Current Events > Why can't there be a donation system in place of a lot of existing taxes

(+) Yeah! (+)

Maybe a system where you choose where to spend your taxes among available choices
or propose things that don't involve taxes at all, where someone proposes something and an official government donation fund is opened where everyone who wants that service to come in fruition may donate to make it happen.

basically we would have more control over our money and there would be less arbitrary decisions made by the government on spending, and each department would be competing for funding so maybe they would feel pressured to accomplish more to justify their existence.



For example, let's say a state wanted to pave over it's roads, instead of forcing people to pay for the roads who don't even want them, open a fund so everyone who doesn't like the current roads may pay to have the things they value personally to be improved upon.

idk

Cause then nothing would get funded.
---

Nothing would ever get funded. You may not ever want to pay for street lights, but they're a damn good idea.
---

Everything critical would still be taxed. So necessary repairs and basic functional things, but everything frivolous beyond basic services that a government should provide, should just be donation based and if it doesn't get funded then clearly it wasn't that needed if no one would throw cash towards it.

reading tc's political opinions is like "babby's first time reading a conservative opinion piece"
---

Doom_Art posted...

reading tc's political opinions is like "babby's first time reading a conservative opinion piece"

Well I haven't slept for about 25 hours now so it might be that, but I don't see how this is "conservative"

This is less authoritarian, less fascist and in turn gives the people more freedom and more power over their money and what they want for their country.

3rd_Best_Master posted...

Cause then nothing would get funded.

---

Milkman5 posted...

This is less authoritarian, less fascist and in turn gives the people more freedom and more power over their money and what they want for their country.

Doom_Art posted...

reading tc's political opinions is like "babby's first time reading a conservative opinion piece"

---

Milkman5 posted...

Everything critical would still be taxed. So necessary repairs and basic functional things, but everything frivolous beyond basic services that a government should provide, should just be donation based and if it doesn't get funded then clearly it wasn't that needed if no one would throw cash towards it.

Repaving roads isn't frivolous. What would be another example? Cuz literally nothing would get funded this way
---

Taxation is theft. If nobody wants to fund streetlights I suppose they arent that important.

thrashmetal14 posted...

Taxation is theft. If nobody wants to fund streetlights I suppose they arent that important.

Which causes more accidents and death. The average tax payer doesn't know how to spend their savings wisely, let alone how to allocate taxes for a metropolitan area lol
---

3rd_Best_Master posted...

Milkman5 posted...

This is less authoritarian, less fascist and in turn gives the people more freedom and more power over their money and what they want for their country.

Doom_Art posted...

reading tc's political opinions is like "babby's first time reading a conservative opinion piece"

How is this even conservative? I don't really understand moronic party sheep like you guys.

The left constantly bashes authoritarianism and fascism yet opposes all ideas that would limit the power of government and give more power to the people.

This seems like a libertarian vs authoritarian thing, not a conservative vs liberal thing.

Good thought, TC.

There's no shortage of liberals, even on this board, who would "gladly pay more".

So let them.
---

relying on altruism to fund shit doesn't work.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

Which causes more accidents and death. The average tax payer doesn't know how to spend their savings wisely, let alone how to allocate taxes for a metropolitan area lol

What you are saying doesn't even make sense.

We vote on most of the taxes that are imposed on us, if the average tax payer doesn't know how they should spend their savings then why let us vote on taxes at all?

Like let's say there is a tax of 10 dollars a month to fix roads and most people voted yes for that tax. How is it that the average tax payer knows how to spend their money when it comes to our current system on the ballot, but if they weren't legally binded to pay, they wouldn't know what to do? I don't really understand what you are saying exactly.

The benefit of this system is the people who didn't want it, don't have to pay, and things that maybe the majority didn't want can still happen because the minority of people spend enough to make it still happen.

My other problem with what you are saying is that Trump or our government or whomever knows better than us with what we should do with our money. Why? I don't see why having authority or holding a position of power makes your opinion or perspective more valuable inherently.
idk, just seems like a weird thing to say.

Like who is it to say who knows best on that sort of thing.

