Each major government program should have its own tax

[King]

One big issue with budget and taxation debates, and a big reason why I believe there is so much corruption in Washington, is the misinformation so many Americans have on where their tax dollars go.  This leads to campaigns built on rhetoric without any specifics to flourish and misconceptions that simply raising tax rates on only people who make more than $250,000 or cutting PBS would make up for a $500 billion dollar annual shortfall.

If voters actually saw where their money went on their paycheck, they'd be able to get a real taste for the budget and the value of their tax dollars.  We already do this partially, as the payroll tax withdrawn is separated from income tax withdrawn on paychecks, but it should go a step further.  There should be several:

• Military Tax
• Social Security Tax
• Medicare Tax
• Welfare Tax (Medicaid, SNAP, Housing)
• Education Tax (K-12 programs, college grants, etc)
• Public Works Tax (Transportation Dept, Agriculture Dept, FEMA, etc)
• Administrative Tax (Congressional/Presidential salaries, federal pensions, courts, prisons, police)

All taxes on income.  All progressively collected in brackets with returns similar to the current system.  All one on form, but detailed so every tax payer rich or poor knows generally the status of federal spending.  As the taxes are directed for use, this would the federal budget would be segmented as well.  

This would also open the door for simplification of the tax code without hurting the poor.  For example, administrative could be a flat tax while welfare only comes into play for those above median income.  We could also introduce balanced budget requirements that do not put the nation in jeopardy when deficit stimulus is required (i.e. the military budget, administrative budget, and medicare budget must always be balanced, but public works and welfare can run a deficit in times of emergency).

However, the biggest positive effect of something like this would be politically.   Politicians left or right would have to say clearly to the American people "I want to cut the military tax," or "I have a plan which will require an increase in the education tax."  They can't simply say "taxes and spending" anymore.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This policy is brought to you by the Amalgamated & Friendly Society of Tax Collectors, Revenue Assessors, Middle Managers, Random Administrators & Associated Trades.

[King]

This policy is brought to you by the Amalgamated & Friendly Society of Tax Collectors, Revenue Assessors, Middle Managers, Random Administrators & Associated Trades.

I'm pretty sure they get by just fine in the current system.

[DC Al Fine]

I'd vote for this. If we actually had specific programs for each department, maybe we could finally cut the military a bit.

[Goldwater]

I would also support this. The more transparent the government is about how it spends your money, the better.

[Lief 🗽]

How would we deficit spend?

[King]

How would we deficit spend?

There could still be a total deficit.  IMO deficit spending for economic purposes would only be valuable in Welfare, Public Works and maybe Education.  There's no valid reason for deficit spending on the Military, ever.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Awful idea.

[TNF]

This just creates a duplication of efforts. Just raise the income tax, create a financial transactions tax, restore the Estate Tax, and tax aggregated fortunes and you can fund all that stuff with little to no problem.

[King]

This just creates a duplication of efforts. Just raise the income tax, create a financial transactions tax, restore the Estate Tax, and tax aggregated fortunes and you can fund all that stuff with little to no problem.

Ideally, I would like to think we could just raise taxes like that, but our political system doesn't allow it.

I understand why it would be seen as horrible, but the current state of our government with so few dollars going to education, infrastructure, and basic needs and so much going to bad military projects and a bloated senior care system is terrible, too.  People need to see 1/10th of their paycheck going to "Military" and 1/250th to "Education" to shake them out of apathy.

This would make voters and the politicians they elect more responsible at providing for the public good.

[Torie]

I suspect it will have little substantive effect. All you are doing is breaking down your total tax liability into categories. It would just generate a lot of meaningless numbers on your tax return, and make it more laborious to fill out, if you don't use a computer program to do so.

[TNF]

This just creates a duplication of efforts. Just raise the income tax, create a financial transactions tax, restore the Estate Tax, and tax aggregated fortunes and you can fund all that stuff with little to no problem.

Ideally, I would like to think we could just raise taxes like that, but our political system doesn't allow it.

It would if people got fed up enough with politics as usual and got in the streets.

