Thread: Which Congressperson Would You Trust With Your Taxes?

Originally Posted by Anikdote

In order to mimic the market? Practically limitless with no choices being introduced and other things being removed frequently, the goal is noble, but likely impossible given the scope.

I don't understand your point. If I have to purchase a laptop then I don't have a limitless quantity of companies to choose from. Same thing with public goods. If I have to purchase a public good then I won't have a limitless quantity of government organizations to choose from.

Is there a demand for public goods? Yes. Are there suppliers of public goods? Yes...government organizations supply public goods. All that is needed to turn the public sector into a free-market is to give taxpayers the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.

Originally Posted by Anikdote

Really no way to know, and know way to know whether we'd let that competing information in.

I don't understand this point either. Are you saying that some government organization that we are responsible for funding would somehow block our access to outside information?

Originally Posted by Anikdote

There's a huge difference between voting and going out into the market to spending your dollars, primarily in the number of choices, secondarily you can choose to spend nothing and finally a third option, saving.

Voting doesn't adequately reveal your preferences while spending your money does. The point of tax choice is to reveal people's actual preferences for public goods by allowing them to put their taxes where their votes/hearts/mouths are.

Originally Posted by Anikdote

We provide public goods the way we do to avoid free rider problems, which unfortunately is the strongest rebuttal to this plan, it simply doesn't address that concern.

How is the free-rider problem applicable? We solve the free-rider problem by forcing people to pay taxes. Tax choice doesn't change that. I'm simply advocating that people be allowed to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. If they have to pay taxes anyways...and they perceive that there are shortages of a public good that they value...then why would they shoot themselves in the foot by not satisfying their demands for that public good?

If I have to pay taxes anyways...and I value environmental protection...if I perceive that the environment is in need of protection...then why would I hesitate giving my taxes to the EPA?

Originally Posted by Anikdote

That someone is arbitrarily choosing what options are on the docket.

The organizations in the public sector are "arbitrarily" there?

I don't understand the concern about tax allocation.

I don't know of anyone with the same priorities for government that I have.
Limit the pool to potential politicians, and the differences are far greater. Further limit that to those politicians that represent me, even those I vote for, are at best the lesser of two evils.

The 2 of 3 politicians that I voted against, yet still "represent" me, vote to spend my money in ways I strongly disagree with. Allocating my tax dollars in a total vacuum couldn't be any worse.

But, lets say I want a politicians insight. If we controlled the spending, politicians would clamor to post their recommendations. And, I doubt politicians would list their bridge to nowhere, or their personal airport, so drivel spending would fall.

Politicians would have to sell their pet programs, and debunk the pet programs of their rivals. We would have more information than we do now. Would you support welfare if the total cost per recipient was $10K / year? How about $100K per year?

In addition, how much would politicians get for their pet projects if their spending list became as vitriolic as their talking points? Both sides would lose. Eliminate the vitriol, and we all win.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

I don't understand the concern about tax allocation.

As this thread reveals...it's not that people trust congress to make good decisions with their taxes...it's simply that they do not trust you to make good decisions with your own taxes. People believe that you're going to give too much money to some government organizations and not enough money to other organizations. They have trouble thinking in terms of aggregate demand. If you get a chance check out these 61 responses to tax choice...Unglamorous but Important Things.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

The 2 of 3 politicians that I voted against, yet still "represent" me, vote to spend my money in ways I strongly disagree with. Allocating my tax dollars in a total vacuum couldn't be any worse.

The hard part is to help people understand that there's no logical explanation for allowing somebody who doesn't even know you exist to spend your taxes for you. They just don't understand that there's value in each and every one of our perspectives...and the value of the perspectives of 150 million taxpayers is completely destroyed by 538 congresspeople who impose their own perspectives over our own.

The only reason that congress spends our taxes is because long ago some barons got together and forced the king to give them the power of the purse. The king only had the power of the purse in the first place because people believed he had "divine authority".

It was certainly progressive to decentralize the power of the purse from one person to many people....just like it would be progressive to decentralize the power of the purse from many people to 150 million taxpayers.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

But, lets say I want a politicians insight. If we controlled the spending, politicians would clamor to post their recommendations. And, I doubt politicians would list their bridge to nowhere, or their personal airport, so drivel spending would fall.

Politicians would have to sell their pet programs, and debunk the pet programs of their rivals. We would have more information than we do now. Would you support welfare if the total cost per recipient was $10K / year? How about $100K per year?

In addition, how much would politicians get for their pet projects if their spending list became as vitriolic as their talking points? Both sides would lose. Eliminate the vitriol, and we all win.

Those are all great points. It's ridiculous to think that electing "better" politicians into congress will solve the fundamental problems of government. It's time to seriously consider putting taxpayers in charge and allowing them to hold politicians accountable. If congresspeople do a good job then I'm sure some taxpayers will want them to function as their personal shoppers for public goods.

The basic idea here is that two heads are better than one. If you can think of ways to help people understand that this concept applies to allowing people to directly allocate their taxes...then please feel free to share them.

Originally Posted by Xerographica

Let's say that you could choose which government organizations you gave your own, individual, hard-earned taxes to...OR...you could choose to give your own, individual hard-earned taxes to a specific congressperson who would then distribute your taxes as he/she saw fit.

