Taxpayers would be able to directly allocate their taxes at anytime throughout the year. They would go directly to the welfare website, check the fundraising progress bar, and submit a tax payment. The welfare organization would then send notice of their payment to the IRS.
You can purchase private goods at anytime throughout the year...people can make donations at anytime throughout the year...yet for some reason you think my system would be based on only allowing taxpayers to pay taxes at the end of the year? That's ridiculous.
If taxpayers can choose when to pay, they can choose to pay on Dec. 31st, then on Jan. 1st, paying one day's worth of salary into the system. Even if they have to make that up the following year, you could have a situation where, in one year, the government gets next to no money. Guess we better hope people are contributing to a special fund for inefficient allocation of taxes?
Second, the administration costs of updating who has spent how much and how much each program would like, in addition to the money the government already spends operating the programs, would be astronomical.
This is what you call pragmatarianism?
20-30 million people died in China as a direct result of state induced famine. It was a consequence of planners...not markets. So you're the one that supports mass starvation...not me.
Lol, I didn't say you support it, just that you don't really think about the consequences of your proposals.
The choice is not between your proposal and communism. If China had a representative democracy and a capitalistic system, the productive members of society would make more, which would make the government better able to support the poor.
So organizations would have to convince us that they deserve our hard-earned money? Oh..."the horror".
Nice limbo-ing, but that's not what I said. It's about the
amount. Your shifting does not give me any confidence in your ability to draw rational conclusions when presented with data, which makes me think you cannot be the economics mastermind you claim to be.
Being in favor of a committee of 538 people spending 150 million people's hard-earned money is what is beyond ignorance.
What is our Congress if not a smaller and more qualified, but very representative, sample of America as a whole? How is shifting the obligation to allocate funds to a larger sample, the only major difference being the size, degree of education and experience, and time they have to do it, likely to be more efficient?
I'll ask again, do you believe in representative democracy at all?
If this is your idea of "schooling" liberals, color me unimpressed.
