Each Citizen, when filling out their tax forms, is provided with a list of government programs, and may choose which items they wish their taxes to go towards, in minimum increments of 1% of their total tax burden.

For example, you may have a list like this:

• _____ I don't care. Let the Government pick for me.
• _____ Schools
• _____ Roads
• _____ Police
• _____ Building jails
• _____ Fire Departments
• _____ Military
• _____ Weapons of mass destruction
• _____ Hospitals
• _____ Welfare
• _____ Social Security

All percentages must add up to 100%. Any left over percentages (such as if a taxpayer only allocated 75% of their funds, the remaining 25%) would go into the "I don't care" bin, and could be appropriated by standard government methods.

If percentages exceed 100%, then they are trimmed back to 100%, according to some algorithm, yet to be decided. (Perhaps just stopping when the totals reach 100%, although that would favor programs at the beginning of the list. Perhaps chosen at random from the programs the taxpayer chose.)

Funds may not be moved from one allocation bin to another by the government. Programs are funded based on what they receive from the taxpayer choices, and whatever is left over in the "I don't care" bin. Money may not be diverted from, say, the "Education" bin to pay for a sudden shortfall in, say, the "Weapons of mass destruction" bin.

This format of taxation allocation would be applied equally on all levels: Federal, State, and Local. Thus, any tax money that a citizen pays into any level of goverment would be directable to the programs that they see fit to support.

This would, of course, remove the need for all "special" taxes, bond measures, and specific levies such as property taxes, measure "X" funds, etc. Taxes may still be levied for things such as owning property, but where that money goes is left up to the people paying that tax, not the people collecting it.

2000-Jun-20 12:04pm salsbury

I got a reply in email to this from Skeeter Murphy who raised some issues. I'll post his stuff here, then my replies separately. Pat

I was browsing through the laws FAQ and have a comment for the Line Item Taxes law.

This won't work. Here's why...

Say I'm anti-build-jail. Say lots of people are. This is probably common, people think, "man, I wish we didn't need so many jails, I'll stop funding them". Then, in a couple years, there's not enough funding for jails and there's still a lot of criminals. Where do they get put. I guess we just set them free, cause there's nowhere to put them.

Things like police, fire, hospitals, etc just need funding based on the needs in each community. The general population doesn't know what the budget requirements are for these in terms of the percentages they choose.

Back to jails. Not funding them won't solve the problem. They need money based on the number of inmates. That number can be reduced via education (I believe).

Now, the real question is: how do you determine what line items should be included, and which items just need funded. Maybe the line items can get whatever is left over after certain "required services" are funded.

Determining the "required services" is a big issue too.

Different topic. The laws FAQ doesn't really talk about scope. I was assuming it was federal level laws. States may also have a similar system if they wanted. Is that true?

Also, you can easilly scale the percentages people choose so they add to 100%, you just allow for fractional percentages. Not that big a deal. Just choose how many decimal places. Plus, you'll need that to deal with more than 100 items to choose from.

I guess the point here is that you're giving funding choices to people that aren't informed of funding requirements. Now I know you'll say, "They should be informed." Well, a lot of people just don't care enough to be informed and will think they're informed enough to know. We know that it takes lots of people working full time to figure out budget stuff, so 'normal' people shouldn't be required to know it.

I think the other bills that clearly mark tax hikes should be as far as this goes.

So there...(deep breath and exhale)

Skeeter

Say I'm anti-build-jail. Say lots of people are. This is probably common, people think, "man, I wish we didn't need so many jails, I'll stop funding them". Then, in a couple years, there's not enough funding for jails and there's still a lot of criminals. Where do they get put. I guess we just set them free, cause there's nowhere to put them.

Each year, people pay taxes. Each year, they get to decide. If you suddenly realize that there isn't enough funding going to jails, you may decide to switch from anti- to pro-jail, and put 100% into it, encouraging your friends and co-workers to do so, putting up signs, etc. The budget cycle on this stuff is really quite a rapid turn-around.

In fact, that's part of the point of things like the 10-year expiration. Why should a law be set-in-stone forever, just because someone thinks it's a good idea now? Given how much contention we see over relatively simple issues like whether to fund a school bond issue, or whether same-sex couples can be called "married", what makes us think that the answer we arrive at now should stand for all time as the "One True Answer"?

Auto-expiration takes care of that by allowing for societal drift. If, in 10 years, we collectively have a new definition of "marriage", then we can adopt it. If not, we can re-enact the law prohibiting it to same-sex couples, as they recently did in California.

The same adaptive-cycling applies to tax-funded items, but on a scale 10-times faster (and thus even more adaptive) than the actual laws are to social needs and pressures.

