Debate Now Let Taxpayers Decide How Government Will Spend Our Taxes?

[Foxfyre]

On Income Tax Day of 2015, David Boaz of the CATO Institute had an interesting piece published in the Washington Post suggesting the thread title:
We should get to decide how the government spends our taxes - The Washington Post

Boaz suggested a revised standarized income tax form in which the government would request a percentage of the taxes paid to go to specific programs and the taxpayer could agree to that or could increase or reduce that percentage or could designate a percentage of his taxes to pay down the national debt.

If the tax payers designate too little to fund a necessary program that would be detrimental to all if unfunded, Congress could override the taxpayers with a 2/3rds vote in the House and Senate. (I would make it mandatory that such a bill be stand alone with nothing else added to it.) Otherwise there would be no sacred cows. Everything from Obamacare to Head Start to drones to national parks would be subject to public opinion. There would also be an option to let the government decide where to put your money of course.

So what do you think? Would you like a chance to divert your tax dollars from those areas you think are getting too much of your money?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominem or personal insults. If you reference another member's post, direct your comments to what the member said in that post and not anything personal about the members intent, history, motive, thoughts, wants, hopes, etc. Keep it civil.

2. Links can be useful as informative or to support your argument, but they are not required. If you use them, please post only a representative paragraph or two that supports the point you also make in your own words or explain in your own words what the link will show or support.

3. Leave political parties and ideology (liberal, conservative, left , right, etc.) out of it please. This discussion focuses on changing the way we pay our taxes and what we spend our money on. Partisanship is not necessary to express our thoughts and opinions about that.

THE QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:

It is suggested that taxpayers should be able to direct where their taxes will be spent by their federal government with the government being able to override the taxpayer as necessary. What are the pros and cons you see to that suggestion?

 

[September]

No.​

 

[Foxfyre]

No.​

"No" really isn't a coherent answer to the question to be discussed.

 

[Statistikhengst]

First, a refresher on what our Constitution says about taxing and spending:

Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There are a number of other clauses that must also come into the discussion, including the Origination Clause and the General Welfare Clause.


Any debate without knowledge of the most basics about taxes in the USA would be a fruitless debate.

Obviously, people should not be able to direct where tax money is supposed to go on an individual basis. That's partly what elections are for, in a Republic based on the principles of INDIRECT democracy. If we are going to go this route, then we can just ditch the system of a Republic and just hold a plebicite every morning over every little issue and see how far we come. Because for every tax discussed, you are going to find a segment of the population that is going to bitch voiciferously about/against said tax.

Hint: it didn't work out well for the Greeks.

But what CAN be done would be to put up a national referendum in presidential election years polling a preference for specific taxes, the results of which could be used in part of the inner debate in both Houses of Congress when it comes to making a budget.

But beware what you ask for. What happens when one day, 80% of the electorate says it wants to cut military spending by 80% and also wants no tax money to go for the military? What do you do then?

Hmmmmm, sounds like a quagmire to me.

 

[kiwiman127]

Because our government is so complex and massive, I really think 99% of American taxpayers, don't have a good enough clue to make such a complex decision.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because our government is so complex and massive, I really think 99% of American taxpayers, don't have a good enough clue to make such a complex decision.

Perhaps. But is that sufficient reason to deny those who DO have a clue an ability to make their convictions known? Remember if no preferences are indicated and/or the 'let government decide' option is checked, then government can do whatever it wants with those taxes as it does now.

The revised tax form would constitute a giant annual referendum giving the people a voice they do not now have. And only the 50% who actually pay federal income taxes would have a chance to direct where those taxes go. I am guessing that 50% is probably better informed overall than are those who do not pay any federal income tax.

 

[Foxfyre]

First, a refresher on what our Constitution says about taxing and spending:

Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There are a number of other clauses that must also come into the discussion, including the Origination Clause and the General Welfare Clause.


Any debate without knowledge of the most basics about taxes in the USA would be a fruitless debate.

Obviously, people should not be able to direct where tax money is supposed to go on an individual basis. That's partly what elections are for, in a Republic based on the principles of INDIRECT democracy. If we are going to go this route, then we can just ditch the system of a Republic and just hold a plebicite every morning over every little issue and see how far we come. Because for every tax discussed, you are going to find a segment of the population that is going to bitch voiciferously about/against said tax.

Hint: it didn't work out well for the Greeks.

But what CAN be done would be to put up a national referendum in presidential election years polling a preference for specific taxes, the results of which could be used in part of the inner debate in both Houses of Congress when it comes to making a budget.

But beware what you ask for. What happens when one day, 80% of the electorate says it wants to cut military spending by 80% and also wants no tax money to go for the military? What do you do then?

Hmmmmm, sounds like a quagmire to me.

From the OP: ". . . If the tax payers designate too little to fund a necessary program that would be detrimental to all if unfunded, Congress could override the taxpayers with a 2/3rds vote in the House and Senate. . . ."

 

[Foxfyre]

Hypothetical question: If you had an option on your tax return to designate 10% of your taxes to pay down the national debt, and knew the government had to actually reduce spending somewhere in order to do that, would you check that box?