OpheliaAdenade posted...

relying on altruism to fund shit doesn't work.

Is it altruistic to pay for a service that you want?

Because everyone would say "I'll let other people pay for this" and no one would pay in.

Actully the first attempt to create the United States "The Articles of Confederation" didn't have a federal tax but put it to the states to provide the funding willingly. As a result nothing got funded, not even the army currently fighting the revolutionary war.

So it's not just a theory that it doesn't work, it's been tested and proven to be a failure.
---

Couldn't we try doing one donation based government service before we decide it's impossible?

Look at all the stupid shit that gets crowd funded on kickstarter. You're saying the government wouldn't be able to crowdfund anything when people crowd fund the video game equivalent of toxic sludge?

Milkman5 posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

relying on altruism to fund shit doesn't work.

Is it altruistic to pay for a service that you want?

it's altruism when you're relying on people other than yourself to fund a service that you can't afford to cover entirely on your own

charey posted...

Because everyone would say "I'll let other people pay for this" and no one would pay in.

There can be a perk system. Literally many things have been crowd funded through donations, you guys act like it's such an insane concept when it happens everyday for more frivolous things.

maybe the people who don't donate don't get to use the service as much or at all depending on how frivolous it is.

Like a clocktower project where the people who donate to fund it get tickets to get an exclusive tour of the tower.

Milkman5 posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

Which causes more accidents and death. The average tax payer doesn't know how to spend their savings wisely, let alone how to allocate taxes for a metropolitan area lol

What you are saying doesn't even make sense.

We vote on most of the taxes that are imposed on us, if the average tax payer doesn't know how they should spend their savings then why let us vote on taxes at all?

Like let's say there is a tax of 10 dollars a month to fix roads and most people voted yes for that tax. How is it that the average tax payer knows how to spend their money when it comes to our current system on the ballot, but if they weren't legally binded to pay, they wouldn't know what to do? I don't really understand what you are saying exactly.

The benefit of this system is the people who didn't want it, don't have to pay, and things that maybe the majority didn't want can still happen because the minority of people spend enough to make it still happen.

My other problem with what you are saying is that Trump or our government or whomever knows better than us with what we should do with our money. Why? I don't see why having authority or holding a position of power makes your opinion or perspective more valuable inherently.
idk, just seems like a weird thing to say.

Like who is it to say who knows best on that sort of thing.

You should ask a few of your neighbor's the last time they voted on taxes and see their responses.

And again, if you make it solely up to each individual tax payer what they're putting their money towards, the "unimportant stuff" (I guess to you guys means things like street lights and paving roads, which already kinda proves my point in itself) would never get funded.
---

Here's an example. Football stadiums. Often times these things go to vote in local governments and it's just like... why not just have a donation based system where people who don't care about a football stadium aren't forced to pay into it

common sense bro
---

Why can't ppl just pay they taxes and not fucking bitch so much about it

Milkman5 posted...

Everything critical would still be taxed.

which translates to, "the things that benefit me personally should be taxed but the things that don't benefit me I shouldn't pay for"
---

When I said paving roads I meant because the roads were ugly, because they were slightly cracked. A cosmetic thing.

I'm not talking about things like street lights where there would be literal chaos if they weren't funded.

come on, man. I said critical things would still be taxed in the opening post.

I should have said football stadiums in the first post to give you a better sense of what I'm describing

fenderbender321 posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

thrashmetal14 posted...

Taxation is theft. If nobody wants to fund streetlights I suppose they arent that important.

Which causes more accidents and death. The average tax payer doesn't know how to spend their savings wisely, let alone how to allocate taxes for a metropolitan area lol

Then maybe people will stop driving so much and save the planet's resources. You have to realize that part of the reason people drive so much is because the infrastructure is already there, so might as well use it up, even if it isnt necessary for survival.

Lol it won't change people's driving habits it'll just change their safety.
---

Milkman5 posted...

maybe the people who don't donate don't get to use the service as much or at all depending on how frivolous it is.

How would you even enforce this?
---

I Like Toast posted...

Milkman5 posted...

