I could foresee a big bubble in government departments advertising against each other. You think you get sick of poitical ads just wait till gov. competes for your money.
They'd give the pharmaceutical and insurance companies a run for their money, that's for sure. Pandering on crack, with advertising budgets for the successful ones never before seen, given that at least one popular agency or department is absolutely guaranteed to have an ass-load of revenue, and no real competition for whatever it is they do.Originally Posted by Henry Rogue
The $#@! it would.
Use history as your guide, and you tell me. You already said that all entities, public and private, are profit-maximizing. In the case of government say "revenue-maximizing" to be accurate.Or maybe congress would not decrease the tax rate.
Bull$#@!. Congress would not be a separate entity, regardless how your imagination conjures this. They are the administrators of the government shopping mall, not an independent store located therein. There could be no mechanism that says, "I want to fund the Dept. of Education, but not Congress or the IRS that does the collection for it."Taxpayers would be responsible for funding congress though...so if taxpayers were not happy with the tax rate...then they could withhold their taxes from congress until congress got the message.
And just who, precisely, would be making that "stronger" case? You already said, "People would have to pay taxes...but they would be able to withhold their taxes from every single government organization except for one." Whoever made that decision is the same entity that would make the decision regarding the overall tax rate...and you have already established that it is not the individual taxpayer. And once again, even that doesn't matter, since you haven't even touched on the government's ability to levy invisible, hidden, inflationary taxes through currency debasement...which no individual taxpayer could ever have a hand in allocating.Basically, the less that the government does...the stronger the case for lowering the tax rate.
i get tired of the media saying how much taxes bussiness pays , when i buy a big mac i pay 9% sales tax in az , also everyone knows that mcdonalds already has their tax pluged into the price , so who is really paying the tax , its not mcdonalds or any other business , their taxes is in the price of the goods/services.
people pay the taxes in america , i wonder if there were a tariff tax would the big mac price go down , i doubt it.
People are easily convinced? What about Noah and the Ark? What about me trying to convince people that pragmatarianism is a good idea? Admittedly...I'm probably the worst salesperson ever...but we need to give the skeptics, the doubters, the non-believers the freedom to withhold their taxes from the government organizations that are barking up the wrong tree. There's always going to be the first person who has the nagging feeling that throwing virgins into volcanoes is nothing but the waste of a perfectly good virgin. That's why progress absolutely depends on tolerance.
But directly allocating your taxes would be optional. Are congresspeople going to publicly admit that many...most...taxpayers would choose this option?
How would a pragmatarian system work if the EPA had its own printing press? Why would the EPA bother trying to convince taxpayers of its efficiency/effectiveness/necessity? It wouldn't. Therefore, pragmatarianism is taxpayers actually having the power of the purse in their hands. Will taxpayers give their taxes to the Dept of Treasury? Probably. Even if the Dept of Treasury just gives truckloads of cash to the EPA? Probably not. And if nobody gives their taxes to the Dept of Treasury...then that's it for the Dept of Treasury.
Yeah, I wouldn't give my taxes to a bankrupt government organization. I don't think most taxpayers would either. Knowing this would certainly influence the behavior of government organizations.
The thought of government organizations not competing for my money sickens me enough to advocate for tax choice. Without persuasion there's no information. Whether the information provided is any good...will be, and should be, the subject of much debate.
Taxpayers will have to pay taxes...but that in no way shape or form guarantees that a government organization will receive any taxes.
So who would determine how much money congress receives? Congress itself? Naw. People would be able to choose whether or not they give their taxes to congress, the IRS, the Treasury Dept, the Dept of Ed. or any other government organization.
In terms of granularity though...anybody's guess is as good as mine. Would people want to give their taxes to specific congresspeople? I can't imagine why they shouldn't be allowed to.
Did what I wrote before just not compute? You're going around in circles, ignoring what I already wrote and reasserting ad nauseam what was already addressed.
Congress would not, COULD NOT, be a separate entity, regardless how your imagination conjures this. They are the administrators of the government shopping mall, not an independent store located therein. There could be no mechanism that says, "I want to fund the Dept. of Education, but not Congress or the IRS that does the collection for it.
