Hazlitt - Public works mean taxes

[Xerographica]

Why, specifically?

Here's why I wouldn't want to bundle pragmatarianism and option D.

I am sure that you would see an immediate wholesale collapse of government agencies' budgets across the board, an increase in surplus funds, and a mad scramble by the public sector to eliminate this nuisance, which no legislator would ever sign onto in the first place.

But in so doing you would also completely eliminate any possibility of support from either of the two major parties, which form an A-Frame of mutual support for the banking and finance industries, each for their own political reasons. There are just too many on the take, with favorable legislation and artificial economic advantages doled out, both public and private.

How in the world would pragmatarianism ever be implemented if the majority of Americans did not support it? Like I've already mentioned...the large majority of Americans favor and support some public goods. My mission is to show them how a market in the public sector will lead to an abundance of inexpensively produced public goods that they value.

If people value public education...then how am I going to sell them pragmatarianism by arguing that the budgets for public schools and universities will collapse?

No no no...I take my cue from Bastiat...

If the socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the state should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree. This is done now; we desire that it be done better. There is, however, a point on this road that must not be passed; it is the point where governmental foresight would step in to replace individual foresight and thus destroy it. - Bastiat

"This is done now; we desire that it be done better." Dang...how good is that?! This should be our motto. How can things be done better? By preventing governmental foresight from replacing individual foresight. This means allowing taxpayers who support public education to use their taxes to indicate when public schools and universities are doing better things. The result will be an abundance of quality, effective, inexpensively provided public education.

Here's another passage that aptly describes the situation...

Put differently, voters in democratic regimes are unwilling to give up the protections offered by the welfare state, even when those protections are produced inefficiently, and at very high cost. Libertarians are not going to succeed politically by telling voters that they should give up welfare-state protections. Rather, libertarians need to show how freemarket programs will produce social security at levels comparable to those provided by welfare-state systems. - Jonathan R. Macey

I have to cater my message to voters. They really don't want to lose the protections offered by the welfare state...but I really want to help them understand how markets work. Therefore...I don't say anything about the tax rate...I don't say anything about kicking welfare programs over to the private sector...I'm all about ceteris paribus. The only argument I make is that we should create a market in the public sector. This allows them to focus entirely on what the consequences would be. Bringing option D into the equation only distracts them. It does absolutely nothing to help them understand why markets work and it does absolutely nothing to help them understand why they should want a market to be created for public goods.

Welfare programs are done now; we desire that they be done better. How? By allowing the taxpayers who value welfare programs to use their taxes to indicate when they are being done better.

As you have it now, the fiscal tax-and-spend progressive socialist left would certainly like the aspect of a guaranteed pie that comes from a forced choice, but would oppose it overall because of the demographics involved, as most of the taxes paid (read=votes cast) are from the middle class and wealthier private sector (not to mention objections that would arise about the power of tax "votes" paid in and "cast" by foreigners and foreign corporations). The public sector entitlement recipients in the more progressive socialist base of voters could well see their entitlements dwindle to nothing, as they cast their own "voting" pennies into a magic fountain, expecting dollars to flow back their way.

But do you have any evidence that conservatives as a group pay more taxes than liberals as a group do? I've honestly searched for evidence that this is the case but haven't found anything conclusive. According to OpenSecrets.org...in 2012 the Democratic Party raised $860,049,815 and the Republican Party raised $907,008,562.

Right now half of our revenue is spent by government planners in the public sector. It goes against everything we know about economics to believe that they are correctly guessing how the money should be distributed. So it stands to reason that there will be a significant disparity between the current distribution and the distribution in a pragmatarian system. But if I was capable of predicting with any degree of accuracy what our nation's public values truly are...well...I'd probably be owning the stock market right now.

[Xerographica]

You acknowledge that people's priorities influence how limited resources are used. By that same token why can't you acknowledge that any taxation distorts the choices/REAL PRIORITIES, therefore resources wasted? This distortion affects value of goods, it raises prices of certain goods, that shouldn't rise in normal market conditions.

I've always acknowledged it. Check out this blog entry of mine...Is There a Platypus Controlling You?

You welcome the idea of allowing tax payers to place their money into a fund, and wait until the government proposes a good project they are happy to pay for. Why do you have to take their money? Why not take their money when they DO want to contribute?

My last response to Douglas addresses this issue in detail. Basically though...my target audience are the large majority of Americans that value some public goods. I want to help them understand how creating a market in the public sector will greatly benefit them. Why will it greatly benefit them? Because markets give us the opportunity to give our money to the organizations that are doing new and better things with society's limited resources.

