How different would our federal budget look?

It would lead to a country where the rich ruled over the poor creating an aristocracy of wealth. America would soon resemble the countries of 18th Century Europe it has tried hard to avoid.

@flutherother If everyone got to vote on what the money was spent on? How would that favor the rich?

Because the rich have far more tax dollars to allocate it would skew spending in their favour.

But even if everyone is given an equal share of the overall budget it is still a hopelessly impractical idea. Are we talking about ten, a thousand or a million items? Will everyone trust the system to be fair? Joe Bloggs will always vote for lower taxes then complain that the roads aren’t properly maintained.

Mob rule. It would lead to no planning whatsoever. Policy would be made at a hyper-local level, and there would be no such thing as a national government. Essentially it would be like pre-US days when there were 13 colonies, except now there would be 50 colonies.

I don’t trust my fellow citizens to think in a big picture.

@elbanditoroso I’m not talking about getting rid of the federal government. I’m talking about people voting on what in the budget they feel is important. They can vote for as many things as they like. But, for example, if you see that there is a study into the a better toilet seat, would you vote for that or would it seem frivolous? The same thing could be done on the state budget as well if it seemed to be good.

Vote with dollars . . . . no more public schools, ACA, VA benefits, state universities. . . dreams of the MAGA !

I think many people are short sighted. For example, i live in an affluent area with a great school district. Many people move into the area just for the schools. Yet people who are elderly or childkess will talk about their taxes being for nothing since they don’t kids in the district. Yet they’re not realizing that the value of their homes is in a big way tied into the great schools.

Sounds too much, like something I would want, and then be ridiculed because of the same reasons already given.

MOST concepts, plans, regardless of how well done, will ALWAYS be manipulated by the greedy for their benefit.

The logistics for how, and how often such voting would be done, is dizzying.

I’d settle for closing all the loopholes, already in the tax code. Closing them tight, and being tough on the wealthiest.

What if the wealthy get upset?
Fuck ‘em.

You’d be left with huge cuts to the military, more spending on infrastructure, more spending on healthcare, more on education, more on social security, more on pensions, more on a whole host of public services.

@Kropotkin is possibly correct. But then there would be less for defense, NASA, science and technology research, foreign aid and diplomacy, which means that the US’ position in the world would be far less powerful and would open us and our allies to attack.

This idea of @seawulf575 ‘s would make the US a much weaker country in the world.

@elbanditoroso Not necessarily, because there’s a common misperception of current spending in those areas. People will want cuts when they think spending is too high, expect that the spending is already vastly lower than what the median think it is.

It would probably disperse the funds too thinly, trying to cover all concerns.

There would inevitably be conflict, as well.
If I want MY taxes to stop drilling, but Wulf wants to drill, where are we?..

Not quite the exact same thing, but in my state, we do have an opportunity to vote on usually 9 or 10 issues and if we think a certain amount of money should be allocated to them. So there is some voter input.

The first years would be chaos, but taxpayers would figure out what needs and doesn’t need to be funded.

I would like to see if a country has tried it before, and how the results were.

@MrGrimm888 Of course there would be conflict. Your vote and my vote might cancel each other out. But just like with electing people, eventually there is one that wins. Just as in life, no one gets everything they want. I might not feel something in the budget has any real worth for the country and shouldn’t get funds. But I am not the sole deciding factor. Another person might see great worth in that very thing.

According to ChatGPT (for entertainment):
If individuals could choose where their tax dollars are allocated, the federal government might look quite different in several ways:

1. **Increased Accountability**: Government agencies might become more accountable to the public, as they would need to demonstrate the effectiveness of their programs to attract funding.

2. **Diverse Funding Priorities**: Different segments of the population might prioritize different areas, leading to a more fragmented approach to funding. Some might focus on education, while others might prioritize healthcare, infrastructure, or environmental initiatives.

3. **Potential for Inequity**: Wealthier individuals or communities might be able to direct more funds to their preferred services, potentially widening the gap in public services between affluent and less affluent areas.

4. **Dynamic Budgeting**: The federal budget could become more dynamic, changing from year to year based on public interest and needs, rather than being set through a more static legislative process.

5. **Increased Civic Engagement**: People might become more engaged in government and civic issues, as they would have a direct stake in how their money is spent, potentially leading to more informed voting and advocacy.

6. **Challenges in Coordination**: With individuals directing funds to specific areas, there could be challenges in coordinating efforts across federal, state, and local levels, leading to potential inefficiencies or gaps in services.

7. **Focus on Popular Programs**: Programs that are more popular or visible might receive more funding, while less visible but essential services could suffer, leading to imbalances in government support.

Overall, while the ability to choose tax dollar allocation could empower citizens and increase engagement, it could also create challenges related to equity, coordination, and the overall effectiveness of government programs.

Wulf. My primary concern, was/is that the funds would be distributed to thinly, over a wide range if issues. This would lead to nothing be fully funded, and everything needing funds. That means nothing, would function.
ALL of the liberal pet projects, you no doubt love, would be eating away at funding for the things you support.

Greed and power, are not the only reasons why we have still essentially use a chain of command. Typically, each ship has 1 Captain.
A lot of the reasons for this, is practicality. The ship would go nowhere, if every decision to raise the mast, or set an Easterly course, was discussed and then voted on.

Worst of all. I don’t trust the masses, with making educated decisions.

Just like with my dreams of a peaceful world, the obstacle is we’d have to change the way people think and act.
Unfortunately. Your idea, assumes that most people would be voting with knowledge of each issue.

A lot of people, don’t even care if they’re ignorant about something. I can’t work with that.

@MrGrimm888 My idea would be, as I said, that there would be a linked descriptor for each of the items to be voted on. The entire thing starts with a basic list of things in the budget. Take the budget as it is today. Take each item out and list it with a link to the explanation as to what it is and what it covers.

I suspect that not many people would want to do the work necessary to vote on this initially which would skew things.

^Correct. More important to “like” your friend’s omelet…