Why would anyone want to do that? It would give an absurd amount of individual power to popular idiots. Governments work better when they're not personality cults--when they're aggregates of many different types of people. The current mixture of congressional earmarking and bureaucratic determination works far better than your "popular idiots" method.

Would you choose to directly allocate your taxes yourself?

What's the point in that? All it would do is let everyone put their tax money into their pet projects, while entirely neglecting the many important but scarcely visible government agencies. It would also create a situation where the better an agency operated, the less money they would get--because they would get correspondingly less attention in the media, and therefore fewer "donations".

Direct allocation of taxes by the taxpayer is a dumb idea. It would be like trying to operate a business where your customers got to determine how the money they paid you gets spent. "Now I won't buy this item unless you put all of the gross income from my purchase towards the janitorial staff..."

Impossible to operate. Efficiency would drop through the floor.

Originally Posted by Someone

Why would anyone want to do that? It would give an absurd amount of individual power to popular idiots. Governments work better when they're not personality cults--when they're aggregates of many different types of people. The current mixture of congressional earmarking and bureaucratic determination works far better than your "popular idiots" method.

So taxpayers, the most productive citizens in our country, would give their hard earned money to idiots? If hedge-fund manager A offers a higher return on your investment than hedge-fund manager B...would you give your money to manager A or manger B?

How come you didn't answer my original question? Which congressperson would you give your taxes to? Or would you choose to directly allocate your taxes?

Originally Posted by Someone

What's the point in that? All it would do is let everyone put their tax money into their pet projects, while entirely neglecting the many important but scarcely visible government agencies. It would also create a situation where the better an agency operated, the less money they would get--because they would get correspondingly less attention in the media, and therefore fewer "donations".

How "important" could a government agency truly be if there were no negative consequences of it being underfunded?

Originally Posted by Someone

Direct allocation of taxes by the taxpayer is a dumb idea. It would be like trying to operate a business where your customers got to determine how the money they paid you gets spent. "Now I won't buy this item unless you put all of the gross income from my purchase towards the janitorial staff..."

Or it could be like operating a business where your customers can determine whether they want to purchase your product or not. Or it could be like operating a non-profit where donors can determine whether they donate to your non-profit organization or not. An organization is an organization is an organization. It either provides products/services that people value...or it does not.

Originally Posted by Someone

Impossible to operate. Efficiency would drop through the floor.

Check it out...I added your response to this list...Unglamorous but Important Things.

Originally Posted by Xerographica

Or it could be like operating a business where your customers can determine whether they want to purchase your product or not.

Actually that is how the land value tax would work. Under a land value tax you’d buy land at locations where government infrastructure and services best suited your needs and desires. Are good roads important to you? If so, then buy land at a location where the roads are new or kept in good repair. The taxes on such land would likely be a bit higher, but you get what you pay for, and the government gets paid for what it contributes.

But, that is not how your proposed system would work. I own several pieces of agricultural land. I would give all my tax money to the Department of Agriculture and have them return it to me in the form of a farm subsidy.

Why should I even pay taxes if the government is just going to send nearly all the money back?

Originally Posted by geofree

Actually that is how the land value tax would work. Under a land value tax you’d buy land at locations where government infrastructure and services best suited your needs and desires. Are good roads important to you? If so, then buy land at a location where the roads are new or kept in good repair. The taxes on such land would likely be a bit higher, but you get what you pay for, and the government gets paid for what it contributes.

Are labor costs important to you? If so, then open a factory in Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan where labor costs are low. Oh wait...American companies already did this in the 50s and 60s. Which is exactly what I talked about in my post on the Magna Carta Movement.

I'm all for people voting with their feet. In fact...I'm the one that added both Friedman's and Hayek's perspectives to the Wikipedia article on the subject...Foot Voting.

Voting with your feet and voting with your taxes are not mutually exclusive. It just seems like voting with your taxes would be a first resort while voting with your feet would be the last resort. Give business owners the freedom to express their preferences with their taxes and then...if that doesn't work...they can move their businesses to better locations.

It's all about revealing preferences. People should be allowed to reveal their preferences with their taxes and their feet.

Like I said before though...if you're talking about Land Value Tax in terms of how taxes are collected...then your critique of pragmatarianism is completely irrelevant because pragmatarianism solely deals with who gets to determine how taxes are distributed among the various government organizations. Should congress or taxpayers determine the distribution of public funds? Pragmatarianism says that perspectives matter therefore taxpayers should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. How could the perspectives of 150 million of our most productive citizens not matter?

Originally Posted by geofree

But, that is not how your proposed system would work. I own several pieces of agricultural land. I would give all my tax money to the Department of Agriculture and have them return it to me in the form of a farm subsidy.

Why should I even pay taxes if the government is just going to send nearly all the money back?

Regarding farm subsidies...here's a short two minute video on youtube that effectively explains this concept....[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uR4lqa7IK4&feature=pl ayer_embedded"]Why Politicians Don't Cut Spending[/ame] Once you understand that concept then you'll understand why pragmatarianism would solve that problem.

If you search this page...Unglamorous but Important Things...for your username you'll see that I added your response to the list of people who have no idea how the invisible hand works. It's a long list...which helps explain why we experience recessions and depressions. If people could learn how the invisible hand works then they would understand the absolute folly of allowing a committee of 538 congresspeople to determine the distribution of 150 million people's taxes.