The main tank, brimful with ideas. Enjoy them, discuss them, take them. - Of course, this is also the #1 place for new submissions!
By Deceptive Geko
I think that the government often spends tax money in their own interest. I have a plan called Destributable taxes which will let the tax payers at least controll how some of their money is spent.

Under my idea, the government would get full controll of 3/4ths of your taxes. The government could spend it as they see fit. The last fourth, however, would be distributed to different areas of the government by you. Your tax forms would contain a special form where you could dictate what percent of your remaining fourth goes too. So for instance if one felt that the government was not spending enough money on welfare and too much money on the military, that person could reserve most of their remaining fourth for welfare and spend little or no money on the military. Under my plan the people would then be able to keep government spending in check by chosing how their individual money is spent.

Of course like all new ideas it needs some work. THere are still a few things that would have to be worked out. Besides that though, what do you think of the basic idea?

Reward: Give me credit.
User avatar
By Steve
Hmmm... :-? the approach would still need some tweaking. E.g. even if 100% decide to spend all 25% on welfare, the government could easily counter that by spending "their" 75% on the military. ;-7
By treadair
If the distribution vote always took place one year before the taxable year then 100 percent of the taxes could be allocated however the public saw fit. A recall mechanism could be set up to change the vote if a certain percentage of people thought the results were way out of whack once the first vote was taken.
User avatar
By Steve
Dunno. Sounds a bit like having kids decide what they're gonna have for lunch. I'd wonder if the all-important lettuce and spinach would ever make it onto the menu. ;-7
By treadair
Any country that couldn't get its people to put lettuce and spinach on the menu would soon wind up as a second or third world power, which would be a fitting consequence. The only thing I'd worry about is the lack of compassion we'd see. If poor people weren't a big enough part of the population they'd get the shaft again.
By Deceptive Geko
Actually lettuce and spinach would make it on the menu. Thats why I have only given people 25% of control in my plan. It's enough to give them satisfaction and limited control over their taxes, but not enough for them to singlehandedly destroy the country by leaving us defensless, powerless, and poorly managed.

As for the lack of compassion, it would still exist but it would be much better that what we have now. The reason poor people aren't geting money is not because of a lack of por people but because a lack of poor people in congress. On the contrary, to be in congress, you must have quite a lot of money just to have an effective campaign, and most of these rich politicians could care less about the poor. This would at least give people a chance to kep this in balance.

Any more suggestions?
By R4Roger05
I like the idea. Through this right, the people would have a lot more direct control of the nation. Sure, elections come around every few years, but I would like a little more direct control.

While elections can be warped if a political party gains too much control (and thus a dictatorship be established), this idea would provide an even solid barrier against untamed government control.

This idea is essentially equivalent to letting us keep more of our own money (ie. tax cuts). But your idea recognizes the fact that taxes are necessary for the survival of a nation. I would like to impose both tax cuts and your idea.

Currently, the government is devoting a large portion of tax revenue to virtually worthless and thus harmful programs (the money could be devoted towards a better purpose). In essence, the government takes money from the people and assumes that it could spend it in a more effective manner. This is as a matter of fact correct, but only when the taxes are being spent on rudimentary government programs that could not be privately organized. Some things, such as national defense should be wholly government funded, but I think that other programs should be funded both privately and publicly. This derivation of money should be a function of the feasibility of a program in the private sector.

Is there anymore need for physical cards? I suppos[…]

A Place for problems and solutions

This is a really good proposal. One title could be[…]

Team Innovating Forum

Are there forums for team innovating? Normally peo[…]

Whats your favorite Xbox game?

Mine is outrun2