[minionofmidas]

Interesting in theory, but almost certainly unworkable in practice.

[DC Al Fine]

Interesting in theory, but almost certainly unworkable in practice.

Why is it unworkable?

[minionofmidas]

Meh, I hadn't actually read the OP in detail. The most obvious pitfalls I was going to address are actually adressed there already. I had noticed the thread title is misleading even before.

Obviously there is going to be a vast amount of skullduggery - and a vast amount of unavoidable confusion - of what expense goes out of what budget, exactly. Not nearly everything is clearcut. I see police are administrative in the OP's list while social services department's employees are apparently in the social budget. Still, I guess this could conceivably work.

[John Dibble]

How would we deficit spend?

There could still be a total deficit.  IMO deficit spending for economic purposes would only be valuable in Welfare, Public Works and maybe Education.  There's no valid reason for deficit spending on the Military, ever.

What about being in a war?

[King]

How would we deficit spend?

There could still be a total deficit.  IMO deficit spending for economic purposes would only be valuable in Welfare, Public Works and maybe Education.  There's no valid reason for deficit spending on the Military, ever.

What about being in a war?

If we are patriotic enough to go war, we should be patriotic enough to accept a military tax increase.

Obviously there is going to be a vast amount of skullduggery - and a vast amount of unavoidable confusion - of what expense goes out of what budget, exactly. Not nearly everything is clearcut. I see police are administrative in the OP's list while social services department's employees are apparently in the social budget. Still, I guess this could conceivably work.

Yeah, it would require decision making on how to categorize things, but the idea is that nothing is simple in the federal government anyway.

Thanks for your comments everyone.

[Vosem]

I could get behind this as a first step towards tax reform.

[DC Al Fine]

Anyone who is at all interested in learning where his or her tax dollars go can research that question with ease. (Politicians could do more to make this clear, too.)

I'm not interested in crafting tax policy around people who are either too lazy to read a pie chart or too ignorant to understand one.

Highlighted the key words there. The average voter is incredibly lazy. Breaking down their taxes on their pay stubs would go a long way towards making voters better informed.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

This just creates a duplication of efforts. Just raise the income tax, create a financial transactions tax, restore the Estate Tax, and tax aggregated fortunes and you can fund all that stuff with little to no problem.

If you instate a financial transactions tax, wouldn't that cause the level of financial transactions to go down so much that the revenue generated would be minimal? 

Also, under your system, what percent of money would successful people who worked hard for their money get to keep?  I sure wouldn't work as hard if I only got to keep 20-30% of the money I earned. 

[DC Al Fine]

This just creates a duplication of efforts. Just raise the income tax, create a financial transactions tax, restore the Estate Tax, and tax aggregated fortunes and you can fund all that stuff with little to no problem.

If you instate a financial transactions tax, wouldn't that cause the level of financial transactions to go down so much that the revenue generated would be minimal? 

Also, under your system, what percent of money would successful people who worked hard for their money get to keep?  I sure wouldn't work as hard if I only got to keep 20-30% of the money I earned. 

Or you'd emigrate to a more favourable jurisdiction. I'm you could be persuaded to leave Indiana for some lovely Caribbean tax haven, with better weather to boot!

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

This just creates a duplication of efforts. Just raise the income tax, create a financial transactions tax, restore the Estate Tax, and tax aggregated fortunes and you can fund all that stuff with little to no problem.

If you instate a financial transactions tax, wouldn't that cause the level of financial transactions to go down so much that the revenue generated would be minimal? 

Also, under your system, what percent of money would successful people who worked hard for their money get to keep?  I sure wouldn't work as hard if I only got to keep 20-30% of the money I earned. 

Or you'd emigrate to a more favourable jurisdiction. I'm you could be persuaded to leave Indiana for some lovely Caribbean tax haven, with better weather to boot!

Yeah.  If I do become rich and TNF's policies are in effect, I could easily be convinced to leave if my total tax burden exceeded 70% or so.  I'm not a huge fan of the weather in Northwest Indiana anyways and any island in the Caribbean would be a good improvement in that regard.