ark@rabbit.UUCP (11/01/83)
Earmarking taxes won't work unless almost everyone participates actively. Otherwise, the government will merely take all the un-earmarked money and feed it exclusively to the things that it wants fed.
gek@ihuxa.UUCP (11/02/83)
hey, i think the idea of specifying where my tax dollars will
be used is fantastic. But doesn't that mean we will be
inundated by advertisements from various gov't agencies?
BE A PART OF THE TEAM!! INVEST IN *** !! (doo dah, doo dah)
WE'RE THE BEST FORGET THE REST!! (tra la la) murphy@hou2a.UUCP (11/02/83)
Agencies that feel the need to advertise to attract
earmarked tax money could do so, with their spending on this
limited to some fraction of their allotment; this
could help introduce a bit more accountability, since the
agency could be required to disclose publicly just what
it is spending the money on, and the taxpayers could then
judge how well their money is being spent (or misspent).
Large taxpayers, such as big corporations, could
benefit from favorable publicity by earmarking siginificant
parts of their taxes to "little guy" causes such as education
and health programs for the poor.
The idea of starting off the earmarking by having it
apply to some limited portion of the taxpayers' money (with
the rest of the money being spent in the usual manner) seems
likely to be more palatable, and would allow evaluation of
the idea in practice on a limited scale to see how well it
works. The amount of tax money subject to the earmarking
scheme could be adjusted up or down as experience dictates.
Presenting the idea to citizens' advocate groups, such
as COMMON CAUSE also sounds like a good idea.
Rich Ganns
hou2a!murphywarren@ihnss.UUCP (Warren Montgomery) (11/02/83)
Why is everyone so upset about government advertising? If you haven't noticed, all of those "nice" government agencies advertise as it is now. This is nothing new. In fact, the only way in which I can currently earmark my taxes is to fund what I consider the most despicable form of government advertising: Political campaigns. I still think that this debate is a nice academic exercise, but the politicians would never go for it. I think you could sell the idea of some sort of national taxpayers survey collected as part of the filing process, which would at least be a start in indicating to our government whether or not it is carrying out our wishes. -- Warren Montgomery ihnss!warren IH x2494
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (11/02/83)
So far no one has mentioned that we already have this, to a very tiny extent. We can decide if we want $1 to go to the campaign fund. There's a little box for it on the federal tax form. I think ear-marking funds is a great idea. I don't see it happening though. The bozos in power sure aren't going to give up that power if they can help it. It would take something like Cal's prop 13 to change things. Dream on. Too many people are willing to go along with whatever disasters the gov't comes up with. If they didn't, why do we still have this 55mph garbage. If people don't like it, why can't we get the law changed? If people *do* like it, why aren't they obeying it? the mildly opinionated keyboard of Dave Seifert ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
murphy@hou2a.UUCP (11/11/83)
One of the interesting possibilities of earmarking taxes is
that the the "typical" tax earmarker may be a different
animal from the "typical" voter--for better or for worse.
It seems that many voters are more concerned about how to spend
OTHER people's money. The tax earmarker can only stipulate
how to spend his/her money.
It may be true that ultimately we are all irresponsible idiots,
but accepting this idea provides an easy excuse to give up
the search for better solutions to our problems.
Rich Ganns
hou2a!murphy