Voluntary taxation

[Syterion]

I'd probably just donate the money to charities or organizations I support and not pay. The government is not a solvent organization, and they do not spend money well.

 

[El_Machinae]

So? I know that 10% of the population pays about 80% of the taxes. So, they'd probably want to allocate most of their money to projects they deemed valuable.

Seems more fair than our present system, where the majority (who don't contribute net taxes) tell the rich where their money has to go.

Plus, for every El_Mac 'medical research' fan, we have an IglooDude 'pork projects only, please!'.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd probably just donate the money to charities or organizations I support and not pay. The government is not a solvent organization, and they do not spend money well.

When's the last time you've given to charity?

 

[HighlandWarrior]

no

i'd like to choose where my tax money went...
all to defense (federal)
all to roads & schools (state)
all to police & fire (city)

That's all we need. you can go to a church if you need welfare & if you're an atheist just suck it up.

 

[WillJ]

So? I know that 10% of the population pays about 80% of the taxes. So, they'd probably want to allocate most of their money to projects they deemed valuable.

Seems more fair than our present system, where the majority (who don't contribute net taxes) tell the rich where their money has to go.

That's an entirely different issue, isn't it? If you want a flat tax (or even a poll tax, if you're feeling really archaic ), okay, but we're talking about voluntary taxes, and regardless of how concentrated our society's wealth is, there'll still be resource misallocations.

As for fairness, no, I don't think a plutocracy is very fair.

Plus, for every El_Mac 'medical research' fan, we have an IglooDude 'pork projects only, please!'.

I'm sure there are plenty of things that need funding but wouldn't get any because no one thinks of them, and plenty of things that need some money, but only some, but get a lot of it because they're obvious.

Reminds me of drives at my school to help homeless people, Katrina victims, etc., where each individual brings whatever they want, rather than there being a concentrated effort. We end up with enough canned corn to feed the entire world two times over, but no socks.

 

[Stylesjl]

I wouldn't pay. Hence why taxation must be enforced by penalty of law

 

[emzie]

Of the money I paid in 2005 to Ohio, Columbus and the Feds, I got 94% of it back anyway -- all but the money I paid to Columbus actually.

 

[Arcadian83]

Very interesting question. I'd like to think that I'd pay, and if things were going well I would, as Eran said, as much out of respect for economics as a sense of civil duty.

It would take a lot of willpower, however. It's easy to give when things are going well. If you lost your job or your investments shrivelled up, would you still pay voluntarily?

On the other side, if you won "Who Wants To Be A Millionare" (not the tax-free one), would you pay and thus only get a portion of your winnings?

 

[History_Buff]

The better question is asking why most people wouldn't pay and why there isn't a system in place that takes into account this behaviour.

That's an easy one. It's the free rider problem. There are 4 possible outcomes in this situation:

1) You Pay, everyone else pays too. (Everyone wins)
2) You Don't pay, everyone else pays (You Win)
3) You Pay, nobody else pays (You Lose)
4) Nobody pays taxes. (Everybody loses)

Now obviously outcome 1 will result in the most money going to the gov, and (theoretically) the maximum amount of services will be distributed. Everyone pays their fair share, and everyone recieves benifit.

The problem is, you personally get the most out of option 2. This way you keep your extra money, and still recieve the most service, since the money any one person pays in taxes is insignifigant. Obviously, everyone will want to choose this option. Only the really patriotic would choose to pay when others don't, and eventually, they will become fed up with giving money away, and never receiving anything in return.

Eventually, everyone ends up in option 4. Now everyone has slightly more money in thier wallets, but they have neither the money, or ability to purchase things like roads, education, health care, and a military, and everyone loses out.


The free rider problem can be applied to almost every failing in a Capitalist society, and is by far the best argument for why regulation is needed to control free market economies.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

I would want to give my money to taxes, but I'd also like to be able to choose where it went.