tax resistance

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
a potential problem I see with this act is that if it went into widespread use, the government would just up the percentages of the regular tax fund that they use on military spending, and not much would change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like the states who start lotteries with the premise to enhance education funding and instead just reallocate tax dollars that used to go to education to something else.

[DJ Sensei]

[ QUOTE ]
-Sensei

that looks like a horrible act to me. first i am not convinced it would have enough teeth to restrict congress from manipulating the budget to still fund the military as much as they want.

secondly, and more importantly, it totally ignores the fundamental issue. it doesn't allow people to not pay taxes (or allocate their tax dollars) if they are opposed to, funding education, healthcare, welfare, farm subsidies etc etc.

being against wars isn't the only form of aggression that one can be morally opposed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're right that it doesnt approach that 'fundamental issue' (quotes not intended to demean your argument, just to reiterate your phrase). but it is a step in the right direction. and, unlike a law that allows you to choose whether or not to pay your taxes (or that allows you to allocate them according to your wishes), it stands a chance of getting passed!

arguments could be made that you have the power to choose how your tax dollars are spent by who you vote into congress or into the presidency, but of course thats a pretty weak argument when every congressmen/president with a shot at getting elected is pretty much going to send the money to the same places (read: 2-party system, two heads of the same beast).

for the sake of constructive thinking, do you have an idea of how to approach this issue, or how to take steps to remedy it?

[almostbusto]

-Sensei

a good start would be to eliminate/greatly reduce the income tax and focus more on generating income through user-fees. User fees are nice because it is important to make sure the people deriving the benefits from the spending should also be the ones paying for those benefits. ie katrina relief efforts should be paid for by the state, not the federal government, of course if the state was absolutely strapped then it would make sense for the federal government to LOAN out aid. Much like we do to other countries.

fundamentally, much of the spending done by government is not to provide goods and services that would otherwise be underprovided for by the market but instead just to create programs to benefit special interests. the benefits creates by these programs may not even come close to compensating for the expenditures.

maybe you could have a provision that every major expenditure pass an INDEPENDENT cost benefit analysis by a private firm. though i suppose this is speaking to a different issue, but i am guessing almost all citizens want their tax dollars to actually do some work.

if this were the case, then even if people had their objections, at least they knew the money they were forced to spend benefited themselves somewhat.

[RoundGuy]

NT! can you [censored] explain why this [censored] politard thread is still not [censored] locked?

>>sorry for the rant, long day at work<<