Things like police, fire, hospitals, etc just need funding based on the needs in each community. The general population doesn't know what the budget requirements are for these in terms of the percentages they choose.

People can (and do) decide on their own contributions to charities, churches, political campaigns, school functions and fund-raisers, not to mention all their normal budgeting for food, school supplies, clothing, bills, etc. Adding in a way for them to give direct feedback on social services seems to me like a very empowering thing, and includes the sorts of checks-and-balances that the democratic process prides itself on:

-If you don't think that the City Department of Landscaping really needs $6.5 million dollars to plant flowers, and you'd rather see that money go to the Public Library, you can make that choice, with your dollars. Next year, you can switch back to flowers, if you so desire.

Remember, also, that the AMOUNT of tax money to government isn't changing under this proposed law, just the ALLOCATION. Government is still getting the same cut, but its priorities are being set by the constituents, not out-of-touch politicians with a vested interest in retaining power & money for their own personal fiefdom.

Back to jails. Not funding them won't solve the problem. They need money based on the number of inmates. That number can be reduced via education (I believe).

They can also be reduced by changing other laws, which really is beyond the scope of this specific law. However, I encourage you to do some research into the demographics of prison populations, and also look at the growth-rates in the various sectors. Good places to start looking are:

• http://www.demographics.com/publications/ad/96_ad/9602_ad/ad880.htm
• http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/siteguide.html
• http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm
• http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

These last two are especially good. They show that drug populations in prison constitute 21% of the 1998 prison population (as distinct from violent crime). Thus, a change in other laws, such as decriminalizing the possession of drugs, would drop the prison-crowding rate overnight by about 20%. Again, that's a discussion for another time. :-)

Now, the real question is: how do you determine what line items should be included, and which items just need funded. Maybe the line items can get whatever is left over after certain "required services" are funded. Determining the "required services" is a big issue too.

I propose listing every government service that is currently funded by tax money. If it's not listed, it doesn't get funded. If it is listed, it may freely compete with other listees for funding.

Ask yourself this: If there really, truly is some service that gets ZERO funding from ANYONE, is that a needed service?

If there really, truly is some service that gets a vanishingly small amount of funding, is that a valid use of collective government tax money? The term for such items is "Special Interest", and that's usually viewed by most people as a non-valid use.

Different topic. The laws FAQ doesn't really talk about scope. I was assuming it was federal level laws. States may also have a similar system if they wanted. Is that true?

Sure, I don't see why not. We've only got about 15 of them up there, so far, and those radically alter the legal landscape. There's certainly room for more, although I'm in favor of simple systems. I would recommend adopting the basics (such as 1-page, no riders, 10-year expire, line-item taxation) as a framework for all laws, at all levels.

Well-written laws should be applicable for all levels. If they're too specialized, I would argue that they aren't well-written, and cater to special interests.

Also, you can easilly scale the percentages people choose so they add to 100%, you just allow for fractional percentages. Not that big a deal. Just choose how many decimal places. Plus, you'll need that to deal with more than 100 items to choose from.

True enough. However, getting most people to make 100 choices is difficult. I suspect that adding the decimal places certainly couldn't hurt.

And having thought about it some more, I agree that it should probably go out to at least five decimal places. That would bring granularity down to about $.01 resolution for someone paying $10,000/year in taxes, and $.10 resolution for someone (or a corporation) paying $100,000/year. Actually, we should probably drop it more decimal places than that. Maybe a sliding-scale adjustment so you can always pay to the penny, depending on how many digits you're paying on the LEFT side of the decimal point! :-)

I guess the point here is that you're giving funding choices to people that aren't informed of funding requirements. Now I know you'll say, "They should be informed." Well, a lot of people just don't care enough to be informed and will think they're informed enough to know. We know that it takes lots of people working full time to figure out budget stuff, so 'normal' people shouldn't be required to know it.

That's what the "I don't care, let the government choose for me" section is for. And that should be the first item, and the default if they don't select anything. It's also the overflow-buffer. If you only chose 72% of your funding, the other 28% would go into the General Fund, and be divided up normally.

Remember that this is an *augmentation* to the current system, not an either/or decision. It's designed to allow more flexibility, enable more choice and control (thus, democracy), and weed out cruft, without reducing the overall amount of money going to the government.

I think the other bills that clearly mark tax hikes should be as far as this goes.

I'm not sure I follow. You mean merely labelling all new tax-hikes, and allowing them to be approved/disapproved by vote, but leaving all existing waste and misallocation in place? That doesn't seem like nearly as flexible or elegant a solution.

So there...(deep breath and exhale) Skeeter

Indeed! :-)
2000-Nov-03 10:03pm salsbury