• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Would you pay a 1% premium over your normal tax rate?

Would you pay a premium?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Maybe/I don't know/Other (Explain)

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

darkxshade

Lifer
If it meant you can allocate exactly where every single dollar of your taxes go?


Pretend that in order to prevent the gubment from allocating additional non premium payer dollars to make up for not being able to allocate yours, the amount they would have normally allocated to a specific sector would be reduced by a percentage based on the total number of tax dollars that's restricted due to tax payers opting to pay the premium.

For ex: If they they were going to allocate 100 bucks for a bailout, they could now only allocate 50 bucks because 50% of taxpayers decided to pay the premium and none of them choose to allocate dollars to a bailout. Meanwhile something like education which would have normally received 100 bucks will now get 150 because all 50% of the taxpayers decided to allocate all their tax dollars to education. This is just a simple example, obviously the mathematical model used to determine allocation based on where taxpayers choose + the premium would be more complex.
 
Absolutely I would. As said above, it's unworkable, and the government would cheat anyway, but for the sake of the thought game, I definitely would.
 
I would do that, but I think they would just somehow lump things together so that in order to get my money to education I would also have to put money toward for a nuclear submarine or something like that. I think we should just reduce taxes and force the government to find out what really isn't essential. The government should be a weak and starving thing IMO.
 
No. As soon as pet project number 7667412435 doesn't get funded, Congress will pass a law to shift funds as they want (similar to the past decades 'OMG Social Security has surplus revenues... we're going to fund #### with your retirement and fuck the generations that follow the baby boomers')
 
Yes I know the government would most likely figure out some loophole or cheat if this were really an option. I was just more curious as to the amount of people willing to give more of their own money just to get the privilege of decision making as far as national bugeting is concerned.
 
SlitheryDee said:
I would do that, but I think they would just somehow lump things together so that in order to get my money to education I would also have to put money toward for a nuclear submarine or something like that. I think we should just reduce taxes and force the government to find out what really isn't essential. The government should be a weak and starving thing IMO.
Click to expand...

I think if you did that, you would find that things like education would no longer be receiving money, and the war efforts would continue as planned.
 
So long as everyone is on equal footing, I would. This is the stupidity that is America. You know, if everyone has 1% less money, that means everyone in in competition for hte same goods and services with the smae 1% less.

There would be nearly no impact. At worse, I'd expect houring prices to drop 1% or rise 1% less than they would otherwise.
 
IHateMyJob2004 said:
So long as everyone is on equal footing, I would. This is the stupidity that is America. You know, if everyone has 1% less money, that means everyone in in competition for hte same goods and services with the smae 1% less.

There would be nearly no impact. At worse, I'd expect houring prices to drop 1% or rise 1% less than they would otherwise.
Click to expand...


While that may be true, it's impossible to think that everyone would choose to follow suit. So given the situation, I don't think there will be much of an overall impact on economy and prices. There's a somewhat of a free-rider mentality here. One might think that since the option is available, they automatically assume the allocation for budgeting will be greatly improved due to someone else choosing to pay the premium so that person doesn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top