Submitted for your approval: The perfect solution to America’s national debate over taxes.
This proposal is completely serious. Below you will find my suggestion for an amended IRS 1040 form. As you will see, it contains two new sections: “Voluntary Tax Rate,” in which each American can individually determine his or her own rate of income taxation; and “Allocation,” in which taxpayers can apply their personal tax payments to specific federal expenses.
It’s simple, it’s completely non-partisan and even-handed, and it allows for total individual autonomy and personal freedom.
Will it lead to a complete restructuring of the United States government? Possibly. And if it does, will that be a good thing? Most definitely.
Read on to see how this new idea came about.
• Problem #1: “Raise my taxes!” vs. “Don’t raise my taxes!”
Recently, billionaire investor Warren Buffett publicly announced that he wants the government to raise his taxes, because, he feels, he just isn’t paying enough. Soon after, fellow billionaire Donald Trump joined Buffett in announcing the he too would at least be willing to pay more taxes if necessary. Then millionaire TV host Jerry Springer joined the chorus of wealthy Americans demanding that their own tax rates be raised.
These high-profile champions of increased self-taxation are simply the most visible members of an entire sector of the American public who demand that we as a nation raise our own taxes to pay for our ever-increasing expenses. (Many of these high-tax-advocates of course pay few or no taxes of their own; what they really want is other people to pay more in taxes. That’s why actual taxpayers like Buffett and Springer make headlines when they join the call for higher rates.)
On the other side of the coin, groups like the Tea Party have quickly ascended into political prominence by charting the exact opposite course, insisting that the economy can only be rescued by an across-the-board lowering of taxes nationwide. Critics portray the Tea Party lower-tax platform as nothing more than “greed” — the selfishness of people who want to keep their own money, and not share it with the rest of us. Defenders of the low-tax-advocates point out that it’s not greed but a desire to kickstart a stalled economy: lower tax rates generally lead to increased economic growth.
Until recently, the argument was limited to two sides, each seeking to dictate terms to everyone else: liberals said, “We want all of you to pay more taxes!”, while conservatives said, “We want all of you to pay less taxes!” But Buffett and Trump and Springer changed the parameters of the debate; instead of demanding that everyone else pay more taxes, these wealthy high-tax-advocates’ new twist is to announce, “I personally want to pay more taxes!”
» Solution #1: Voluntary Tax Rates
This seemingly intractable debate gave me an idea. Both the liberal and the conservative positions are ethically untenable: No one should have the right to force anyone else to pay more or less taxes than they prefer. These billionaires have hit upon a brilliant concept: Instead of everyone trying to force everyone else to conform to this or that view of tax rates, let each person voluntarily set his or her own tax rate!
Thus if Warren Buffett wants to pay more in taxes — he can do so! And if a Tea Partier want to pay less in taxes, she can do so as well. And if liberals think the tax rate is too low — well, under this new system they are free to pay at whatever higher rate they can afford.
It’s as simple and streamlined as can be, and everybody gets what they want. (See the amended 1040 form below for how it would work.)
• Problem #2: “I’d willingly pay taxes for those government programs I like, but can’t tolerate paying for programs I hate.”
Both liberals and conservatives have this exact same problem: They’re more than happy to pay for their favorite government departments and expenses, but it drives them crazy when they’re forced to subsidize stuff they hate.
Liberals and anti-war activists, for example, have long insisted that their taxes not be used for war; so (especially when a Republican president is in office and/or during wartime), you will frequently hear them demanding that their taxes not be used for “the war machine,” or for certain weapons systems (like nuclear missiles) or for any number of things they deem distasteful (e.g. drone attacks, harsh interrogations, foreign combatants in military prisons, etc.). Conversely, conservatives frequently complain that their taxes are used to support “freeloaders” who spend their entire lives as recipients of the welfare system, and who as a result never contribute to society. So conservatives bristle at the thought of paying for overly lax welfare programs, not only because they see themselves as shouldering most of the burden, but also because they think the welfare system fosters a culture of depedency, leading to a downward cycle of fewer and fewer people paying more and more of the taxes.
And what drives both liberals and conservatives to distraction is when they discover that their tax dollars are being used for programs or procedures which they deem morally wrong; liberals, for example, don’t want their taxes to pay for the federal government to break up immigrant families by deporting the illegal parents while allowing the natural-born-citizen legal children to stay; while many conservatives find it intolerable that their tax dollars are used to pay for abortions in federally subsidized clinics — a procedure which they feel is tantamount to murder.
Yet the problem is, we’re all paying into the same big pie, and we don’t get to determine what our personal tax contributions are used for. Thus liberals end up paying for war crimes, and conservatives end up paying to murder babies, and everybody’s unhappy.
» Solution #2: Personalized Earmarks
Why are we still using this outdated system that leads to universal dissatisfaction? If each person was able to “earmark” the specific aspects of government which he or she deems acceptable, then no one would feel that their taxes were used for programs which are either unhealthy for the soul or for the national economy.
The solution to this problem is obvious: Simply amend the tax code to allow each taxpayer to individually allocate which governmental expenses receive funding from that person’s tax payments. Presto! Everybody’s happy, because nobody is being forced to pay for things they don’t like anymore.
But would this create a lot more paperwork for the IRS? Somewhat. As for re-designing the 1040 form, I’ve already done that part, so nothing to worry about there. As for totaling up the calculations of how much each government department gets from each taxpayer — well, sure, that would require more bean-counters, but the overall amount of extra IRS employees needed for the task would be tiny compared to the number of bureaucrats in most other areas of government, and this minor inconvenience is a small price to pay for fundamentally reorganizing the tax code in such a way that is pleasing to everyone.
Below you will find my proposed amended IRA 1040 form; the top image shows the full front page of the 1040 form with the two new sections in situ, as they will appear to taxpayers; and the bottom image shows just the newly added sections, for extra clarity. (In each case, simply click on the image to see a much larger and clearer version of the amended form.)
Don’t like my proposal? Feel free to add your own revisions, critiques or alternate suggestions in the comments section below. Let the debate begin!
# # #
…and, for the record, here’s the same new revision, all by itself (click to enlarge):
# # #
Solution 2 is genius. Keep pushing this idea.
I think the whole thing is genius.
This post is gonna go down in history. Instant classic.
This is one of the most rediculous things I’ve ever seen. I’m surprised, and shocked, that is has gotten so many positive comments. The decisions about government expenditures is WHY we have elected representatives. Are you really happy to let the people decide on a year by year basis if “defense” should be funded? A much simpler thing to do would be to actually, REALLY, track the expenditures. If a person’s name is on a check they get a 1099-GOV. Period. If they get a tax abatement from government they get a 1099-GOV. If they take money to ‘invest’ in a dance program from NEA they get a 1099-GOV AND become subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Social Security is at least going to actually be on the budget I guess. One good thing is something after all that verbiage. 1099-GOV 1099-GOV 1099-GOV
Cmon, S-MarkIV! Can’t ya take a joke?
This was directly poking fun at Bill Gates Sr. and Warren Buffett who insisted they just don’t pay enough taxes.
It’s throwing it right back at ‘em: okay, Mr. Undertaxed–here’s your chance to pay at the rate you prefer.
Now, leave the rest of us non-billionaires alone, fork over your billions to the government and shut your traps.
Mission accomplished.
I recall a proposed simplified tax form from Mad a few years back. It had the following:
“How much did you make last year?”
“Send it in.”
You forgot the part where you could volunteer to subsidise some bureaucrat’s early cushy retirement, by working longer yourself.
It’s genius. You’re a genius.
Warren Buffet is someone whom everybody thinks is a genius, because he got lucky playing the stock market, but you’re the real genius, and Buffet is just someone who got lucky.
I support the 1911 income tax rates. None.
The problem isn’t the rates. It is the philosophy.
The Progressives gave us the Progressive Income Tax. It was their spending policies that made us need it.
This idea offends against the “Fairness Principle”. Taxes are meant to cover planned expenditures (always assuming there is a plan, of course!) and Voluntary Tax receipts would lift income above plan. This would place an unfair burden on the government: do we spend the excess or give it back? Can you imagine the debate? It’ll last all of 5 minutes, I think!
Or maybe we could personalize Solution 2 by entitling tax payers to claim a share of the excess receipts – non-tax payers, benefit receivers and voluntary tax payers need not apply.
This essay should be in a textbook on Game Theory. It’s brilliant! It really could change the way taxes get paid.
Let work out one possible simulated outcome:
The Tea Partiers at first say, “Hey, at last we can pay a lower tax rate!” and so they choose a low tax rate for themselves. Simultaneously, at first the liberals say, “Yay! We can now pay more taxes!” and they on average choose a higher rate.
What happens then? Well, since liberals would be paying most of the taxes, their “priorities” as regards to the “Allocation” of tax receipts would begin to dominate; suddenly, all the liberal programs would be well-funded, and the programs favored by conservatives would shrivel for lack of funds.
Seeing this, the conservatives would say, “The country is seriously drifting leftward! We have to counter the liberal dominance in tax allocation by out-paying them and out-allocating them!” And so they’d switch course and up their own tax rate so as to gain more influence over federal priorities.
And then of course the liberals would respond with more tax increases for themselves. And so on.
The end result would be a sort of taxation “arms race” with ever-escalating rates, and the Feds would end up raking in more revenue than they ever dreamt possible! All without even insisting on it!
There are other possible outcomes to the exercise as well. (The liberals could all turn out to be hypocrites who won’t pay a dime, for example.) That’s what game theory is all about. The scenarios are fascinating.
I think you forgot one salient fact.
What the Progressives wish to do is redistribute Your advantages, not their own. Thats why they adore taxation at the point of a gun for all of the flyover country underclasses. Voluntarily paying more than they have to? Not so much.
Ah….but Liberals wouldn’t pay more taxes. They aren’t about paying more taxes….they are about EVERYBODY paying more taxes.
The obvious solution is blind man’s bluff.
You fill out the form for EVERYBODYS tax rate, but you aren’t allowed to see what anybody else does.
Neat idea. But wrong.
The only possible way out of this is to end taxation of any sort by the federal government, and ask the states to contribute, say, 5% of their budgets. The beast starves, departments are eliminated wholesale, and it is once again limited to dealing with external affairs only.
Exactly correct sir!
Indeed. A tax system completely in harmony with federalist principles would have the federal government taxing the state governments only, the state governments taxing the county governments only, the county governments taxing the town and village governments only, and the town and village governments, whose services are most directly perceptible to and felt by the citizen, taxing the citizen.
Then again, there’s always the Monty Python approach:
“I would tax Raquel Welch. And I have a feeling that she’d tax me.”
That, along with repealing the 17th Amendment, would go a long way toward taming the beast.
Humor does not fit well into neat categories of “right” and “wrong”.
It’s not intended to.
So, at the risk of stating the glaringly, this was SATIRE, intended to illuminate the absurdity of Buffett’s self-righteous proclamation in a humorous manner.
It was not intended as a serious policy proposal.
I wonder how John Kerry and his wife feel about giving more money volutarily to the government. You know John Kerry, he was the guy who wanted to register his yacht in another state so that he could pay a lot less in taxes for it. Yes, I think he and his wife certainly feel that they are NOT paying enough taxes.
How about going back to paying only for what the original Constitution wanted us to pay for, such as a national defense? I’ll be generous and throw in the Post Office as well, maybe even the Department of Treasury. Just look at how big and bloated we’ve become since then. It’s a wonder we can still pay for it all. Well, maybe we can’t. And THAT is the problem.
Back in 2004 when Kerry was running for President, he was complaining that he was not taxed enough and rates should be raised. At that time Massechusetts had lowered it’s income tax rates. However on the tax return form there was a box a taxpayer could check if he wanted to pay the prior higher rate. Please make a guess whether Kerry checked that box.
a step in the correct direction. Yet it doesn’t solve some “free-riders” issues:
If somebody doesn’t want to pay for welfare, it’s fair also he/she doesn’t enjoy welfare. Different welfare benefits are also provided by private associations, companies and citizens, so the (freedom of) Choice is preserved in this example.
OTOH, Defense/Law enforcement is a service only Government can provide, there is no (or shouldn’t be) private citizens making justice by his own hand, nor riots or mobs should allowed to punish a suspected guilty person.
So, people choosing not paying for defense/law enforcement would automatically become “free-riders”.
I have to recall also, Ayn Rand position on this: she said Free People should pay contributions (voluntary) not tributes (forced). But she stated that, in the middle of the lots of problems affecting the USA, that Tax Reform should be the LAST thing a Government should do, not the first. I think, however, that the current technology allows for this, and your proposal is good.
* As addendum to my previous post.- Ayn Rand didn’t care about the “free riders”, she said people who love the free country would be happy to pay to preserve that freedom even when there is people not willing to do it. But she defined the “proper role of a government” including the defense/law enforcement, but not the welfare.
I agree with Rand position, but it’s kinda ideal and far from being achieved by now, I think Zombie Tax Reform (ZTR) is a step in the correct direction in the sense it provides an opt-out from some of the controversial issues. Yet, the main weakness -as far as I can see- is the free rider problem because in the ZTR there are services being offering by the Government which are not the proper role of a government (because the are/can be provided by private citizens).
Of course we all know that the cries to raise tax rates by Buffet are bogus. He is already able to increase his tax rate simply by not taking any deduction, as was said, he wants YOU to pay more taxes. Just like Obama the other year, who calls for higher tax rates and then takes %500,000 in deductions.
I’m more for no form what-so-ever and no deductions. Somewhere between 10 & 12% would automatically be taken and that’s the end of it.
Interest on the debt should be mandatory for everybody, and paid first. We already have millions of free riders, so I don’t know if that’s really a major problem. Making the amount paid public would certainly incentivize the wealthy to pay more in taxes. I would love to see Buffett finally putting his money where his mouth is and paying his “fair share.”
Actually, this is funny but as credible as Mad Magazine. A dollar is a dollar. If I hate nuclear weapons and send my dollars “only” to support education or I hate abortion and send my dollars “only” to support defense, how will I know they haven’t mixed them up? The answer is still reduced and intelligent spending.
Where’s the line for “illegal alien/undocumented worker” under “Filing Status?”
All of the above, plus:
A third house of congress, where representatives are elected to represent dollars of tax rendered; i.e. if you pay $10,000, you get 10,000 votes. You will be randomly assigned to one of 100 at-large “districts”, and can vote for that position and only that position. This house will exclusively deal with budgetary issues, can only allocate funds. It will have no policy making power, which will remain vested in the other two houses. A budget passed by this house is final, the other two houses and the executive have no veto power.
This house will be required to develop a budget within the constraints of the allocations made on the tax return, i.e. they can only allocate what wasn’t pre-allocated, and make allocations within the broad allocation categories on the tax return.
If the (old) house of representatives declares war, this third house will have the ability and responsibility to reallocate funds as needed to fund the war.
If we could also try this set-up:
Political Affiliation:
Liberal/Democrat => Tax rate of 125%. (You know you want to give till it hurts!)
Conservative/Republican => Tax Rate 25% No Deductions. No Income Graduations.
Libertarian => Go ahead and try to make me pay!
Other => I am sorry, How about a free lawn cutting and pool cleaning?
Good job, Zom. The Pres and Congress would be constrained from exercising free-wheeling power. That would be good for us. (However, it would be bad for them. They won’t do it.)
No conservative should ever fall into the trap of discussing tax rates. It’s just quicksand to prove that you are a greedy bastard.
Simply say that what you care about is the size of government, because it is empirically demonstrable that bloated government is a formula for societal collapse. Many studies have shown that when a federal government consumes over 19% of a country’s GDP, it declines in wealth and power.
What conservatives care about is freedom, and the opportunity for a better life for our children. To do that, we need to stop burning 42% of the country’s resources on overhead, much of which is useless or worse, destructive. Who genuinely believes that the government is the best way to get anything done? If you do, go spend some time in the SS office or the Drivers License Bureau, or ask yourself why it often takes more than a year to fix a stretch of road in your area. We TOLERATE some government so that we can be safe domestically and internationally, and because we recognize that there are some rules that need to be enforced for fairness; i.e., equal opportunity, fair business practices, clean water, long-settled retirement plans (SS and Medicare) and because a small amount of government is required to do so (the courts, police, military, legislatures, some administrative agencies).
I’m always in favor of anything voluntary, and I agree with almost all of the previous posters. (As an economist, I was particularly amused by the game-theory post.)
I’d like to point out that both Fred Pohl and the late Jack C. Haldeman III (whose brother, Joe Haldeman, is a self-avowed anarchist) made suggestions almost identical to #2 in science fiction stories.
John, which Pohl story was it? I’ve read all of them, but can’t recall this item at the moment.
The government will change tax system only if it garanties increased revenue without decresing its power. The only way is to change the system, but no government will change a system, which brought them the power. It is all about people, who pay tax to have something to say about how the taxes are spent. Our voices are loudest at the voting booth, so lets see: one person-one vote. A freelowder and a tax payer have the same voice. A family man/woman the same as a teenager. Change that and the tax will follow. Say no to one person – one vote. Start with 10 votes for every person. Take one off, if the person does not have children, take another one off, if he/she does not pay tax, take another off for criminal conviction and so on. It can be done by a republican president only as such system will ruin any chance for democrats.
Hey! Its MY money.
IT BELONGS TO ME. I EARNED IT BY PRODUCING SOMETHING OF EQUAL OR HIGHER VALUE WITH MY SKILLS AND DEDICATION.
And it is not for stealing any longer by any one regardless of how much illegal power or how many gun barrels are ready to extort and threaten me if I do not comply with the tyranny of it all.
I have had it with how my hard earned money is confiscated and used to pay for things I despise, do not believe in, and for things the federal government has absolutely no legal lawful, and moral reason being involved in. Then to top things off I am robbed, yes robbed, again via my ever shrinking net paycheck, by the State I live in, for essentially the same purposes, then to add insult to injury, I am taxed again at the cash register, the assessors office, and every conceivable bureaucracy imaginable. It is madness. These people are thieves, they are addicted to my earning like a crack head. And they treat people like me as if i am a piece of bowel movement. They think it is a bottomless well of money.
Well up all your arses!
And the worst thing of all! Not a damn one of them create anything. All they do is take. Take! It is insanity. One day, and it may not be too far off let me tell you, I’m going to say I’m done with being robbed and cheated, and insulted for raising legitimate concerns for this insanity I have little choice in.
So Great idea!
An idea who’s time is come.
I think it would work splendid.
Needs a few more allocation categories and it would be perfect.
“Mr. President, only a handful of people and corporations elected to fund the Executive Office. The good news is, those are: Warren Buffet, Immelt/GE, Oprah Winfrey, J. Springer, Charlie Rose, the Google guys, John Kerry and someone listed as M. Obama. Wow, that’s a coincidence, isn’t it?
Anyway, the bad news is they all checked the 0% or 10% box.
For starters, the czars have to go, no more date nights, your salary has been rolled back, your trips to Martha’s Vineyard, Hawaii and Spain have been cancelled, and Mr. President, I’ll need you to turn over the keys to the bus …”
Best of this [new} century for "thinking outside the box". Insightfully challenges assumptions about taxation and proposes a new, thoughtful paradign. Love the "game theory" comments above. Kudos, TonkaBell.
Still, the proposal leaves the real problem in place. Our Ruling Class... Dems & Reps / the boys [and girls] of earmarks and self-service above all. I do favor a more Federalist approach, as noted above, a Fed taxing the states with two additional goals:
1.) Max. Scessions of State and Fed representative bodies @ 6 months. Term limits don’t work and this approach has historic precident and this way they will all need jobs in their districts where they will benefit from a closer connetion with the great unwashed [you and me];
2.) Repeal the 17th Ammendment to the Constitution… see FIREWALL / Bill Whittle / The End of the Beginning [on YouTube].
“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world?’ You [We all] are.” Ayn Rand (1905-1982) [revised by poster]
These ideas have been floated before, back before Zombie’s time I reckon, but with a tiny element of seriousness….
If you think political squabbling is bad now, imagine the advertising frenzy of the special interests at tax time! Saving baby seals vs. cowboy poetry vs. clean needles for everyone vs aid for Gondwanaland.
The media would surely like their windfall revenues.
That makes no sense. Everyone would choose 0%. There would be no longer be a United States of America.
Really? So that means there was no United States of America prior to the first income tax attempts in 1861? Or that there was no U.S.A. prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, which finally made income taxes legal (prior to that, they were ruled unconstitutional)?
You see, you’ve become so accustomed to the existence of income tax that you can’t even imagine a world without it. But income taxes haven’t always been around, and they aren’t necessary for the continued existence of the United States of America. Sure, the government might need to change (i.e. downsize) radically without income taxes, but like many have said, maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
If, as you say, “everyone” would choose 0%, does that include Warren Buffett, Jerry Springer, and the 100 million liberals in this country who all insist that they not only would pay more than 0%, they demand to pay more than they’re paying now! Are you saying that they’re all lying?
This proposal forces people to put their money where their mouth is.
And ponder this:
If “everybody” would choose 0%, then I guess “everybody” is a hardcore libertarian Tea Partier who wants to keep their hard-earned money for themselves. And if that’s the case, then “everybody” would be mighty pleased with the vastly smaller federal government that resulted from a huge scale-back of income taxes.
Zombie, I get the impression that you had your comment #26 already prepared when you submitted your awesome essay — and you were just _waiting_ for someone to fall into your trap! (smirk)
Phil, I one-upped you and guessed that Zachriel was a plant or alternate handle of Zombie’s and it was a set-up from the get go. But then I saw the reply and realized it is just probably just another obama zombie.
Zombie: Really? So that means there was no United States of America prior to the first income tax attempts in 1861?
Thought you were suggesting making all taxes voluntary. So your only complaint is with the income tax? It’s okay for the government, through elected representatives, to make and enforce other taxes?
Zombie: If “everybody” would choose 0%, then I guess “everybody” is a hardcore libertarian Tea Partier who wants to keep their hard-earned money for themselves.
No, but that does indicate we read you correctly the first time.
Interesting how so many sheeple can’t conceive of a world without a federal income tax when several states exist without one. In fact, the flight from the high-tax states to low- or no-tax states is accelerating. I’m fortunate to have lived all my civilian life in no-tax states (Texas and Florida); when in the USAF, I kept my legal residence in Texas and so avoided income tax when stationed elsewhere.
What’s so ridiculous about the rants from Buffett et al is that those guilty zillionaires can voluntarily cough up as much as they want. IIRC the 1040 has a line for it; if not, anyone can write a check for any amount to the Bureau of Public Debt.
A lot of this tyranny would stop if only taxpayers were allowed to vote (and those receiving govt. paychecks or welfare were not). If the 24th Amendment were repealed, a minimum poll tax could be imposed. Income tax paid would count toward this tax. So, for example, if John Doe’s tax equaled or exceeded the poll tax he could automatically vote. If not, he would have to write a check for the difference in order to vote. Since federal elections are held only in even-numbered years, this poll tax would also be biennial.
Strider: A lot of this tyranny would stop if only taxpayers were allowed to vote (and those receiving govt. paychecks or welfare were not).
You think millions of people should be disenfranchised.
Strider: If the 24th Amendment were repealed, a minimum poll tax could be imposed.
The 24th Amendment was adopted because Southern states were using it to prevent poor blacks from voting.
It’s already an option for state income tax in Massachusetts. Our 80% Democrat legislature passed a “temporary” income tax increase back in the early 80s, the unlamented Dukakis Era, from 5% to 5.85%. The rate was never reduced after the “fiscal emergency” abated, and it took a ballot initiative to roll it back to 5% (this was 18 years later!!!). Our sainted legislators then overrode the ballot initiative with a law lowering the rate to 5.3%, where it remains today.
Part of that legislation was a codicil allowing taxpayers to continue to pay income tax at the 5.85% rate on a voluntary basis by checking a box on the state tax return. According to the 2009 numbers, out of 1,840,000 filers, 931 taxpayers, or one-twentieth of one percent, paid the higher rate. Doesn’t speak very well of all the tax & spend liberals here in the People’s Republic!
At least they didn’t raise the tax rate and make it retroactive to Jan. 1 as the Conn. legislature recently did.
National Tea Party Tour Kicks Off This Weekend
http://www.teapartyexpress.org/tour-schedule/
“Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.”
George Washington
Zombie: Really? So that means there was no United States of America prior to the first income tax attempts in 1861?
So you have no problem with the government setting tax rates anything other than income? In any case, a voluntary income tax is no income tax, so you may as well simply say so.
Zombie: If “everybody” would choose 0%, then I guess “everybody” is a hardcore libertarian Tea Partier who wants to keep their hard-earned money for themselves.
So we did read you correctly. You don’t want any taxes. Of course, people will ride for free if they can, but most people will also agree that taxes, if shared fairly, are necessary.
Which is it? First you say that everybody would choose 0%, then you say that most people agree that taxes are necessary.
I didn’t say that I want there to be no taxes. You said that “everybody” wants there to be no taxes. It was you, not me, who said that “everybody” would prefer to pay no taxes, and if that is the case, then don’t we have unanimity about lowering the tax rate, i.e. the Tea Party position?
You seem to be chasing your tail here.
Or are you saying, in a roundabout way, that every single person who calls for higher tax rates is a hypocrite, because what they really want is for everyone else to pay higher taxes, but for they themselves to pay no taxes at all?
There is a third option, this is what he (and most liberals) really mean:
I am in the midst of an existential crisis of permanent adolesence and have never been disciplined in my life, I have never been taught that right and wrong actually exist let alone what it looks like, I have no marketable skills because I got a (gov’t subsidized) degree in liberal studies and was raised in a big city and have soft hands, I am completely dependent on the teat of government because I can’t even spell self-reliance due to my public schooling, I have no network of personal resources because I don’t like sermons and my family makes me feel uncomfortable because I wear my size 48 pants too low, I know nothing about government or civics, I need a helping hand- but just until I get a job, which I am working hard on right this minute- tabbed browsing, USAJobs in the other tab, promise, I swear.
In the mean time I need government to wipe my butt, legislate morality, inform my voting preferences, and protect me from my own stupidity. They know best, in all areas of life.
Zombie: Which is it? First you say that everybody would choose 0%, then you say that most people agree that taxes are necessary.
It was suggested that we had misread your post, but it is clear that you really don’t understand the difference between a democratic society imposing a tax through their elected representatives and people volunteering their money to the government.
Zombie: I didn’t say that I want there to be no taxes.
If taxes are voluntary, they aren’t taxes and you don’t have to write the power of levying taxes into the Constitution. All-in-all, your position is either still unclear or simply incoherent.
Zombie: You said that “everybody” wants there to be no taxes.
People prefer not to pay taxes, but accept the responsibility of doing so, especially knowing that they are levied by their Constitutionally elected representatives.
Zombie: It was you, not me, who said that “everybody” would prefer to pay no taxes, and if that is the case, then don’t we have unanimity about lowering the tax rate, i.e. the Tea Party position?
Um, no. Because people have many preferences, which they balance. Many people want a strong military, for instance, and vote for representatives who levy taxes for the military.
Zombie: Or are you saying, in a roundabout way, that every single person who calls for higher tax rates is a hypocrite, because what they really want is for everyone else to pay higher taxes, but for they themselves to pay no taxes at all?
Buffett is calling for higher taxes on the rich. Buffett is rich. Ironically, many people calling for lower taxes fought to keep taxes low for the upper-income brackets as well as loop holes that primarily benefit the rich, but are against a temporary reduction in payroll taxes, which primarily affect the working classes.
Look, who has the power to amend the 1040 form (i.e. the tax code)? Congress. So if my proposal were to be adopted, it would be what the people want to happen, through their elected representatives.
I’m tossing out an idea. If the idea (or some version of it) gets popular, then citizens will pressure their representatives to vote for it, and if enough do, it will become the law of the land, as an expression of the majority preference.
It’s not like I’m going to break into the IRS central office and secretly alter the 1040 form against everyone’s wishes.
Everything seems completely “unreasonable” until suddenly it becomes popular.
“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
– Arthur Schopenhauer
“Almost all really new ideas have a certain aspect of foolishness when they are first produced.” – Alfred North Whitehead
“The security provided by a long-held belief system, even when poorly founded, is a strong impediment to progress. General acceptance of a practice becomes the proof of its validity, though it lacks all other merit.” – Dr. B. Lown
“All great truths begin as blasphemies.” – George Bernard Shaw
So you have no problem with the government setting tax rates anything other than income? In any case, a voluntary income tax is no income tax, so you may as well simply say so.
I have no problem with a direct tax being uniformly apportioned amongst the several states, or the population. Neither did the Constitution.
So we did read you correctly. You don’t want any taxes. Of course, people will ride for free if they can, but most people will also agree that taxes, if shared fairly, are necessary.
“If shared fairly” is the entire point of Zombie’s little exercise! Are you just catching on? Do you now admit that you agree with Zombie that people will pay taxes if “shared fairly?” Of course not, because I suspect your version of “fairness” is rather utilitarian in nature.
Earl: “If shared fairly” is the entire point of Zombie’s little exercise!
Actually, thought it was meant ironically, but he defends a voluntary tax as a reasonable proposal.
…and you defend involuntary extortion as a reasonable proposal.
Zombie: …and you defend involuntary extortion as a reasonable proposal.
At least your position is clear. You are against any tax as involuntary extortion, not just the income tax. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress, just like Parliament, the power to levy taxes. This “taxation with representation” is an essential component of any government, but in a democracy, elected representatives vote on taxes. It’s certainly a lousy system, just better than all the others that have been tried from time to time.
If Buffet thinks he doesn’t pay enough tax, why doesn’t he simply give 90% of his shares in Berkshire Hathaway to the Federal Government, and be done with it? Problem solved. Everyone’s happy. Net result: he’s still a multi-billionaire.
Chances of him doing it? zero.
Absolutely freaking brilliant! The perfect solution that incorporates the elegance of Occam’s Razor and the flexibility of a yoga instructor. Zombie is really on to something here. I would only add (at this point) that all tax returns prepared under this system should be public record so that we can particularly monitor those submitted by the likes of Mr. Buffet, Mr. Trump, Mr. Clooney, Mr. Damon et al who have been complaining that their taxes are too low. I have no problem with my tax record being made public under such a system and am ready to publicly stand by my choices. BRING IT ON!
This is the opposite of a theory I’ve had for 20 years or so.
A long time ago I noticed that when somebody was upset with something the government was doing they would always say “My hard earned tax dollars are being spent on ….” That argument convinced me that the government ALWAYS used people’s money to fund what they hated the most. Liberals were paying for the war in Iraq while conservative tax money was used for abortions and welfare.
An idea like people being allowed to allocate their tax money would have had some interesting consequences.
America would have left Iraq sometime between 2004 and 2006 for lack of funds.
Airforce One would be sold for scrap.
When the banks applied for bailouts back in 2008 they wouldn’t have gained $1000 nationally. Bankers would be cursing their accountants for finding all those loopholes that kept them from paying taxes.
No oil company would get another grant.
These are isolated cases of course. Much of the rest of spending would go through wild extremes. The DEA would have been well funded at times and would have had to hold bake sales at others. People would stop funding the FDA up until an inevitable incident where hundreds or thousands of people were poisoned. After that the FDA would be rolling in dough (WARNING!Rolling in dough results in contaminated bread).
But using my theory of tax money being sent where you want it the least, I have been assuming that my tax money is buying expensive jewellery for some senator’s mistress.
Scrap the percentages, and just put in a single line that says the dollar amount sent in. That will keep the Agents from having a reason to come visit you, to quarrel over whether you really paid 30% or was it only 28.3456578%.
How about making all law voluntary. Just pick the ones you want to obey and ignore the rest. Imagine what a victory for “individual autonomy and personal freedom” that would be.
I had a similar idea on the voluntary tax idea. But I would add the following: The tax form would make you compute a “fair share” contribution level based on your income and other factors, perhaps identical to the current 1040 form. You could then pay your fair share, more than your fair share, or less than your fair share.
If you pay your fair share you get entered into a federal fair share registry and you get a fair share button for that year. If you pay more you get a nicer button commensurate with how much more you contributed than your fair share.
Every year there would be a Fair Share Day in which everyone, individuals and businesses, would be encouraged to wear or display their fair share buttons to everyone else. This would encourage people to contribute tax dollars in exchange for the good well of their fellow citizens.
Would anyone in his right mind check a number other than 0%?
Good idea for the productive citizens (those who produce valuable goods and services).
For the 43 percent of Americans who pay no income tax and who in fact receive a tax welfare check, a) end all tax welfare payments, and b) fill out the form and send it in.
Government workers should pay ZERO income tax as such taxes are fiction. Government workers are paid with dollars derived from taxing the productive. Government “service” is a choice. Those who choose to serve should be lauded for their sacrifice but should be paid no more than the enlisted military pay scale (which is quite extravagant compared to when I served). Those who choose to serve in government should not be allowed to vote. Why would they even want to vote?
Neither should free riders be allowed to vote. Choose 0% and no vote. Choose not to fund those services we all need and use (military, transportation infrastructure, etc.), no vote.
Choose to be a ward of the state (to follow your muse as feinstein put it), welcome to the coldwater flat, nutritious but one-flavor fixed-calorie mush diet, sturdy but identical clothing, etc. Don’t like the lifestyle? Get a job or emigrate (or join the military and earn taxpayer status — Heinlein, right?).
Sound radical? You prefer maybe life under the PRC or sharia? Think the American free ride is permanent?
“Choose 0% and no vote.”
Very interesting twist! How about this simple additional amendment to my proposed 1040 form: everything is exactly the same, except an asterisk after the 0%, saying “If you choose this option, you forfeit the right to vote for the next year.”
The no vote should only apply to $0 to $1000 tax payers and only for federal elections.
I would recommend tossing the whole rate thing. It gives the government power to come and check out how much you really earned, and if those deductions were real. I am perfectly happy to send the government a lump sum, gross calculated 8% of my income to pay for the core services, such as courts, military, congressional and executive pay and the upkeep of public places. Probably a few other constitutional line items the government is expected to do.
Toss the rates, change each line item to have room for filing out how much you are willing to fund. Military $1200, Courts $200, Congressional Budget offices $25, Parks and services $68, Executive branch $2, Embassies $5, Total owed $1500, Total enclosed $1500 by cashiers check.
Government receives payment, sends me a 20xx voter card.
Sounds good to me.
I am in favor of the voluntary tax, but do not call it a rate.
Each person sends in the amount they want to pay but do not need to file any income information. The amount paid by each traxpayer would be public information. Each year the government could spend only what it took in. Congress would be responsible for writing a budget that properly allocated the available funds.
No IRS, no government intrusion into our private financial lives.
Seems like there should be two additions to “Filing Status”: Gay Filing Jointly and Exempt – Cash-based Undocumented Alien.
What ever happened to the short form:
1. Enter how much you made this year ___________
2. Amount to remit to Treasury (enter amount from line 1) _____________
Thanks From All Your Fellow Citizens
Zombie, it’s good to see you and buzzsawmonkey again. I’m glad to see you’re publishing on other sites again. Your wit and intellect are still refreshing.
Really great post! For a while now I’ve been extremely interested in solution two. The challenge is trying to find all the other people that are also interested in solution two. Just recently somebody told me about Jack C. Haldeman’s short science fiction story…We, The People…which is how I managed to find this post.
Without a unique identifier it’s a challenge to google for this concept. With that in mind, I took the liberty of giving this concept a google friendly tag… “pragmatarianism”. If you search for “pragmatarianism” you can find many of the places where I’ve promoted the idea of giving taxpayers the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.
Here’s the Wikipedia entry that I created for the concept… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_choice
…and the single best article on the subject…
http://www.democracyjournal.org/20/your-money-your-choice.php?page=all