Everything critical would still be taxed.

which translates to, "the things that benefit me personally should be taxed but the things that don't benefit me I shouldn't pay for"

It would translate to "if not funded, there would be a disaster and it would destroy the city/state/country"
Such as the fire department or whatever, the specifics don't matter at the moment since it's not like this is a formal proposal to our government

SGT_Conti posted...

Milkman5 posted...

maybe the people who don't donate don't get to use the service as much or at all depending on how frivolous it is.

How would you even enforce this?

Well in the case of the a football stadium, people who donated X amount would get free tickets. Or whatever the service, they would be sent some special pass etc.

This is a standard crowdfunding thing.
Maybe for something like a pretty fountain, if you donate X amount, you name is engraved on the inside or you get to go to the grand opening of the fountain and it's like a little party

Smashingpmkns posted...

thrashmetal14 posted...

Taxation is theft. If nobody wants to fund streetlights I suppose they arent that important.

Which causes more accidents and death. The average tax payer doesn't know how to spend their savings wisely, let alone how to allocate taxes for a metropolitan area lol

The government is worse with money.

Taxation is theft.
---

Milkman5 posted...

SGT_Conti posted...

Milkman5 posted...

maybe the people who don't donate don't get to use the service as much or at all depending on how frivolous it is.

How would you even enforce this?

Well in the case of the a football stadium, people who donated X amount would get free tickets. Or whatever the service, they would be sent some special pass etc.

This is a standard crowdfunding thing.
Maybe for something like a pretty fountain, if you donate X amount, you name is engraved on the inside or you get to go to the grand opening of the fountain and it's like a little party

What happens if only like half the money needed gets funded
---

Milkman5 posted...

SGT_Conti posted...

Milkman5 posted...

maybe the people who don't donate don't get to use the service as much or at all depending on how frivolous it is.

How would you even enforce this?

Well in the case of the a football stadium, people who donated X amount would get free tickets. Or whatever the service, they would be sent some special pass etc.

This is a standard crowdfunding thing.
Maybe for something like a pretty fountain, if you donate X amount, you name is engraved on the inside or you get to go to the grand opening of the fountain and it's like a little party

Things like roads are the ones that need funding the most, will have people most reluctant to pay for it, and be the most expensive to enforce when it comes to keeping people off it if they shouldn't be on it. What kind of perks would you issue? Fast lanes? No speed limits?
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

thrashmetal14 posted...

Taxation is theft. If nobody wants to fund streetlights I suppose they arent that important.

Which causes more accidents and death. The average tax payer doesn't know how to spend their savings wisely, let alone how to allocate taxes for a metropolitan area lol

Then maybe people will stop driving so much and save the planet's resources. You have to realize that part of the reason people drive so much is because the infrastructure is already there, so might as well use it up, even if it isnt necessary for survival.

Lol it won't change people's driving habits it'll just change their safety.

If that is true, then what we will have learned is that people don't value the slight increase in safety in terms of how much it costs to build a bunch of steet lights. So why force it on people through taxation when they don't feel it's a good investment?

I mean, saying you're willing to give up safety for yourself and the rest of your county because you want to save literally a few dollars is outrageous. They wouldn't find it as a good investment because they don't know how to allocate taxes.

What would you want your tax money to go towards? Make a simple list and you'll see that there's a bunch of necessary public services missing.
---

To not collect taxes at all, you would need to collect a fee at the service point. Every maintained road that you take would have a toll. For your stadium, figure out/estimate how much it costs to build and keep, how long it will last, and how much it will be used by how many people. Divide that, and add it to the cost of tickets. Things like that. Everything will be more expensive, but you don't pay for it in taxes form.
---

itachi15243 posted...

What happens if only like half the money needed gets funded

then it's not funded.

Milkman5 posted...

itachi15243 posted...

What happens if only like half the money needed gets funded

then it's not funded.

... Where does the money go?
---

itachi15243 posted...

... Where does the money go?

What do you mean? It's refunded/never gets charged. That's how GoFundMe and Kickstarter etc work.

