Optional Big Government

This is just me thinking out loud. What would be wrong with optional big government?

The infrastructure and the ability to help would be there, but you could choose with your tax dollars what to opt in to. You would still pay the going tax rate (hopefully lower though) but choose what your tax dollars go to.

Don't support a planned use for your tax dollars? Don't check that box on your tax forms when you fill them out.

I understand the need to sometimes legislate equality, such as civil rights in the 50's and 60's, and women and gay rights today. It seems that would have to be agreed on before we could institute something like this. I have faith there'd be enough rich benefactors to keep things like planned parenthood in business.

I'm not saying this is what we need to do or that this is even a good plan, I'm just wondering about everyone's ideas on it. Good or bad.

What do you think?

a reply to: underwerks

Ive thought about this, most people do not want to deal with this and many do not even have the mindset to even think about where to spend tax dollars.

However, if it was lessened to maybe a small percentage, then maybe it could work (for those that wish to choose).

This is what I've been calling "Consensual Taxation", and I'm in:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Never seemed to catch on that I ever noticed. I only ever managed to dig up one other guy talking about it. He posted about it a couple months before I ever did (he was on facebook). But then I had to drop out of the game the year after that. Cool guy.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It just seems like the right thing to do. I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up more often. Maybe there's some titanic accident that's inherent in it. I don't know.

a reply to: underwerks

You can't replace irresponsible STATE gov't policy with FED COVERAGE....


The last thing any STATE should want is MORE FED oversight... Those states that seek it, aren't doing a good job..

Participation isn't trophy worthy

I like this concept. But not to put a negative spin on it - I imagine that whatever level of government either a) funneled the tax money, b) identified where the tax money goes, or c) both, would be highly suspect of actually doing what people chose to do with their tax money. Maybe not at first, but imagine all the corruption at various levels of (most) government(s across the world). People will find a way to cheat the system.

How could it be implemented to bypass these and other currently unforeseen problems?

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: underwerks

You can't replace irresponsible STATE gov't policy with FED COVERAGE....


The last thing any STATE should want is MORE FED oversight... Those states that seek it, aren't doing a good job..

Participation isn't trophy worthy

If the federal policy is to let everyone pick with their dollars what type of government they have, what does state vs federal matter at all.

a reply to: JacKatMtn

I haven't thought it all the way in about it on some years.

But the jist of my concept was about having itemized booklets of all the BS they try to do, and it requires people to actually go and select the items they want to fund. It'd cut .gov down to size in one swoop. Typical politicians roles would be that of managers, and ensurers of liberty. Therefore the Constitution as written regarding the role / duties / limitations of Congress / etc /etc would have to be reworked. Bill of Rights touched up to remove all the stuff that usually gets trampled. SCOTUS would be about the same. Need or POTUS would probably mostly vanish except certain duties. Political parties would become mostly irrelevant. Partisan bickering would be old news. No more wars and forward projection if people wont fund them (while not meaning there necessarily would be is people were willing).

originally posted by: SomethingLingual
I like this concept. But not to put a negative spin on it - I imagine that whatever level of government either a) funneled the tax money, b) identified where the tax money goes, or c) both, would be highly suspect of actually doing what people chose to do with their tax money. Maybe not at first, but imagine all the corruption at various levels of (most) government(s across the world). People will find a way to cheat the system.

How could it be implemented to bypass these and other currently unforeseen problems?

That's true also. But there has to be a way to keep the people that spend our money accountable.

a reply to: SomethingLingual

That's where harsh accountability comes in. Maximum penalties. If people have the power to write themselves raises then they probably need a serious reality check, and its downhill from there.

a reply to: underwerks


My beef is that State's should deal with their own policy... It shouldn't be handed down from our POTUS, CONGRESS, SUPREME COURT..

Their creation wasn't to RULE the USA.. they were created for DEFENSE... if needed.. and to deal with cross state issues...

State's rights are key to keeping the Grand Experiment going... not DC Swamp Monsters... YMMV

We could completely defund the DEA and end the war on drugs in one year. And with it, end a majority of the social problems in America. All in one swoop.

a reply to: underwerks

War on Drugs is a state issue... turned into a FEDERAL deal...

To focus on that, means that they (FEDS) won the battle...

Do you want Liberty.. or do you want to let the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT mandate your liberty to you?

Let's downsize the FED GOV and get back to States RIGHTS...

Happy times and opportunity.. if we do... DRAIN THE SWAMP

a reply to: underwerks

Taxes is required for the Central Bankers to control you. Taxes should be optional but the elites would never allow it. They would lose too much control.

a reply to: JacKatMtn

Consensual Taxation isn't incompatible with the state rights model. In fact its the idea way to ensure never DC does little more than what you'd have of them.

