I had an idea for tax reform recently that I've never heard talked about anywhere. I wanted to run it past you all and hopefully get some feedback. Maybe it's already been done and failed or maybe it's a good idea that I should flesh-out more, hopefully you can tell me.
Often, you'll hear people say "vote with your wallet" and usually that just boils down to buying one product over another or boycotting something. It seems to me that the money you earn at work can only be used in 3 ways. You either give it to a company in exchange for goods, the government in exchange for social services, or a bank for savings/investment. The right usually favors the free market and the left goes toward government. So voting with your wallet affects the free market and banking routes much more than the government route, since the government will get it's share in taxes regardless.
I'm thinking, if we had agency in taxation it would be both bi-partisan and more democratic. My idea is to have a much reduced general income tax, with the option to allocate more of your own income tax to specific government departments of your choosing. Those on the right, looking for smaller government and lower taxes can just pay the minimum and feel less cheated. Those on the left that want every social program on earth can put their money where their mouth is and allocate more of their personal income toward those projects.
(1/2)
>>131871975
This would make the government more accountable toward the people since their operating budget would be dictated by them. Tax payers could choose their allocations when filling their taxes each year, because if the different governmental agencies couldn't depend on a specific budget for at least a year, it would be tough for them to get anything done. However, they would know that people are watching them and if they're not making progress or going about it wrong their budget will be much lower next year. It would also get the average person much more interested in what the government is up to. And virtue signaling would be quantifiable.
I can think of a number of problems with this, (like vastly increased populism, televised lobbying, and the tremendous difficulty of implementation) but if the idea at least has potential, I'll keep thinking about ways to refine it. I'm more curious as to whether or not you guys think it's even a good idea in theory.
tl;dr - Can personal agency be added to government taxation?
(2/2)