.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Interesting that your biggest peeves are such tiny, tiny parts of the budget.

Why is it that the right is so keen on reducing spending (so they say), but these conversations always start with these sorts of virtual non-issues and not on the military and proposing health care reform, which dominate our tax dollar allocation?

They are all political in nature. Getting politics out of the day to day running of the Gov't is important. i'd also like stiffer penalties for corruption in gov't.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

and all are dwarfed by entitlements.

Which is why I'm against the idea in the original post.

The two biggest expenditures (AFAIK) are the military and Medicare. I think we need to desperately come together to address the costs of health care and repair a system I consider to be fatally flawed and fatally broken, but until we do, I don't think defunding Medicare (which is what I think would happen) and hoping for the best is a good idea.

But I'm more interested in the subject of defence spending right now. If you (general, hypothetical "you") are one to rail against the debt, how come you seem to be so rarely one to rail against our military spending and interventionist foreign policy?

[BadKosh]

Foreign policy is a political issue, where the elected ones are idiots, incompetent or traitors. No thought is used in this area. Staying ahead of our many enemies is the most important aspect, and requires money. The current idiot and his appointees have made a big mess out of the world so it will cost a lot to stay on top.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Which is why I'm against the idea in the original post.

The two biggest expenditures (AFAIK) are the military and Medicare. I think we need to desperately come together to address the costs of health care and repair a system I consider to be fatally flawed and fatally broken, but until we do, I don't think defunding Medicare (which is what I think would happen) and hoping for the best is a good idea.

But I'm more interested in the subject of defence spending right now. If you (general, hypothetical "you") are one to rail against the debt, how come you seem to be so rarely one to rail against our military spending and interventionist foreign policy?

You have me confused with someone else. I'm pretty sure I have, on numerous occasions, expressed an interest in downsizing US national defense by closing ~70% of all foreign bases and 50% of domestic bases, which would shrink the defense budget by more than 1/3rd, and stopping 2/3rds of all foreign aid. Extricating ourselves from the UN, which is almost entirely useless now, along with a 90% withdrawal from the Middle East (with the exception of the UAE and Turkey), would also be a strong possibility.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

What invention has ever come from social programs like welfare or any other form of giving money out for free?

Ben Carson, among many other people now successful:

13 Famous People Who Once Got Food Stamps