In other words...I really want to get my foot in the door. The large majority of Americans value some public goods so I can't get my foot in many doors by telling people that taxes should be optional. Therefore...I say absolutely nothing about the tax rate. My only message is that they will really really benefit by supporting the creation of a market in the public sector.

Can I help people understand why they will benefit from having a market in the public sector? Can you help people understand why they will benefit from having a market in the public sector?

The economic arguments for pragmatarianism and anarcho-capitalism are exactly the same. We're just talking about the invisible hand...opportunity costs and partial knowledge. The only difference is that if somebody values public goods, which most Americans do, then mentioning anything about taxes being optional will result in the door being slammed in your face.

[mohassan]

I want to help them understand how creating a market in the public sector will greatly benefit them. Why will it greatly benefit them? Because markets give us the opportunity to give our money to the organizations that are doing new and better things with society's limited resources.

Im sorry but, why are you creating a market in the public sector, when you already have a private market? You want to create a public sector, that is "like" a private sector? You are not supposed to create markets, market conditions, these things are all natural, and come about with the free exchange of participants.

Your blog talks about, how we all are influenced by someone or something, which is correct. But here is the key. In the private market people are influenced without coercion. But with public market, you are allowed to be influenced by policy A, B, C, D. That is not free. If it is not free, its artificial. If its artificial, then resources are wasted in the eyes of those who didn't want any of the policies. In the private market your choices are, BMW, FORD, FIAT, TAXI, BIKE, Walking. Your choice mainly depends on your purchasing power. If you are born poor, then really tough luck, you will have to walk. But the point of the free market is, that you work yourself out of poverty. So there is choice in getting out of poverty. Its these ideas, that public sector distorts.

Sorry this is my quick take on it. If you feel I have overlooked your points, please don't reply. I shall have a better read, on what you are trying to say.

[Steven Douglas]

How in the world would pragmatarianism ever be implemented if the majority of Americans did not support it?

Well, that's the $64 trillion dollar question, isn't it? Without a solvency mechanism (the ability to allocate to savings), what would be pragmatic about it? Even if your version could pass, and it wouldn't for the reasons I stated, and then some.

Like I've already mentioned...the large majority of Americans favor and support some public goods. My mission is to show them how a market in the public sector will lead to an abundance of inexpensively produced public goods that they value.

You would have an even more distorted public sector, for reasons already explained, because those paying the most taxes would be channeling funds toward whatever they felt was in their specific interests alone. It would no longer be about common goods and services.

If people value public education...then how am I going to sell them pragmatarianism by arguing that the budgets for public schools and universities will collapse?

I was the one that predicted that their budgets would collapse, even without my provision for savings. But you are already arguing that they are risking exactly that by allowing taxpayers (most of whom are not even people) in the market to choose.

No no no...I take my cue from Bastiat...

There is, however, a point on this road that must not be passed; it is the point where governmental foresight would step in to replace individual foresight and thus destroy it. - Bastiat

What you are forgetting--and this goes to the heart of the problems that got us where we are now--is that Congress has the option NOT to fund anything, and/or to decrease funding in the aggregate. Congress already has the choice not to go into further debt, pay down debt, and to even build surpluses (AKA SAVE). Your proposal takes a choice that is RIGHT NOW in the power of Congress, and DESTROYS even the option for any individual to make that same choice. Without a) the ability NOT to make any choice or pay less in the aggregate, or b) having savings as a choice, you have already destroyed the individual foresight of taxpayers, as you replace it with [your] government foresight.

Furthermore, by having a fixed aggregate sum that must be allocated for spending only from the onset, you have absolutely guaranteed that no "optimal" level can ever be found for any individual part of the public sector. Those agencies or programs that are the "crowned favorites" will not have an "optimal" sum at all. They will instead have a lion's share of an aggregate sum that you have fixed.

Here's another passage that aptly describes the situation...

Put differently, voters in democratic regimes are unwilling to give up the protections offered by the welfare state, even when those protections are produced inefficiently, and at very high cost. Libertarians are not going to succeed politically by telling voters that they should give up welfare-state protections. Rather, libertarians need to show how freemarket programs will produce social security at levels comparable to those provided by welfare-state systems. - Jonathan R. Macey

Yes, that is a problem for libertarians, because most people have a normalcy bias in the existence of a predominately welfare state, and cannot conceive of the natural protections for social security (real social security, not the government sham by the same name), in the absence of a welfare state--the only state that most of them have ever known, which defines "reality" for them. But that doesn't let you off the hook, because your idea is every bit as non-existent and difficult for any of them to fathom, and puts everyone's pet programs at risk of not being chosen. Worse yet, you aren't arguing for a free market solution at all. You are arguing for a STATIST SOLUTION that only happens to borrow [very loosely and selectively] from free market principles.