We've been down this path before

http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/32/the-voluntarism-fantasy/

The Hoover Administration’s initial response to the Great Depression was to supplement private aid without creating the type of permanent public social insurance programs that would arise in the New Deal. Hoover’s goal was to maintain, in the words of the historian Ellis Hawley, a “nonstatist alternative to atomistic individualism, the romantic images of voluntarism as more truly democratic than any government action, and the optimistic assessments of the private sector’s capacity for beneficial governmental action.” ...

Noble as that goal may be, it failed. The more Hoover leaned on private agencies, the more resistance he found. Private firms and industry did not want to play the role that the government assigned them, and even those that did found it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out those responsibilities. The Red Cross, for instance, did not want to move beyond providing disaster relief. Other groups, like the Association of Community Chests and Councils, had no interest in trying to coordinate funds at a national, rather than local, level. Hoover understood that private charity wasn’t getting to rural areas, yet private charities couldn’t be convinced to meet these needs.
...
But the Great Recession offers the perfect case study in why the voluntary sector can’t solve these problems. If people like Mike Lee are correct, then the start of the Great Recession would have been precisely the moment when private charity would have stepped up. But in fact, private giving fell as the Great Recession started. Overall giving fell 7 percent in 2008, with another 6.2 percent drop in 2009. There was only a small uptick in 2010 and 2011, even though unemployment remained very high. Giving also fell as a percentage of GDP (even as GDP shrank), from 2.1 percent in 2008 to 2.0 percent in 2009 through 2011. (The high point was 2.3 percent in 2005.)

As research by Robert Reich and Christopher Wimer showed, the decline occurred with all sources and hit almost all types of nonprofits.
...
The first is what Salamon describes as philanthropic insufficiency. This occurs when the voluntary sector can’t generate enough resources to provide social insurance at a sufficient scale, which, as noted, is exactly what happened in 2008. There is also the problem here of geographic coverage. As Hoover discovered, charity will exist in some places more abundantly than in others; the government has the ability to provide a more universal baseline of coverage.

But it isn’t just about the business cycle. A second issue Salamon identified is philanthropic particularism. Private charity has a tendency to focus only on specific groups, particularly groups that are considered either “deserving” or similar in-groups. Indeed, in one telling, this is the entire point of private charity. Using very generous assumptions, Indiana University’s Center for Philanthropy finds that only one-third of charitable giving actually goes to the poor. Almost by definition, there will be people who need access to social insurance who will be left out of such targeted giving.

Instead of charity representing a purely spontaneous response by civil society, or a community of equals responding to issues in the commons, there is, in practice, a disproportionate amount of power that rests in the hands of those with the greatest resources. This narrow control of charitable resources, in turn, channels aid toward the interests and needs of those who already hold large amounts of power.

---

Milkman5 posted...

3rd_Best_Master posted...

Milkman5 posted...

This is less authoritarian, less fascist and in turn gives the people more freedom and more power over their money and what they want for their country.

Doom_Art posted...

reading tc's political opinions is like "babby's first time reading a conservative opinion piece"

How is this even conservative? I don't really understand moronic party sheep like you guys.

The left constantly bashes authoritarianism and fascism yet opposes all ideas that would limit the power of government and give more power to the people.

This seems like a libertarian vs authoritarian thing, not a conservative vs liberal thing.

"Conservative" means different things to different groups, nations and at different times. Now it's taken to mean pro-business, anti-tax - before it was about social tradition.

The left bashes authoritarianism - unless they're the ones in charge.
---

My other problem with what you are saying is that Trump or our government or whomever knows better than us with what we should do with our money. Why? I don't see why having authority or holding a position of power makes your opinion or perspective more valuable inherently.

I generally expect professionals in a field to be more knowledgeable than I am in those fields yes

I have no idea how to allocate tax money. I don't know the relative importance of the various things taxes are used for. I don't even really know how much things like infrastructure and other city-scale (or larger) projects even cost. And I'm willing to bet most people don't either
---

kirbymuncher posted...

I generally expect professionals in a field to be more knowledgeable than I am in those fields yes

To play Devil's advocate, we're talking about a government run by Donald Trump
---