[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / dempart / g / klpmm / pinoy / projared / vichan / webcams ]

/b2/ - Random 2.0

Winner of the 81rd Attention-Hungry Games
/y2k/ - 2000s Nostalgia

Entries for the 2019 Summer Infinity Cup are now open!
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Global rule | Dost test


File: f73026df78bdaec⋯.jpeg (4.7 KB, 299x168, 299:168, stefan.jpeg)

 No.136218

There's a lot of talk about how x department is overfunded and y department is underfunded. So let's say we somewhat reduced the funding on all departments and reduced taxes to correlate, but added a voluntary tax which the individual could choose how much goes to what department (or subsidiary of said department). Would that fix the problem of people crying about certain things not being appropriately funded by basically leaving it up to the people to choose where a portion of their money goes. Perhaps a mandatory minimum payment could be established so that tax payers MUST choose to provide a bit of extra funding somewhere.

Of course, some things will require obligate funding and so we can't just go all-out and say "you get to choose where 100% of your taxes go." But we can reduce the obligate funding to certain departments and let each individual decide where they want their money to go. Ideally, this would be tax neutral (or perhaps tax-negative) to those who don't want to shell out a few extra bucks. But it may be revenue positive as there's a lot of people with the extra money who wish to fund certain things on ideological grounds.

 No.136227

File: 5043cfae48fc8b4⋯.mp4 (3.71 MB, 640x360, 16:9, ONE DOLLAR.mp4)

ONE

FUCKING

DOLLAR


 No.136239

>>136218

Most people aren't responsible enough. Even if they feel like a program is essential, they'd either figure someone else will take care of it or they'd contribute a minimal amount.

It's an extremely naive idea tbh.


 No.136321

>>136239

Yes, most people would contribute the minimal amount. But they will contribute that amount to wherever they believe needs the money.

What the nazis did was make the entire thing "voluntary." But there were some few cases where those who consistently refused to pay it despite their ability to do so were arrested on the grounds of neglecting civil responsibility. Those that do believe that certain things should get extra funding will likely contribute their tax to said things. That's the point; people can have some choice as to where their tax dollars go.


 No.136346

>neet rant about changing the 200+ yo US government

make a petition on change.org!


 No.136353

>>136321

>But they will contribute that amount to wherever they believe needs the money.

Right, but I believe the programs which are voluntary would end up being underfunded because people are irresponsible, self-entitled cunts.

>Those that do believe that certain things should get extra funding will likely contribute their tax to said things

You'd have to make the programs pay-to-play – and that gets tricky, because you'd end up needing to set a minimal amount that people would have to pay in order to benefit from the program. And if it's not a program that someone would directly and immediately benefit from (e.g. research funding, etc.), forget it.


 No.136354

>>136346

I have a job and I pay taxes. This is a thought experiment:

If some amount of your taxes could be allocated in some things of your choice, where would it go? let's say

$200 was taken off your basic taxes but you were required to choose where that extra $200 goes. Where would it be?


 No.136357

File: b21771d92774ad6⋯.jpg (13.1 KB, 178x180, 89:90, gay couple.jpg)

>>136218

such a bad looking human

He look hopeless and worry


 No.136363

>>136353

>You'd have to make the programs pay-to-play

not necessarily. We've got a lot of champagne socialists in the US. Wealthy people might be convinced that the little bit they throw at the welfare system is helping those in need. And there's tons of wealthy people saying NASA needs more funding. Now they can personally help fund it and start campaigns to get others to do so..


 No.136367

>>136353

>the programs which are voluntary would end up being underfunded because people are irresponsible, self-entitled cunts.

There would still be some obligate funding. I'm not advocating for all people to decide where all of their tax dollars go. I'm saying that some programs would have their funding reduced so that taxpayers can decide their own priorities.


 No.136381

>>136363

> Wealthy people might be convinced that the little bit they throw at the welfare system is helping those in need.

You mean the wealthy people who do everything in their power to pay as little as possible in taxes? You mean the wealthy people who horde their money in offshore bank accounts? If NASA funding became voluntary, it would end up being even more underfunded than it already is. What's stopping the super wealthy from donating some of their trillions to NASA right now? It's not like they need the money.

>I'm saying that some programs would have their funding reduced so that taxpayers can decide their own priorities.

But I'm saying if you give people the option of contributing (or not) to programs that they don't directly benefit from, they're not going to contribute much, if anything. The average worker is struggling paycheck to paycheck.


 No.136407

>>136381

I'm talking about the class of champagne socialists. Those that constantly argue for higher taxes. They would have to contribute ore they'd out themselves as hypocrites. And these are people who live on their social status. They can't afford to be publicly outed as hypocrites.

> If NASA funding became voluntary, it would end up being even more underfunded than it already is.

then don't cut NASA's funding. Cut welfare and social security. Cut that which people may be inclined to donate to.

>if you give people the option of contributing (or not) to programs that they don't directly benefit from, they're not going to contribute much, if anything

and that's fine so long as the minimum is provided by the obligate tax.


 No.136444

>>136407

>Cut welfare and social security. Cut that which people may be inclined to donate to.

The people who need welfare obviously can't contribute, and making them rely on the generosity of rich people would be a bit cruel.

>and that's fine so long as the minimum is provided by the obligate tax.

I suppose it just depends on the program. I think it would be a mess, regardless.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / dempart / g / klpmm / pinoy / projared / vichan / webcams ]