I have to cater my message to voters. They really don't want to lose the protections offered by the welfare state...but I really want to help them understand how markets work.

You can't leave out individual choice to save without making it highly questionable whether or not you even understand how a "free" market works.

Therefore...I don't say anything about the tax rate...I don't say anything about kicking welfare programs over to the private sector...I'm all about ceteris paribus.

Ceteris Paribus only means, "with other conditions remaining the same". You're not about ceteris paribus if you remove the option NOT to pay, or to reduce the aggregate amount paid, or to have the choice for savings. You are, in fact, changing that element.

The only argument I make is that we should create a market in the public sector. This allows them to focus entirely on what the consequences would be.

I get that you're working on your political sales pitch, with a focus on only what would pander to voters, but you're being disingenuous about it, because in fact you yourself are not focusing on what the consequences would be. Your focus is on what you want people to think the consequences could be.

Bringing option D into the equation only distracts them.

I think it has only distracted you, as its absence really is a fundamentally fatal flaw in your proposal. Option D already exists for Congress. You want that option, that choice, REMOVED/DESTROYED for individuals.

It does absolutely nothing to help them understand why markets work and it does absolutely nothing to help them understand why they should want a market to be created for public goods.

Then you're generalizing. You have a fixation on "a market to be created for public goods", and you want it to work according to market principles, but you're creating nothing but a distortion, because you are being artificially selective about which market principles can even operate.

But do you have any evidence that conservatives as a group pay more taxes than liberals as a group do?

Firstly, let's get back to the fact that a major part of that group you refer to as "taxpayers" aren't even voters, and many of them aren't even citizens. There is no liberal or conservative to it in many cases--only self-interest. Furthermore, you haven't broken down what liberal and conservative even means. Fiscal or Social?

Also, I assume that we are talking about market principles, not politics. You're trying to weigh and predict the economic effects of the individual political purse-string choices of your proposal, but the only thing you can really predict is that it would be guaranteed to result in major shifts in funding, regardless which "group" pays more in taxes. That, and a gross distortion overall, because you are not giving individuals the choice to force savings, or reduce the aggregate amount that agencies spend in the aggregate, which means there is absolutely ZERO possibility of determining an "optimal" amount for any agency or program.

I've honestly searched for evidence that this is the case but haven't found anything conclusive. According to OpenSecrets.org...in 2012 the Democratic Party raised $860,049,815 and the Republican Party raised $907,008,562.

That's for political campaign financing! There is absolutely no useful information there, as that has nothing whatso-fucking-ever to do with revenues from taxpayers or their political affiliations, assuming they even have any, or how they would choose on an individual level to allocate their own paid out funds if given the choice.

[Xerographica]

When you get right down to it economics is a social interaction between two to all people. That is determined by human behavior, for a lack of a better word. Am I wrong?

Right...and by far and large it's rational. If I ask you to paypal me $100...then I'd be willing to bet $90 that you'd want to know why you should do so. Therefore, people engage in trade when the exchange makes sense to both parties. And they continue to trade if it turns out that the exchange was mutually beneficial.

Right now you and I are engaging in trade. You're giving me your time/perspective and I'm giving you my time/perspective. Therefore, we can use economics to understand people's behavior in this thread. Some people found value in exchanging their perspectives/time with me...while others did not. When people have the freedom to choose who they exchange with...we maximize value.

Now we have this other interaction between an authority group and a subordinate group which is also determined by human behavior by both groups. With your grasp of economics you are confident of the market. Are you equally confident of your understanding of the authoritative/subordinate interaction?

If you notice that your child doesn't look both ways before crossing the street...you'll behave authoritatively in order to modify your child's behavior. But if you behave too authoritatively then you'll stifle your child's individuality. And if you see a parent beating their kid in a store? Do you step in and behave authoritatively?

Democracy provides all of us the opportunity to step in and behave authoritatively. But we should never allow politics to answer economic questions. If voters want drugs to be illegal...then so be it. I disagree but maybe I'm wrong. How much money should be spent on the drug war? That's an economic question which is why it can only be accurately answered by each and every taxpayer considering the opportunity costs.

