Taxes and Special Interest Groups/Earmarks

[KenMcCoy]

I have no problem paying higher income tax rates as you make more income, but I do have problems with my higher rates going to groups or projects that I don't necessarily agree with.

Do you think it would be feasible to be able to elect where your income tax monies go? There would have to be some mandated allocation of funds, say 60% of a persons income tax liability goes to defense and infrastructure, but the other 40% a person would have to elect where the money goes when they file their income tax returns. For example if the tax return had a "check the box" field for the remaining percentage a person could have their money go to:


Bridge to nowhere, AL
Money for poor people
Universal health care
Wooden arrows
3 million dollar overhead projectors in IL
Debt reduction
Bailout for the homebuyers, lenders, banks who destroyed our economy
Etc.I guess in theory it would work because the special interest groups would have to lobby the people for additional funds instead of people in congress.

Any thoughts?

[clambake]

:tu

[Shastafarian]

I have no problem paying higher income tax rates as you make more income, but I do have problems with my higher rates going to groups or projects that I don't necessarily agree with.

Do you think it would be feasible to be able to elect where your income tax monies go? There would have to be some mandated allocation of funds, say 60% of a persons income tax liability goes to defense and infrastructure, but the other 40% a person would have to elect where the money goes when they file their income tax returns. For example if the tax return had a "check the box" field for the remaining percentage a person could have their money go to:


Bridge to nowhere, AL
Money for poor people
Universal health care
Wooden arrows
3 million dollar overhead projectors in IL
Debt reduction
Bailout for the homebuyers, lenders, banks who destroyed our economy
Etc.I guess in theory it would work because the special interest groups would have to lobby the people for additional funds instead of people in congress.

Any thoughts?

It was a planetarium projector. Those tend to cost a little bit of money. Unless you wanna do away with learning...

[KenMcCoy]

It was a planetarium projector. Those tend to cost a little bit of money. Unless you wanna do away with learning...

I was trying to be as non partisan as possible in this...that's why i put bridge to nowhere first.

Begin Edit -

But that's why it would work...if I didn't support learning, my tax money wouldn't have to go to it.

-End Edit

[Shastafarian]

I was trying to be as non partisan as possible in this...that's why i put bridge to nowhere first.

I respect that but you kind of misrepresented that projector project.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I'd like to quit paying the ACLU

[clambake]

it seems strange that the projector couldn't be privately funded.

[KenMcCoy]

it seems strange that the projector couldn't be privately funded.

Exactly, and how does it benefit people in other parts of the country?

[ratm1221]

I have no problem paying higher income tax rates as you make more income, but I do have problems with my higher rates going to groups or projects that I don't necessarily agree with.

Do you think it would be feasible to be able to elect where your income tax monies go? There would have to be some mandated allocation of funds, say 60% of a persons income tax liability goes to defense and infrastructure, but the other 40% a person would have to elect where the money goes when they file their income tax returns. For example if the tax return had a "check the box" field for the remaining percentage a person could have their money go to:


Bridge to nowhere, AL
Money for poor people
Universal health care
Wooden arrows
3 million dollar overhead projectors in IL
Debt reduction
Bailout for the homebuyers, lenders, banks who destroyed our economy
Etc.I guess in theory it would work because the special interest groups would have to lobby the people for additional funds instead of people in congress.

Any thoughts?

They are building a bridge to nowhere in Alabama? Sweet!

[101A]

I have no problem paying higher income tax rates as you make more income, but I do have problems with my higher rates going to groups or projects that I don't necessarily agree with.

Do you think it would be feasible to be able to elect where your income tax monies go? There would have to be some mandated allocation of funds, say 60% of a persons income tax liability goes to defense and infrastructure, but the other 40% a person would have to elect where the money goes when they file their income tax returns. For example if the tax return had a "check the box" field for the remaining percentage a person could have their money go to:

Bridge to nowhere, AL
Money for poor people
Universal health care
Wooden arrows
3 million dollar overhead projectors in IL
Debt reduction
Bailout for the homebuyers, lenders, banks who destroyed our economy
Etc.I guess in theory it would work because the special interest groups would have to lobby the people for additional funds instead of people in congress.

Any thoughts?

Sure; but it would be eyewash.

Your money is spoken for. Medicare, Medicaid, SS and Defense - and paying interest on debt are over 80% of the budget - might be 90 now, actually, too lazy to look. EVERYTHING else amounts to peanuts, and the Med, Med and SS, as well as the % are growing so fast - they'll take the rest real soon (without higher taxes on, well, I'm sure it'll be a small % of the voters).

[KenMcCoy]

Sure; but it would be eyewash.

Your money is spoken for. Medicare, Medicaid, SS and Defense - and paying interest on debt are over 80% of the budget - might be 90 now, actually, too lazy to look. EVERYTHING else amounts to peanuts, and the Med, Med and SS, as well as the % are growing so fast - they'll take the rest real soon (without higher taxes on, well, I'm sure it'll be a small % of the voters).

So even if it is at 80/20...I think it's an easier sell on the people who actually pay taxes if they could direct their money to the causes they believe in. There would be some other good benefits as well:

If a project or group isn't run well, it probably wouldn't receive as much money. So they would either disappear or start doing what they should have been doing the whole time.
There would be less corruption in Washington. No more lobbyists bribing politicians in order to get Federal funding pushed to their special interest group.