Let's try to roll with your strange perception of how government is organized (and I can't believe I'm wasting time with this):
What if everyone said, "100% Funding to The Department of Education ONLY". So now we have zero funding to Congress, the IRS, the Treasury Dept., or any other government branch or organization. Do you think the Department of Education has an autonomous collection arm of its own? OR, is it possible, mayhaps, that the Treasury Dept., and all its ARMED ENFORCEMENT, which was established by what must be a functioning Congress, would do all the collecting for the Department of Education?
It's like you're going into a store, and saying, "I want to buy THIS product, but I don't want to pay for your lights, rents, employee salaries, management, or anything else. And I certainly don't want to pay for any accountants or lawyers on your staff. They can all go to hell, because I just want this product."
And you honestly think that you can discuss this in economics terms?
Let's magically make that happen. ::: POOF! ::: Done. Now who do you pay? And where the hell did all the support staff go? And where did that product that you wanted go anyway? And when I refuse to pay even them, does the Dept. of Education get its own collection and enforcement arm? Because without Congress or any other branch of government --Executive, Legislative or Judicial--who is there to force me to pay ANYTHING to ANYONE? The Department of Education must operate as an autonomous entity, with branches of its own, including a military, police forces, courts, treasury, etc., of its own...which brings us back, full circle, to How Is Government Organized, Anyway?
In economics terms it is easy to see the flaws in your proposal, but I think the reason why you don't want to think of this in political terms is that you lack the most basic grasp of how governments--any government--works.
Last edited by Steven Douglas; 10-28-2012 at 02:52 PM.
Oh noes...the Dept of Education doesn't collect taxes on its own...pragmatarianism is a fail! Really? Seriously?
The Dept of Education not collecting taxes is the fatal flaw in my proposal? LOL
Yeah...the Dept of Education does not currently collect taxes...duh. But in a pragmatarian system it would...just like all the organizations in the private sector. And feel free to make me laugh some more by trying to argue why it would be so very impossible for the Dept of Education to collect taxes.
I don't think I'm making you "laugh some more", so much as think to begin with. Now you're making an ad hoc repair to your theory/proposal by suggesting that the Department of Education would indeed acquire its own collection arm, enforcement arm, court system, etc., all part of the Department of Education -- which really means that you have not thought this through at all.
There's nothing ad hoc about it. Here's what I wrote two years ago...
In those two years I've decided that the second option would be more practical...given that people should be allowed to pay any portion of their taxes at anytime throughout the year.In terms of logistics...each government organization's website would provide their budget needs for the year and display a fundraising progress bar. From here there are two possibilities...
1. When you paid your taxes you would add each organization's Tax ID (found on their website) and indicate what percentage of your taxes should go to each organization. When you submitted your taxes each organization would automatically receive a notification...their progress bar would be updated and you would be able to confirm that each government organization received your taxes.
2. You would pay each government organization directly. They would send you a receipt and notify the IRS.
Why would each government organization need an enforcement arm or a court system? Why would they enforce collection when taxpayers would have a choice which government organizations they give their taxes to? The IRS would still be there to make sure that people paid their taxes. Assuming of course that enough taxpayers gave it enough funding to do its job.
It's a given that each government organization is going to have its own lawyers, accountants, public affairs, publicity and whoever else is needed for them to successfully run their organization. Each government organization would be essentially the same thing as a non-profit organization. Where's the difficulty? You'd go to the EPA website, submit a tax payment and send your receipts to the IRS by April 15.
Ah, so now it's changed from 'you fund only with what you want to fund' to 'you only fund what you want to fund, and what you want to fund is responsible for collections - just like each and every other department that may be funded, making each and every one even yet less efficient and less able to offer similar services for what they're given'.
Your argument is poorly thought through and poorly laid out, and ignores economic reality. You should spend some more time reflecting heavily on just what you're saying.
The deal breaker for me though, is that it ignores the morality of taxation. Taxation is coercive theft - plain and simple. When someone takes taxes from you against your will - they are stealing a portion of your life. The time that you spent working you can never get back, and surely the taxes you paid are never coming back to you.
So you completely ignore this, apparently for 'pragmatic' reasons and just say 'this is going to happen, so since it is inevitable - we should try to do it in a more palatable way'. That is completely abhorrent to me. It would be like you pitching 'drone strike kill choice' in which we get to 'choose' who in the middle east gets killed from a government pre-selected pool of candidates. We don't get to say 'this isn't right, and I won't have any part in this', we only get to 'pick the lesser of two to n evils'.
$#@! that. Go troll that $#@! somewhere else. Accepting evil as inevitability is totally unacceptable to anyone with any shred of morality left in their body.
Last edited by VBRonPaulFan; 10-29-2012 at 09:27 AM.
Given that this is the economics category...you're actually the one who is trolling. I don't post in this category to listen to your sermon on the mount. If I wanted to hear sermons then I'd post in the political philosophy category. So go take your moral high horse and ride around the political philosophy category so that all the truly upright people can appreciate your moral superiority.
If you do, however, have an economic argument to make...then feel free to make it here.
There is nothing in your quote from two years ago about a department acquiring its own collection arm, enforcement arm, court system, etc.,There's nothing ad hoc about it. Here's what I wrote two years ago...
In terms of logistics...each government organization's website would provide their budget needs for the year and display a fundraising progress bar. From here there are two possibilities...
1. When you paid your taxes you would add each organization's Tax ID (found on their website) and indicate what percentage of your taxes should go to each organization. When you submitted your taxes each organization would automatically receive a notification...their progress bar would be updated and you would be able to confirm that each government organization received your taxes.
2. You would pay each government organization directly. They would send you a receipt and notify the IRS.
In those two years I've decided that the second option would be more practical...
Ah, but we were talking about what would happen if an agency received NO FUNDING, and you were going with that. You specifically mentioned the IRS, and included that agency in both your options above. The IRS -- AN ARM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY. Remember? The agency, that if you don't like it, you can always withhold funding to it, and somehow only pay the Dept. of Education? The question was, how are you going to pay the Dept. of Education if there is no Treasury, and no IRS?Why would each government organization need an enforcement arm or a court system? Why would they enforce collection when taxpayers would have a choice which government organizations they give their taxes to? The IRS would still be there to make sure that people paid their taxes. Assuming of course that enough taxpayers gave it enough funding to do its job.
OK, I'm about done with this quarter-baked drivel. The concept in general is interesting, while the way you have laid it out is whacko bananas.
Yeah, I'm really not understanding you. If there is no treasury...and no IRS...then how would you pay the Dept of Education? By credit card...check...paypal...and so on. Of course, given that there wouldn't be an IRS...at least in your scenario...then paying the Dept of Education would be completely optional.
With the current system...we pay the IRS and the IRS makes sure that everybody pays the proper amount. In a pragmatarian system...you'd pay the Dept of Education just like you pay the Red Cross. You'd save your receipts and give them to the IRS by April 15. If nobody gave their taxes to the IRS...then nobody would be there to make sure that you paid the proper amount. Therefore, paying taxes would be optional.
I don't know what's whacko bananas about paying the Dept of Education just like you pay the Red Cross. Is the problem with the word "pay"? Should I use "contribute" instead? You'd contribute to the Dept of Education just like you contribute to the Red Cross. The difference being that the IRS would be there to make sure that you paid the proper amount of taxes. But if nobody contributed to the IRS...then paying taxes would be optional.
So you don't have to pay your taxes to any department or bureau you don't approve of, but each one has its own collection arm to come take those taxes. And if you've already given your alloted amount to others? They apologize for breaking your door down and leave? And if you don't pay what you're supposed to pay? They all come after you? Or only the ones you would have wanted to pay if you had paid at all?
Are they going to employ mind reading thought police to decide which agencies roust you? Or do you get rousted by the unpopular agencies which haven't already funded their budgets?
Does the Red Cross have its own collection arm? They have the ability to receive contributions but they aren't going to go after you if you don't make a donation. It would be the same exact thing with the EPA, the DoD, the Dept of Education and so on. They would have the ability to receive contributions but they wouldn't go after you if you didn't make a contribution. However, if you didn't pay any taxes...then the IRS would go after you. Assuming of course that taxpayers made enough contributions to the IRS for them to adequately do their jobs.
Again...from the top. At anytime throughout the year you could go to the EPA website and submit a tax payment. They'd give you a receipt and you'd submit all your receipts to the IRS by April 15. People could directly submit a tax payment to any government organization that they wanted...including congress, the Dept of Treasury and the IRS. People could withhold their taxes from any government organization that they wanted...including congress, the Dept of Treasury and the IRS. But if people didn't pay their taxes then, just like with the current system, the IRS would go after them. Assuming of course that taxpayers made enough contributions to the IRS for them to do their jobs.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us