I think this is a good idea and might give the best of both public and private sector efficiencies on tax collection and expenditure. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/funds-of-social-want-fosw-better-way-of_13.html Do you like the look of the blog. I switched to dynamic views so you can display it the way you want. I also started changing the style of the posts. Any feedback?
This is a great idea, and one that I would get behind, but you're living in la la land if you think there is any chance that this could possibly happen. This would neuter governments completely and would likely reduce the size of government to about 1/10th its current form. There are WAY too many politicians with a vested interest in maintaining control of how the massive amounts of government revenue is spent to allow something like this....
The second suggestion I made in the article about choosing which department receives the money might be a solution to part of that issue. I think it might get some support in other countries but perhaps not the US. One thing I forgot to mention is it might increase tax in take because people would be more willing to pay tax if it was spent on what they wanted. Remember ultimately people have the power in politics it is just a case of getting into a situation where they can get what they want. I think we are approaching a time when that could happen. Can I ask what do you think of the new design of my blog. I need feedback to improve.
I think at the very least when we fill out our tax returns each year we should have choices about how our money gets allocated. Sort of like how many 401k's allow you to choose what percentage of your money is allocated to different funds. That way you can fund things you support and not fund things you don't. You want to put 100% into defense? Go for it. 50% for education and 50% for infrastructure? Fine. Not enough people allocated their funds to support war? Ok, well I guess we don't go to war then. Even better the Government should behave like a non-profit and have to solicit donations. Have a telethon or something. TT
Exactly this is exactly what I was trying to achieve with the post and the proposition. Interactive income allocation on a national scale. People get what they want. If there is an issue of not providing one department with enough money then you only allow a percent of the money to allocated by the taxpayer. For example like the one in the article you could allow half of the income to be kept as tax and the other half allocated to the department of choice by the taxpayer.
Nice-looking blog. Horrible-sounding idea: We have too much individual hyper-empowerment in our society as it is.
Although it sounds like a good idea in theory, I don't think letting people choose their charity is going to help because as soon you pass a law like that, it all becomes a popularity contest. Charities will increase their advertising budgets by 500% because they know people will donate their money to the most popular causes. And because charities are now spending so much more on advertising, that is less money that will be used to help the cause. As far as the website goes, it does look better than it did before. But if you really want to make it look good, pick up a book on web copywriting. There is a very distinct science in making a website look good.
I have just added a translation option on the sidebar on the right hand side that will make the articles more accessible to people.