You can't say the same behaviors apply or it would already act as a market and there would be no need for Pragmatarianism.

A lot of people want to get money out of politics. So given that there's already plenty of money in politics...it should be self-evident that many of the same behaviors apply. My argument is that if you take money out of politics...then how can politicians truly gauge people's priorities? Economics is all about putting your money where your mouth is. Therefore, as a pragmatarian...my argument is that taxpayers should be able to put their taxes where their mouths are. This is how we can help ensure that society's limited resources are being used for maximum benefit.

Now on a personal level its obvious to me that you do not view taxes as theft nor believe in a necessity to reduce them. Only to make them more efficient. It's surprising you allocate time to RPF a Forum named after a Man who has a sign on his desk that states "Don't steal the government hates competition." You maybe surprised that there are a lot of Constitutionalist and Libertarians, small government people on this forum who don't think income tax is necessary and some don't believe a police force is necessary and they have the history of the United States as proof. I think you would have great luck on a republican forum. However i have learned some things, so post away.

Ron Paul attracts vulgar libertarians like none other. But libertarian economics is the foundation of pragmatarianism. And it's not like there are a lot of libertarian forums to choose from...so beggars can't be choosers. So I do my part to try and help vulgar libertarians learn the economic arguments for libertarianism. Most don't respond so well...as you can tell from my reputation.

[Xerographica]

Im sorry but, why are you creating a market in the public sector, when you already have a private market? You want to create a public sector, that is "like" a private sector? You are not supposed to create markets, market conditions, these things are all natural, and come about with the free exchange of participants.

However you look at it...the current scope of government is at an equilibrium. Here's an excerpt of one of the questions asked at the end of the Tea Party Movement and Government discussion on C-Span...

...seeming to claim that this is a major historic moment and that what we are going to see is almost a permanent national commitment towards limited government. Um, I'm skeptical, and I'd like you to perhaps review what you think, Mr. Bell, since Mr. Tapscott is gone, is the key evidence that proves that a corner has been turned. And the reason that I am asking...the reason why I am skeptical is that you could look at Teixeira and Judis thesis, I think it was around 2005, when they were predicting a permanent progressive majority. You can look at some articles in 2003 after the first Bush mid term election arguing that there is a permanent Republican majority. You can go back all the way to 1912 when Taft drove out the progressives from the Republican Party and see that pro-limited government...pro-state activist government have been going at it all this time for almost 100 years now and it seems that one side periodically gains the upper hand and then the other side periodically gains the upper hand and each side, when they periodically gain the upper hand, claims a permanent victory. You can see these claims often. And then they go down in flames. So I'm wondering why you think that at this time the conservative limited government movement has won after 100 years of this and that the progressive state activist side has lost.

I've really really studied the libertarian movement and the libertarian arguments. Using the same arguments for the past 300 years fits Einstein's definition of insanity.

Your blog talks about, how we all are influenced by someone or something, which is correct. But here is the key. In the private market people are influenced without coercion.

Peer pressure isn't coercion? What about obligation? Haven't you ever felt obliged to attend a funeral, or wedding or other such social occasion? If a friend of yours wanted to drive drunk...would it be coercion to forcibly take the keys from him?

But with public market, you are allowed to be influenced by policy A, B, C, D. That is not free. If it is not free, its artificial. If its artificial, then resources are wasted in the eyes of those who didn't want any of the policies. In the private market your choices are, BMW, FORD, FIAT, TAXI, BIKE, Walking. Your choice mainly depends on your purchasing power. If you are born poor, then really tough luck, you will have to walk. But the point of the free market is, that you work yourself out of poverty. So there is choice in getting out of poverty. Its these ideas, that public sector distorts.

I really doubt you're going to tell me anything I don't already know about the differences between the public/private sectors and market/command economies. Don't let that stop you from trying though.

What I'm really interested in hearing from you is what happens if we did create a market in the public sector. If a taxpayer's preference is walking...then why would he give any taxes to public transportation? If a taxpayer's preference is for driving...then why would he give any taxes to public transportation?

[Henry Rogue]

Right...and by far and large it's rational. If I ask you to paypal me $100...then I'd be willing to bet $90 that you'd want to know why you should do so. Therefore, people engage in trade when the exchange makes sense to both parties. And they continue to trade if it turns out that the exchange was mutually beneficial.
Right now you and I are engaging in trade. You're giving me your time/perspective and I'm giving you my time/perspective. Therefore, we can use economics to understand people's behavior in this thread. Some people found value in exchanging their perspectives/time with me...while others did not. When people have the freedom to choose who they exchange with...we maximize value.
If you notice that your child doesn't look both ways before crossing the street...you'll behave authoritatively in order to modify your child's behavior. But if you behave too authoritatively then you'll stifle your child's individuality. And if you see a parent beating their kid in a store? Do you step in and behave authoritatively?
Democracy provides all of us the opportunity to step in and behave authoritatively. But we should never allow politics to answer economic questions. If voters want drugs to be illegal...then so be it. I disagree but maybe I'm wrong. How much money should be spent on the drug war? That's an economic question which is why it can only be accurately answered by each and every taxpayer considering the opportunity costs.
A lot of people want to get money out of politics. So given that there's already plenty of money in politics...it should be self-evident that many of the same behaviors apply. My argument is that if you take money out of politics...then how can politicians truly gauge people's priorities? Economics is all about putting your money where your mouth is. Therefore, as a pragmatarian...my argument is that taxpayers should be able to put their taxes where their mouths are. This is how we can help ensure that society's limited resources are being used for maximum benefit.
Ron Paul attracts vulgar libertarians like none other. But libertarian economics is the foundation of pragmatarianism. And it's not like there are a lot of libertarian forums to choose from...so beggars can't be choosers. So I do my part to try and help vulgar libertarians learn the economic arguments for libertarianism. Most don't respond so well...as you can tell from my reputation.

I need more time to respond to this post. I hope you're not banned before I get a chance to respond. Interesting you should mention democracy, let's see if i take the bait.

[Xerographica]

Well, that's the $64 trillion dollar question, isn't it? Without a solvency mechanism (the ability to allocate to savings), what would be pragmatic about it? Even if your version could pass, and it wouldn't for the reasons I stated, and then some.

It would be pragmatic because people would have the opportunity to put their taxes where their mouths are.

You would have an even more distorted public sector, for reasons already explained, because those paying the most taxes would be channeling funds toward whatever they felt was in their specific interests alone. It would no longer be about common goods and services.

But how else would you know whether a public good was "common" in the absence of taxpayer's spending decisions? If all the taxpayers gave some taxes to public healthcare then we could definitively say that public health care was a "common" public good. If only a few taxpayers gave their taxes to the EPA then we could say that protecting the environment was a "uncommon" public good. Obviously there has to be some cut off point where so few taxpayers allocate their taxes to a public good that it might more accurately be considered a private good.

As I've said before...voters would determine whether or not a good/service should be eligible for taxpayer funding.

I was the one that predicted that their budgets would collapse, even without my provision for savings. But you are already arguing that they are risking exactly that by allowing taxpayers (most of whom are not even people) in the market to choose.

Without option D...it wouldn't be possible for all their budgets to collapse...given that the total amount of taxes spent in the public sector would be exactly the same. With option D...then yeah, it's technically possible...although extremely unlikely...that all their budgets could collapse.

What you are forgetting--and this goes to the heart of the problems that got us where we are now--is that Congress has the option NOT to fund anything, and/or to decrease funding in the aggregate. Congress already has the choice not to go into further debt, pay down debt, and to even build surpluses (AKA SAVE). Your proposal takes a choice that is RIGHT NOW in the power of Congress, and DESTROYS even the option for any individual to make that same choice. Without a) the ability NOT to make any choice or pay less in the aggregate, or b) having savings as a choice, you have already destroyed the individual foresight of taxpayers, as you replace it with [your] government foresight.

Directly allocating taxes would be optional...so if taxpayers chose to take their taxes out of congress's hands...then clearly they must have some motivation to make the effort to shop for themselves. Allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes would allow for the incorporation of far more individual foresight than the current system. Throwing option D into the mix would incorporate even more individual foresight. I just don't think mentioning option D helps people understand why taxpayers should have the option to directly allocate their taxes.

Furthermore, by having a fixed aggregate sum that must be allocated for spending only from the onset, you have absolutely guaranteed that no "optimal" level can ever be found for any individual part of the public sector. Those agencies or programs that are the "crowned favorites" will not have an "optimal" sum at all. They will instead have a lion's share of an aggregate sum that you have fixed.

If I value space exploration...then at what point would I be concerned that NASA is being overfunded? Maybe perhaps if we're not spending anything on national defense? But that's like me actively worrying about whether consumers are going to give too much money to milk and not enough money to bread.