[Anti.Hero]

It is funny that conservative tax payers are forced to fund "non-partsian" liberal special interest groups.

That's Amerika though.

[KenMcCoy]

It is funny that conservative tax payers are forced to fund "non-partsian" liberal special interest groups.

That's Amerika though.

It's not just that...Most of us on this board live in TX, why the hell should we contribute to a bridge between a small russian island and alaska?

[boutons_]

"Most of us on this board live in TX, why the hell should we contribute to a bridge between a small russian island and alaska"

Everybody hates earmarks and pork EXCEPT when they fall in your district. Earmarks and pork are how Congress people keep getting re-elected by voters who benefit from the pork.

[KenMcCoy]

But don't you think that would make the Congress people more honest? Knowing that they can't slip an earmark in that costs the taxpayer millions of dollars that only benefits the people in their district.

[boutons_]

Congress honest? GMAFB

Congress buys votes with earmarks and pork, while corps and capitalists buy Congress.

The whole system is corrupt to the core.

If you doubt that, just look at how Congress has paid back/bailed their biggest contributing sector, Wall St, withall Wall Streeters immune from prosecution, or even loss of $Bs in compensation.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

You can't rule out projects just because they only benefit a local project. That would lead to people saying "Hey, why do I have to pay for the National Guard to help hurricane victims in Florida." Or "Why the hell do I care if there's vandalism in the Grand Canyon, it's not in my state."

The whole point in being a nation with common interests is that sometimes State A needs more than State B for something. But it's in your interest to help out State A because their industry benefits the nation.

I don't think a system to vote for where our tax dollars go on a case-by-case basis is feasible, but even if it were, it would probably be a bad idea. Too many people can't see beyond the end of their nose, or their own state line. We just need to elect smarter people that aren't in the pockets of special interests. And we need to pass more strict disclosure laws.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I'd like to quit paying the ACLU

Yeah, upholding the Constitution. Who needs that crap. :rolleyes

[boutons_]

"need to elect smarter people"

the system sucks so bad that the the really worthy, intelligent people don't go into politics. The really greedy ones know the money is in the private sector and buying subsidies/contracts/tax breaks from the compromised dumbfucks in Congress, state, local govt.

"that aren't in the pockets of special interests."

no such thing. Special interests contribute to all campaigns, so all politicians are beholden.

"more strict disclosure laws."

It might happen in response to the financial sector meltdown, some time next year, but sooner or later, they'll lobby their way back to as much opacity as they can buy. Like dickhead in the WH, secrecy and opacity is how they commit their crimes with impunity.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

the system sucks so bad that the the really worty, intelligent people don't go into politics. The really greedy ones know the money is in the private sector and buying subsidies/contracts/tax breaks from the compromised dumbfucks in Congress, state, local govt.

I reject this premise. People at all levels feel a call to public service. It isn't for everyone, but there are plenty out there who are worthy. And greedy people aren't particularly intelligent in my experience.


no such thing. Special interest contribute to all campaigns, so all politicians are beholden.

This is a huge problem and one we have to address without raping the first amendment. It's probably one of the most difficult civic challenges we face right now.


It might happen in response to the financial sector meltdown, some time next year, but sooner or later, they'll lobby their way back to as much opacity as they can buy. Like dickhead in the WH, secrecy and opacity is how they commit their crimes with impunity.

This is on us. We allowed all of this to happen. We have to demand it be undone. You can't sit around thinking you can live like an eloi unless you're ready to be served up to the morlocks. simple as that.

[ElNono]

And greedy people aren't particularly intelligent in my experience.

Then why entertain KenMcCoy proposition?

[KenMcCoy]

Congress honest? GMAFB

Congress buys votes with earmarks and pork, while corps and capitalists buy Congress.

The whole system is corrupt to the core.

If you doubt that, just look at how Congress has paid back/bailed their biggest contributing sector, Wall St, withall Wall Streeters immune from prosecution, or even loss of $Bs in compensation.

I don't doubt that the ENTIRE thing is corrupt for one second...question is how do WE (the people) fix it?

[KenMcCoy]

This is a huge problem and one we have to address without raping the first amendment. It's probably one of the most difficult civic challenges we face right now.


That's why I think that if you put the distribution of the money into the hands of the taxpayers (by letting them elect where they want their money to go) we could partially solve the problem of corrupt congressmen/special interests lobbying. Think about it, it's ALWAYS some group (or person representing a group) that is bribing the congress people, there is no way that they could get to ALL of the taxpayers.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

That's why I think that if you put the distribution of the money into the hands of the taxpayers (by letting them elect where they want their money to go) we could partially solve the problem of corrupt congressmen/special interests lobbying. Think about it, it's ALWAYS some group (or person representing a group) that is bribing the congress people, there is no way that they could get to ALL of the taxpayers.

Because our elected leaders have access to information, statistics, reports, research staff and no end of other advantages when it comes to evaluating what needs money and what doesn't. It's their job and why we elect and trust them into office. You cannot expect a population to micromanage everything. What's the point in electing leaders if you aren't going to let them lead.

Cleaning up corruption doesn't mean making politicians wear a bib and eat strained peas.

Your proposed solution doesn't get to the heart of solving anything. Voting on the overall departments to allocate money toward wouldn't solve the problem. You'd just get situations where an oil company was passing itself off as an environmental group to win a bid.

[tonylongoriafan]

i'm down with your plan as long as i don't have to pay social security and medicare :downspin: