Is this an anarchist proposal?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by viLky, Jul 4, 2009.

  1. viLky

    viLky ykLiv

    To let each individual tax payer CHOOSE what they want to pay for?

    I'm just so sick and tired of seeing stories on the news of "I got pregnant 20 times and I had 24 kids! Two of um were twins! Any-a-loof, my baby daddies don't pay, so I come collect a check down here at the welfare office." =\ -- Does it anger anybody else that WE are paying for HER kids? She is being extremely irresponsible and so are her baby daddies. Yet, the rest of us are forced to use our hard working monies for her and her kids.

    So, I was reading and watching on YouTube where somebody explained of taxes you get to choose yourself. What you want to pay and what you don't want to pay. I believe it's time the government lets US choose what we want to pay and what we don't want to pay.


    Like in the postal thread, IRS creates a massive web-site where each tax payer goes on and clicks what he or she wants to pay for. If you want police services then you click that. There will be a price and a sub-menu where you get to pick from even more options. If you don't want that service and are in need of police services then you'll end up paying a service charge fee 5x greater than if you did actually sign up for it. Something fair and reasonable.

    It'll pretty much look like so:

    Police Services: $100 (yearly)
    EMT Services: $100 (yearly)
    Schooling -- Ages: 3-9: $250 (yearly)
    Blah, blah, blah until you have all the services YOU want.

    Total: $450 are your yearly taxes.

    Now, those are just numbers I threw out there. I don't have any idea what they would be, but I do know that I don't want to pay for Suzie and her 20 kids, I don't want to pay my hard earned money just so people can screw me over. I would at least like to choose what to and what NOT to pay for.

  2. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    So if someone doesn't pay for police, and needs police help, they'd pay 5x what they'd pay for a year? Or would they pay 5x the cost of the police coming out?

    What about things like roads? Or the military? Would you just make everyone pay for that stuff?
  3. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    That's an interesting idea Vilky. There should still be some manditory things though. Maintenance and property taxes. Those things go towards fixing the road in front of your house and other things in your area like sewer and water lines etc. It wouldn't be fair for a few people to opt out of paying for the road or sewer and still get to use it. How would you go about enforcing against non payers not using the road or sewer.. But I agree, if you don't have kids, you should be able to choose not to pay towards the family child support fund. Or if you don't have kids in school, why pay towards that? Pay for stuff you'll actually use.
  4. viLky

    viLky ykLiv

    Either or, really. This was just to lay the bare bones out of what I would like to happen. Just to have people get the jist of what I am saying.

    Yes, so true. Also, mentally ill people who cannot take care of themselves. I'm sure most of us wouldn't have a problem with that. Mainly, I'm fine with the majority I'm paying for, now, it's just those people who leech off the system and intentionally have us pay for them just because they can. If this service wasn't here I'm pretty sure they would try MUCH harder to not get on welfare and other services.
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2009
  5. Malificus

    Malificus Likes snow

    So anyone who doesn't pay for police is outside the legal system, especially if you can keep them poor? Sound like great targets for blackmail, theft, and slavery.
  6. HappyFace

    HappyFace Registered Member

    In thoery this seems like a good idea and that it could work, but so does Communsim. The problem is within the regulation, if someone doesn't pay for police/ermgency/fire services do they miss out when they're in trouble?
  7. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    That's kind of the problem.

    People are fine not having to pay for something if they aren't going to use it, but when they need it and are turned away because they didn't pay for it they are quick to complain and call it discrimination.
  8. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    No offense but this doesn't sound anarchist, it sounds ridiculous.

    People can't even take care of themselves and you propose we let them choose what to pay on their taxes? Do you know how few people give to charity (not to mention how many of them do it just as a tax write off)? How can that be much different? I always thought a flat tax was the way to go. 10% across the board let's say. Johnny, making 20K per year will owe $200 for taxes. Danny, who makes 100K, will owe $1,000 and Winston Worthington the 12th who makes 5 million will owe $50,000. Everyone would be getting charged the same proportion wise. That's the most fair tax set up you can do.

    However, in this country where rich is just as socially damaging as touching children, we seem to believe that it's either fair or right to want to jack the rates on the rich merely because they have more. How would you feel if some guy didn't work as hard as you and had to pay 5% on his taxes where you had to pay 30% since you worked harder than him. Where is the justice in that?
  9. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I'm tired of stories like that also.

    You know what's interesting? The idea isn't that far-fetched from what the framers intended, minus the web-site of course:lol:

    The federal government's powers were only suppposed to be limited to the powers delegated in Article I sec. 8, everything else was supposed to be reserved to the state. Thus, no federal money should be appropriated to the services you desribed. Instead, those functions would be state functions. State representatives and governors are much closer physically to their constituents than Congressional representatives and the President. Thus, it would be easier for constituents to say "we agree with this tax allocation and disagree with that tax allocation" other words, money appropriated to certain items would most closely follow the will of the people. It would be much easier for me to contact my local state representative personally than my Congressional representative for example, his office is down the street from me and I see him from time to time around town. People always forget, our government is set up with checks and balances, each branch against the others, but us as the people hold the ultimate check on government at the voting booth. That check is easier to use the more local it is.

    Instead, what we have is this massive federal government that practices "legal extortion", that is, appropriating federal money to individual states with strings attached, passing it under the spending clause of Article I. Thus higher federal taxes and money being spent on things you don't approve, but don't really hear about. Making it more local makes the decision makers more accountable.

    Now, that doesn't mean you would get to appropriate every one of your dollars like in your example, but it does mean it would make it easier to hold your representatives more accountable with your tax dollars.
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2009
  10. Arcadoc

    Arcadoc Registered Member

    Let's say for instance, you own a house in a community that is served by a volunteer fire department that is in itself funded by private donations from that community. Let's also assume that you refuse to donate to that fire department. In fact, you don't give them a dime, ever. So one night your house catches fire, and you call them for assistance. Are they obligated to respond and put out your fire, and then bill you for their services, or should they be able to refuse their services to you, based solely on your refusal to support them?

Share This Page