A Modest Budget Proposal

No one in the U.S. can agree on a spending system. We all have different ideas on a number of factors, including what should be funded, how it should be funded, and who should be responsible for that funding. Our differences of opinion have once again led us to a point at which our politicians could not bring themselves to agree on a national budget. Even now, after a compromise was made and a budget passed, no one is really happy with it.

Being the busybody that I am, I've given this some serous thought. The idea I've come up with would be a lot of work, but I think that in the end it would pay off in savings for the whole country. Sure there would be a few years of instability, during which the general public would have to gain an understanding of the process, and of how it would affect our daily lives, but soon, people would get the hang of it, and in the end we'd all be budgeting like pros.

First, we need to go to a flat tax with no deductions at all. Regardless of income, expenses, how many kids you have, or whether or not your grandma was run over by a senator, the full tax rate is 15% of your total gross income. Nothing gets deducted from your paycheck. At tax time, you do your assessment and send in the money yourself. Also, children are exempt from federal taxation. You don't pay anything until you are eligible to be legally bound to a contract upon which you sign for yourself.

Second, there is only one form for filing. Since the percentage owed is not affected by relationship status, there is no need to file as married or single, and no need for any joint returns. Everyone files separately.

The complicated part is in the the next step. Since the money for the federal budget comes from the public, I think the public should get a vote on it. In fact, I think we should get an itemized vote on it.

Yep, you read that right. Itemized. Every stinkin' little pet project, every department, grant, fund... everything.

Instead of itemizing your expenses, and totaling up a deduction, each of us would itemize what we are individually willing to fund, and total up the individual bill.
It would be quite a read, but I think a lot of people would find it to be worthwhile.

In order to achieve this, we would have to go to a ballot system for taxation. Everyone who is required to pay taxes would be required to participate on some level in the system.

Instead of passing a budget and, after the president signs it, spending the money, legislators would pass their proposed budget in percents of the total, instead of dollars. The budget would then get the president's signature, and would be submitted to the voters for approval.

Certain items would receive funding regardless. The military would always be federally funded, because we cannot have a working national defense without centralized administration of it. The federal government would at least receive operating costs, so that it could continue to exist and operate. A percentage of all that gets taken in would have to go to pay off the existing national debt. That accounts for the up to 5% which is assessed regardless of the vote. Everything else is negotiable. In order to keep the list short, no state-level earmarks would be allowed. In order to qualify as an item for consideration in the federal budget, the characteristics or effects of the item would have to be applicable to every state. All other items would be the responsibility of the states.

Instead of a majority/minority vote, the individual would vote on whether or not he/she was personally willing to help fund each item on the list.

The vote could be set up for two ways of viewing the budget; abbreviated (Department of agriculture budget/ human services budget/ education budget, etc.,) or fully expanded (research, publications, etc./ food stamps,administration,equipment, etc,/curriculum research, building maintenance, administrator pay, etc.) so that people could vote either on departments or on individual things, as the individual chooses. There would be a record of the popular vote for each item, so that various funded entities would know how the money they receive should be divided.

Each person would have a Maximum Assessed Tax (Max AT, 15%), a Minimum Assessed Tax (Min AT, on a sliding scale from 0% to 5%, depending on gross income only), and a Total Assessed Tax (TAT.) Your TAT would depend on how many expenses you approve. In the end, your TAT would be your tax bill.

Items would have their individual percentage of the overall budget listed for the amount of cost. The notation displayed on the page or screen would be #% TAT, allowing the taxpayer to calculate the dollar cost of each item before voting yea or nay. In the case of electronic voting, all of the income-based assessment could be done prior to voting, and you could see your Maximum Assessed Taxes (Max AT) right away. Then, instead of seeing “X% TAT” the voter would see a dollar amount next to each item.

Either way, if the taxpayer votes for that item, he's agreeing to pay that much for it for the current year. If he votes against that dollar amount, it gets subtracted from his Total Assessed Taxes (TAT,) reducing the percentage (and therefore the dollar amount) accordingly. Essentially, within the limitations allowed, each citizen would decide the size of his own tax bill prior to paying it.

Taxpayers would also be given the opportunity to donate to their favorite department by voting to increase their own payment by a percentage of their Max AT. That way, people who feel that the military, education, or any other pet department is underfunded could set the example by putting their money where their mouth is.

In doing this, we could eliminate the issue of people being forced to pay for government funded organizations whose activities violate some citizens moral codes. There would be no more instances of people complaining about where their tax dollars went and “pork barrel spending in Washington,” because nearly every dollar they paid into the system would have been their own choice. Meanwhile, organizations and agencies funded by the government would have to toe the line. Any waste, abuse, or scandal which might be exposed could cost them dearly, as people could elect to not fund them the next year based on their actions.

Funding for the IRS could greatly decrease, as their only function would be to determine whether or not individuals had failed to file taxes in any given year, whether or not they had reported all income, and whether they had paid the amount they voted for, not which deductions claimed were illegal, because that would no longer be possible.

I am sure there are a few of you out there screaming right now. “OH-MIH-GAWWWWD! We can't do that! If people were allowed to see how much their individual share of the federal budget was, and then vote on what gets federally funded, then nothing would ever get funded! Every federal agency and program would disappear, and it would all be up to the states. There would be no grants, no projects, no federal control over or protection of anything. No one would rather pay taxes to support all of those programs if they didn't have to! They'd choose to spend the money on themselves and their own families!”

Well, yes. That's the point. It's a lot easier to crow about how important this issue is, that agency is, those programs are, and so on, if you don't have to write a check for them yourself. It's a lot harder to get people to take responsibility for their spending habits if they don't see the dent that spending makes in their own budget. My point is, the American public has become too lazy, too demanding, and way, way too willing to spend other people's money. That is why our federal spending is out of control, and I think that needs to end.