Did you know that its entirely possible to make donations to the federal treasury? Yeap, it was established in 1843 that US citizens can make voluntary gifts to the United States. Just send your check or money order to: Gifts to the United States U.S. Department of the Treasury Credit Accounting Branch 3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D Hyattsville, MD 20782 www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html But wait a minute, supposing ALL federal revenue was voluntary by law...who would freely contribute, and how much? Would the wealthy pay less, or more...would 95% of citizens pay nothing? This is a personal question...what percentage of YOUR income would you contribute? Or do you insist on being forced?
This is the classic prisoner's dilemma - do you choose a path that results in a significant improvement to your fate only if everyone else does what you do, or do you choose a path that is guaranteed to improve your well being? In reality almost no one would pay. You could pay and not make a bit of difference overall. Or you could decide to not pay and not make a bit of difference overall. Which would you choose?
I think this is a brilliant comment...concisely stated. Shall we put you down for ZERO then? Yes, the decision to pay requires some measure of faith in your fellow citizenry. And I believe this faith is well founded. We know this because many large institutions are funded almost entirely by donations...churches and political parties are good examples. People have even demonstrated a willingness to voluntarily sacrifice life and limb for the greater good of their nation in wartime. So contributing a percentage of their annual income is not above sensible expectations.
Honestly if I could decide what programs to fund I'd still pay taxes. Space program? NSF and educational funding? BASIC military funding? I'd pay for that at about the level I'm supporting them now. But I would not be willing to pay for the wars, or oil subsidies, or the latest government boondoggle. Given that people go to remarkable extremes to pay as little tax as possible, and given that "I don't wanna pay for X Y Z - keep the government out of my wallet!" is a common refrain in politics - I don't think your faith in the willingness in others to pay is well founded. Like charities, they'd pay for things they liked - but if forced to support that which they do not, they'd likely not bother. Yep. And I'd be willing to continue to support both the charities I contribute to and the parts of government I support. Again, given that almost no one does this now, I don't think that's likely. When it comes down to buying a new car to replace your clunker vs. subsidizing a war you disagree with, or a program you despise, I don't think most people will find it hard to make that decision.
The only reason political parties are funded by the wealthy is that if they weren't they might exercise their power in the service of the rest of us. If you honestly expect rich people to donate a third or more of their yearly income every year to the community to be employed as other people wish it to be employed, you are in a world of fantasy. We have a thousand years of experience with great wealth under the sole control of its possessors. They have often been charitable. They have never come close to funding the physical and social infrastructure of a modern industrial society.
Another excellent point! Under a voluntary system I believe citizens would DEMAND more say in how the money is spent. Whatever is voluntarily given is usually valued far more than what is taken by force.
Carcano Would those who do not volutarily pay taxes still be allowed to use the roads those taxes paid for, or should they expect their housefire to be put out by the firefighters those taxes make possible? Would the armed forces be compelled to defend them? The police? Should they expect Social Security in their old age? Medicare? Freeloaders would crash the system, just like our current healthcare. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If political parties are controlled by the wealthy dont you think they would implement a flat tax...instead of one that generates higher yields from the wealthiest 10 percent? I'm somewhat on side with George Washington about political parties by the way. He thought they were dangerous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington's_Farewell_Address#Political_parties If we're going to have them at all they should be entirely funded by individuals, not unions or corporations.
Under a voluntary system, I wouldn't expect the wealthy to pay much of anything. Why would they? In a reality based system, where social contracts are enforced against defaulters and embezzlers, it's one possibility, of course - beats taxing unemployment compensation, in logic and in economic theory. But the upper 20% would be a better fraction to consider. Their share would depend on their share of the benefits derived from the economy they employ. One possible rule of thumb might be that they cover the same percentage of the increase in the federal budget that they have gained in their share of the GDP, for example. That would not be 100%, as the upper 10% have gained only 80 or 90 % of the past few decades' increase in GDP. "Control" is your spin word - I did not use it. They don't want a flat tax. They need the government services they would lose from a low flat tax, and a moderate to high flat tax would be a large tax increase on themselves. Unions are collections of individuals. Corporations were prevented from such influence, at least legally, until 2010. And of course rich people should be prevented from exercising undue influence just as corporations were, and for similar reasons: One man, one vote. How, exactly, would that work any differently than it works now?
Why would they? To fund the 'government services' you say they need. I think Steve Forbes as publisher of Forbes magazine is a good representative of the wealthy class, and he proposed a flat tax of 17% during his presidential bid. Would the rich pay less under this flat tax? Of course!
Citizens would just simply get far more involved under a voluntary tax. They would demand a stronger voice, make more calls and visits to their representative, write more letters, etc, etc. Because, as I said...whatever is voluntarily given is valued far more than what is taken by force.
Another jolly good feature of a voluntary tax is the added element of public control over political actions. Aside from voting once every 3-4 years for leaders who usually break their promises, the citizens can show their lack of support by simply diminishing the revenue they have to work with. Its a way of voting with money, as well as a ballot. Democracy really is a strange paradox...the people trust themselves enough to choose their government, but not enough to fund the government, except by insisting on being forced to do so.
