
What are the pros and cons of elective government budget?(voters decide budget) - elamje
Aside from the basic federal and state budget, such as costs of running government operations, would it be possible to allow voters to choose where their tax dollars go?<p>If so, what are the pros and cons compared to the current system in the US?<p>Concept:
Once the essential government costs are budgeted, the remaining portion will be allocated by voters based on their share of tax contribution.
======
vinayms
> Concept: Once the essential government costs are budgeted, the remaining
> portion will be allocated by voters based on their share of tax
> contribution.

This would make the rich influence policy in yet another way, albeit a bit
more openly than usual.

~~~
elamje
I think so - can you think of a system where the rich will not be more
influential, without ripping them of their money outright?

------
nairboon
A possible way would be to use some less-personal taxes to fund a "minimal
government", I don't know about the US, but here we have federal sales taxes
and securities taxes etc. that could be used to provide minimal government
services. Then each year the government proposes a default budget allocation,
i.e x% for department of whatever, and citizens could override this allocation
if they wish to do so. I guess not everybody would overwrite it, they'd have
to care a lot and inform themselves in detail about the intrinsics of the
state. Those who wish to influence the budget could reallocate their
individual tax contributions (income, wealth) to the department mix they'd
like.

This would be self-regulating over the years, since if the government budgets
according to past/anticipated budget allocation of the citizens (over/under
fund specific departments). In a way that upsets people, it'd drive them to
start doing their own reallocation. And if you'd end up at extreme allocation
distributions i.e 95% unpopular department for those who follow the proposed
allocation. Then maybe something is wrong with that department or the
government, so the problem can be solved easily.

------
Something1234
I really like the concept of voting where my tax dollars go. However I feel
that it should be fixed to some amount of points that every person gets to
allocate. The results of which must be public information with granularity
down to the state level (summary statistics). It should only be to specific
categories that the points can be allocated, with no write in. However, it may
be nice to have like a write-in section for what is bothering them. This would
lead to certain things coming more clearly into focus (like what troubles the
common man, rather than what is bothering a company).

However there is almost never a surplus, there's always some amount of
borrowing.

------
jelliclesfarm
Just a thought: The votes might have to be weighted.

While we are at it, can tax payers choose where their tax dollars should go?
(Not practical, of course..but why not?)

~~~
gyaniv
But then the rich would just choose to use their money in a way that only
benefits them, while in reality, it might be better for the entire economy if
for example more of the money goes to the unemployed.

Another issue that I see is that many people are very uninformed (or wrong)
and if we let them choose directly where the money goes, it might be wasted.
In the current system the way it should work (in my opinion) is that people
vote based on the issues and values important to them and their elected then
move the money based on researching and better understanding how to do it best
(since that's the elected officials job, and they have time for that, unlike
some of the population).

~~~
elamje
I agree that many are uninformed, and money will get wasted. It seems like it
will always be “wasted” depending on which side you are looking at it from.
E.g. One might consider war a complete waste, and another considers it the
best use of money.

I don’t agree that elected officials do a great job moving money to where
voters want it. I think a viable solution is to have referendums(voting
directly on an issue, rather than for a person to represent you) about public
issues.

------
Spooky23
It’s an offensive concept. Democracy is about people, not capital.

------
lazyjones
Why bother? Let voters keep their surplus tax dollars if the government
expenses are covered. You can always put them to use where it makes sense
without extra bureaucracy (= costs money too).

~~~
elamje
I agree with you somewhat, but for something like the military, or healthcare,
it would be pretty hard to organize as an individual, not to mention time
consuming. The alternative has less friction.

