You Pays Your Taxes, You Take Your Chances
Goss over at Project Antares has declared Wednesdays to be his What If Wednesday days, where he tosses out whatever idea has been percolating in his brain amongst all the stories and other creative pursuits. Last week he suggested the following:
What if– instead of just sending an amount of money to the IRS every year, every single taxpaying american could itemize their taxes?
What if those on the Right Wing could actually specifically ensure that their taxes were not going to be spent on social programs, but on national defense?
What if the informed people of the Progressive Left could specifically choose, on their tax form, the programs that their taxes would be funding, and protect their money from being given to bloodthirsty mercenaries euphemized as ‘private contractors’ as they murder innocent civilians in other countries?
What if every american, right or left, red or blue, had the comfort of knowing that their money was going toward the america that they envision?
It’s a fascinating idea, but I don’t see how it could possibly work. In Goss’s comment section, I argued that the notion is inherently undemocratic because it gives vastly unequal control over the government to different citizens based on income and taxes paid. In this week’s installment, Goss is kind enough to call me “informed and articulate” while giving no ground. (Which surprised me not at all.) He also tries to spell out in a little more detail how the initial planning of such a program would work. I confess I would need to see a lot more detail before I started to come around. I’m just thinking there would be so many ways to game such a system. If you only used broad categories, lawmakers could find ways to earmark their desired programs into whichever category had money in the budget. If you tried to get specific, taxpayers would be inundated with minutiae that would make the proposition system seem like a walk in the park.
Truth be told, I’m suspicious of Goss’s taxation idea for many of the same reasons I’m suspicious of the proposition/referendum system. On the surface it seems like a way to give citizens more direct control. But without building in any kind of institutional framework to help citizens understand the relevant issues and consider various aspects of a problem, it actually reduces the opportunities for deliberation, intelligent problem-solving, and community-building.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.
Friday, December 30th 2005 at 5:52 pm |
Hey Dave,
I completely agree that an ‘institutional framework to help citizens understand the relevant issues’ is a necessary part of the proposed plan.
Again, I don’t see this as a case against, but as acknowledgement of one of the many issues that would need to be dealt with in the formation of the system.
At the moment, the american citizen is getting less from his tax dollar than ever before. Less than those from other developed nations.
Corporate welfare and manipulation of the people against the government is at such a perverse level that when we pay our taxes, they are not seen as our contribution to the health of the republic, but as a theft from our family’s prosperity, to be given on a whim to whichever lobbyist is able to stick his fork in it.
Grover Norquist’s klan of government stranglers deride government every moment of every day, and simultaneously use it to gain access to our money.
Now, you know I’m not naive enough to miss the seeming innocence of my proposal. But I admit without shame to my optimistic belief that an overhaul of the tax system; one in which mr. and mrs. america could have more control in shaping the budgets, might be made to work more effectively than the deregulated mess that we’ve inherited.
At any rate, thanks again for replying. Please have a Great New Year.
Saturday, December 31st 2005 at 1:36 pm |
Thanks for stopping by, Goss. I do think there’s a little bit of the cart going before the horse in your proposal. If we had an informed, deliberative electorate, we’d be holding our democratically-elected officials much more accountable and a large part of the disconnect you cite would fade away. And without such a system, democratic taxation would get gamed and perverted just like everything else. (Who would have the authority to control deficit spending? Would a percentage of all taxes be reserved to pay interest charges? How do we prevent the government from setting up subsidy programs that would funnel tax dollars right back to the people that contribute them?)
I’m with you on the optimism. You can’t be a Deweyan democrat without a healthy dose.
And in the interest of not shutting my mind off completely to your idea, I was thinking of Bruce Ackerman and Co.’s Citzen Sovereignty site. Their Voting with Dollars proposal treats campaign finance the way you’re considering treating taxes, with one difference I think is critical. Their idea is that we should set up a pool for public financing of elections, and give every citizen the right to secretly allocate some small portion of it. By equalizing the amount over which each citizen has control, the system alleviates the disproportionate-control problem. (It doesn’t eliminate it entirely, because people can contribute over and above the allocated amount.) I wonder if their system could be modified to meet your goals.