It’s Fix the Tax Code Friday!
This week, I’m focusing on taxes, budgets and earmarks. There has been some good discussion about whether Melissa Etheridge’s plan to boycott paying taxes in California in response to Proposition 8 is appropriate. So, I’ll take it a step further. Today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question is:
Should taxpayers be allowed to specific that their tax dollars cannot be used for specific purposes for which they object on moral, religious or ethical grounds? For example, should you be allowed to opt your tax dollars out of funding stem cell research, abortion, the war in Iraq – even the financial bailout? Do you think it would be practical or valuable to have “hot button issues” listed on your tax returns to make the opt out easy, similar to the “election campaign” checkbox on your tax return?
Would this be democracy at its finest – or a hot mess?
As attractive as the idea sounds on paper–hey, it’s my tax dollars, so I get to decide where they’re spent–it would indeed be a mess in practice.
How government money is spent has already been decided in a (more or less) democratic way. We elect the Congress, and it decides what to spend money on, or what not to. Then it comes up with a budget. A tax is, by definition, a payment that you make to the government which (1) is mandatory; and (2) is not directly linked to goods or services received (as is, for example, postage, or the admission fee to a national park).
Superimposing upon this process an additional layer of decision making in which each taxpayer decides where his or her money should go would be a form of plutocracy. What happens if all the rich people decide that “their” tax dollars shouldn’t go toward veterans’ benefits but instead toward corporate bailouts?
Capital will flow where it gets the best returns, and taxes will flow where the Congress decides it should. If you want to do good in the world, contribute to your favorite charity. The money that flows from you to it will accomplish something. Creating an accounting nightmare for the government in which it must keep track of “your” dollars (and quietly replace the shortfall with someone else’s) just so you, like Ms. Etheridge, can express your indignation at this or that, or can posture as being “socially responsible,” is an absurdity.
While I think that Melissa Ethridge, in the company of an organized group, would benefit from a tax protest, I don’t think that allowing people to specify where their tax dollars go is beneficial. What would happen to our national defense, and I mean our real national defense, if everyone decided that they weren’t going to fund the military at all because they disagreed with a single military action? It’s better that we allow Congress to make those decisions. Citizens who have objections are allowed to voice them by petitioning their elected officials and by voting.
On paper, it’s not a bad idea, but practically I don’t think it would work. But, a few adjustments and it might… Perhaps instead of allowing taxpayers to choose which programs they fund, the gov’t (federal only, that’s a plenty big enough topic) could spend only on the bare essentials, and use some form of tax credit or non itemized charitable deduction incentives to then encourage citizens to fund the programs they desire necessary. Credit to Newt Gingrich for most of this concept.
On a similar note, many liberals would like to see the Bush tax cuts expire. My question is why not have an extra line on the 1040, so they can calculate their tax under the Clinton tax rates and pay the extra voluntarily. Be interesting to see how many of the supporters opted for this come April 15.
The idea is actually a nice sounding one, yet it would be a massive mess in the works.
Just imagine how many pages of a basic tax form there would be for all the “hot button issues” with yes no check boxes. A mess I wouldn’t want.
As the reader above points out in a way we have already voiced our options in choosing a candidate that we felt best fit our hopes for our tax dollars.
I actually thought I could not imagine a more complicated tax return – but, lo and behold, another idea to make it even more complicated. If Melissa Eldridge (whoever she is) doesn’t like the law in California, she can move. Obvously a majority of Californians do not think her life style equates to marriage – so she is at odds with her fellow Californians – but she is not at odds with Massachusetts, Conneticut or Hawaiian folks so why not go live with folks you get along with better? Or whose beliefs are more in line with yours? But if this idea ever comes to pass I am going to check the box that says I’m simply against everything and don’t want to send any money. At my age I have faith that what infrastructure we have in place will last until I’m gone. And then it will be my bratty kids problem – Don’t flip out – just kidding. But you know, just know, how us “rich” people are.
Skip McQuaid
I’d love something like that… of course, I doubt the government bureaucrats could figure out how to do this… but we could… Simplify, really simplify the current return then add simple check boxes… opt out of war and war spending, ah… it won’t happen will it, but I love the thought.
Anne Wayman, now blogging at http://www.aboutfreelancewriting.com
Geez, Kel, that’s a bunny. I would love nothing better than to object to nearly everything and opt out (especially if I get to avoid paying). But the effect on the budgeting process would be disastrous, even at a state or muni level.
Etheridge should move to Massachusetts and be done with it. Heck, she’d even save some money on, you guessed it, taxes.
What about if we paid taxes to local governments instead? I’d be willing to contribute a small portion to the defense of america, but I want most of my money to go to what I want it to go to: streets, schools, police, fire, street lights etc. not bail outs, wars and special interests. I’m going to boycott paying taxes until the government stops jacking us around. That’s the only way to speak their language. Money talks.