Yes, that is a problem for libertarians, because most people have a normalcy bias in the existence of a predominately welfare state, and cannot conceive of the natural protections for social security (real social security, not the government sham by the same name), in the absence of a welfare state--the only state that most of them have ever known, which defines "reality" for them. But that doesn't let you off the hook, because your idea is every bit as non-existent and difficult for any of them to fathom, and puts everyone's pet programs at risk of not being chosen. Worse yet, you aren't arguing for a free market solution at all. You are arguing for a STATIST SOLUTION that only happens to borrow [very loosely and selectively] from free market principles.

Again and again...start some threads in this forum and we can evaluate how non-libertarians respond to your argument.

You can't leave out individual choice to save without making it highly questionable whether or not you even understand how a "free" market works.

Here's how one liberal put it...

I’d love to be able to allocate my taxes. Seriously, I would. It’d be difficult to organize this on a high granularity level, though; I imagine everything would get of whack, as I probably have no information on how other people allocated theirs. So, to start with, I would suggest just a couple of categories, like, say, ‘the military’ and ‘everything else’. - Henri Vieuxtemps, Selling Votes

Would this be better than the current system? Yes! It would be progress. Why? Because it's more freedom. Reading what he wrote again I can't help but wonder if it would be simpler and more effective just to promote how he envisioned it working.

You would be able to decide whether you gave your taxes to...
A. The military
B. Everything else

I honestly don't think you really talk to liberals, conservatives or independents. So many of your arguments seem catered to people who already share your views. But why would you cater your argument to people who already share your views?

I get that you're working on your political sales pitch, with a focus on only what would pander to voters, but you're being disingenuous about it, because in fact you yourself are not focusing on what the consequences would be. Your focus is on what you want people to think the consequences could be.

I guess I'm going to just start sharing responses from my collection...Unglamorous but Important Things...

Xero, Choice is usually better, but what if everyone chooses to allocate their tax dollars to, say, the National Endowment for the Arts and there is nothing allocated to National Defense? - Pappas, Taxes, Competition and Pricing

You can click on the link and see not just my response...but other people's response as well. All I have to go on is how market works. If somebody's prediction has no basis in how markets work...then I'll correct them.

I think it has only distracted you, as its absence really is a fundamentally fatal flaw in your proposal. Option D already exists for Congress. You want that option, that choice, REMOVED/DESTROYED for individuals.

Giving taxpayers more freedom than they currently have in the public sector is always more freedom. And more freedom is never a fatal flaw. What's a fatal flaw is when people are only willing to settle for total freedom. It's a fatal flaw because the opposition is happy to settle for the tiniest incremental restrictions to our freedoms.

[VBRonPaulFan]

If you want to talk about evil, morality, principles, coercion, rape, theft, violence then you're in the wrong forum category. This is the economics category...where we talk about economics. If you want to talk about morality/religion then you should be in the philosophy category. Trust me...I hung out there for a while...those people really do not want to talk about economics.

these things are inexplicably intertwined. the economy is the direct result of the actions people choose to take over the course of their life, and the results of it. the monetary compensation you receive from an employer for your work is a direct trade - you have given up a portion of your life in exchange for currency/goods that you need/want. you want to talk about the superficial economy, instead of asking why that economy is the way it is. you want to fiddle with the edges of a broken system, instead of offering to make the necessary systemic changes to fix the broken system.

Really? Please link me to where politicians and people have advocated allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.

that is probably the silliest thing i've seen someone post in this sub-forum in a LONG time. you can start with reading up on lobbying. also, part of a representative government is electing people who think like you and will be more... inclined to stump for funding or resources towards the things you want/believe in.

Economics is based on the idea that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Does it suck to have to choose between eating your cake and having your cake? Of course, but your choice reveals your priority and your priority influences how society's limited resources are used.

Again and again...I'm not saying that our choices in the public sector will be wonderful or awesome...I'm saying that there's incredible value in allowing taxpayers to make hard decisions with their own taxes. This is the opportunity cost concept.

there already is that ability - the voting booth. the fact that it is wholly underutilized is another discussion entirely.

[Len Larson]

RE: Tax Choice; The market is not merely consumers (taxpayers) making choices. Producers are also free to make choices.

Does this system allow govt. agencies the option to redirect their efforts to some other more profitable end?

What if an individual chooses to offer the same product or service as the govt., will he be free to compete for tax dollars?

If this system works as Xerographica thinks it might, then how is it distinguishable from the free market?

My point is that govt. is precisely that which excludes the free market.

Tax choice is merely a smokescreen, much like "Red Team" vs. "Blue Team" in elections.