The big change would be that they can fund stupid projects and things like that, social programs, military assets, WARS, but the difference is people against abortion wouldn't have to pay into programs related to it if they're strongly against it; or vice versa.

You, with the AMERICA F YEAH tshirt, wanna spend $1,000 per year on those kickass aircraft carriers like on your shirt? Good for you! You can sign 'the wall' in the mess hall; take a selfie doing it for your Instagram page. And you, Hollywood douchebag with the stage makeup on your face, you you like to talk about supporting bizarro SJW projects, and you get off on virtue signalling? Good for you, dump a million of your dollars into that kind of stuff and set your public-government interface panel 'sleeve' (er jacket) up so people can see all of your virtues, hotlink it into your Facebook stats, how you actually put your money where your mouth is when most of the other Hollywood SJW dooshes don't.

So it would eliminate pork spending; also lobbyists; allow people to fund social programs that are important to them; and not be forced into paying the ones its important to them not to; so it would bring an end to disenfranchisement. It's also bring some public sphere accountability to these charletons like Hollwood dooshes (that love telling everyone to drive less when they fly on private jets), kind of stuff.

A look at the Kickstarter phenomenon suggests people would dig it.

New York-based Kickstarter Inc. is catching on fast with small-business people. It was founded in 2009 but to date already has raised around $1.3 billion to fund some 70,000 projects, including 5,800 in Illinois.
www.chicagobusiness.com...

The United Way has been offering this type of thing for quite some time. When you 'pledge' (usually through a workplace fund-raising drive) you can choose which charities you want your money to go to.

It's the same with making pledges and donations to individual programs like Planned Parenthood, or the World Wildlife Fund (my favorite, along with the ASPCA). I think it's a great idea.

The problem here is finding the balance of what is essential and whats 'optional'.. Most people will just want to reduce their tax burden to as little as possible and thus who pays for the roads to be redone etc.

a reply to: Maxatoria

The average American is not worldly enough to make decisions as choosing where "their" money goes. To make them feel better, there could be 3 or 4 optional taxes, i.e. environment, health, roads, tech, churches (who still get gov't money, but will have a small % to be chosen by the individuals). If we did more than 0.05 percent, the churches would get a surplus of money and our environment (which is my church) would get hi-jacked.

Taxes should not be in any way viewed as "our money". It is our fee we pay to live in this great country. To allow a small % to go towards optional taxes as if a donation may give the average American more pride, but it may cause issues such as revolts of these dumb Americans to want to control where ALL "their" tax dollars go. Im so sick of stupid Americans.

a reply to: underwerks

If you check what you will fund, will we see Congress accept a shrinking budget in a pet project that no American wants to fund? How would that work? If the purpose isn't to allow taxpayers to defund projects they disapprove of, and fund more to projects they do approve of, i don't see the purpose here beyond giving an illusion of a voice.

If it were to be tied to the taxes we pay, its a multi-tiered, caste like system deriving from personal wealth. Its the end game for class warfare, with a proletariat that enjoys almost none of the benefits of western society.

Neither seem good unless its Americans being able to defund projects directly. Even then, im wanting an easier tax code to follow. Not something more complicated.

Top 20 Worst Ways the Government Wasted Your Tax Dollars
10) $1,000,000 for the Sewall-Belmont House in Washington, D.C. This historical venue is currently used for social events and is the headquarters of the National Women's Party. It was proposed by Senator Mary Landrieu.

9) $250,000 for a wireless area network for the city of Hartselle, Alabama, population 13,888. Proposed by Alabama Representative Robert Aderholt and Senator Richard Shelby.

8) $225,000 for restoration and installation of exhibits at the St. Louis Art Museum Foundation. Proposed by Missouri Senator Kit Bond and Representative William Lacy Clay. The museum's admission is free and has a "...per-capita attendance that is consistently among the highest of our nation's art museums," according to the museum website. It also had a fund balance of $148,434,857 as of December 31, 2007.

The 10 Most Outrageous Pork Barrel Projects of 2016
-Swedish massages for rabbits: $387,000
-Teaching Mountain Lions to Ride a Treadmill: $856,000
-Studying how many times “hangry” people stab a voodoo doll: $331,000
-Studying the gambling habits of monkeys: $171,000
-Producing the children’s musical: Zombie in Love: $10,000
-Funding a “Stoner Symphony”: $15,000
-Subsidizing Alpaca Poop: $50,000
-Synchronized Swimming for Sea Monkeys: $307,524
-Funding Climate Change Alarmist Video Game: $5.2 million
-Studying if Wikipedia is Sexist: $202,000
-...

Nothing says Renegade Congress like "Tweeting at Terrorists: $3 million"

“A recent commentator in Time Magazine put it more bluntly, saying, ‘this outreach by the U.S. government is not only ineffective, but also provides jihadists with a stage to voice their arguments...’”