[US Government] Harebrained proposition re: revenue

[SquidDNA]

A proposition for you guys to chew on:

Abolish all forms of revenue collection and fund all bills and services with kickstarter projects.

In what circumstances would this work?
What systems would be necessary to support this model, would they be feasible to implement?
Do you envision that any fundamental changes to the way certain programs are administrated would be necessary to continue operation?

Do you live in a country which has a similar revenue model, or do you think your country's government would be better suited to adopting a model like this one?

GO.

[Starfisher]

Day Zero: Great idea!

Day One: I don't really like 95% of the government, so I'm not going to fund any of it.

Day Two: Where's the bus? Oh. Fuck.

(Many days later, some possible futures)

Future #1: Libertarian paradise! Everything is privatized and Ayn Rand has risen to lead us all to Galt's Gulch!

Future #2: Government has collapsed because private citizens don't have the time to both govern and go about their normal lives, so it's impossible to get funding for most of what government does since no one has the time to sort through the hundreds of funding requests they get every day. Goldman Sachs goes on to become the new de-facto government and soon we're battling the Combine in City 17.

Future #3: The internet takes over and kittens everywhere.

On a more serious note, the fundamental problem with this model is that most people don't really want to pay taxes. Without the threat of force, they won't, or they'll pay less than they do now. Considering that for every dollar the US spends, half of it came from debt issuance instead of tax revenue, our problem is most definitively not too much revenue, so any plan that reduces it requires some reckoning with deficits and long term promises. The programs we rely on for social stability will lose most of their funding, and when the 46 million people on food stamps in the US lose their handout, we get a delightful little revolution.

Of course, in principle, I think this is great. We get exactly what we want and pay for, nothing more. It's just that the edifice of modern American society is so heavily dependent on the old model that I don't see any way to survive the transition.

[Nanaki]

This was already tried before.

[roflmao]

Very cool thought experiment

I'm a little confused, maybe someone can clarify. Who leads and administers the kickstarter programs? Elected representatives? I'm assuming the initial cash required to kickstart these projects is obtained through voluntary donations by citizens (since that's the way kickstarter works), but who runs the project itself?

Steve Jobs dedicated his entire life to running Apple. That was the one focus of his life. All his brain power, creative energy and labor was harnessed to create one thing (actually he created a few other businesses). And, he happened to be so wildly successful that he created one of the most profitable companies on earth.

But, the fruit of his entire life dedication to Apple is a revenue of 108 billion in Apple's best year yet. Mind you, that's an enormous number by business standards. Yet, that's only enough to fund 0.017% of what the government spends in a year.

The only reason we can have a government of the size it is now is because it harnesses the collective knowledge, willpower, dedication, and labor of 300 million people and way more if you count global trade. A top-down approach with only a handful of people guiding the process is doomed to fail because there's just simply not enough time or labor or knowledge in the elite to create the amount of business required to maintain our government afloat.

[Buguba]

Trying to get a relatively miniscule group of people to generate 6 trillion dollars in a year by being successful businessmen is insurmountable.

It's not insurmountable. It just requires you to be unethical. That's the exact problem that comes with governments based around this model: it requires societies to sacrifice key checks and balances in order for it to work.

Of course, in principle, I think this is great. We get exactly what we want and pay for, nothing more. It's just that the edifice of modern American society is so heavily dependent on the old model that I don't see any way to survive the transition.

Even without all our foundations in the current system, I feel that any government based off of a genuine economic confederation in today's world is doomed to fail. Systems based off of purely independent funding fall into the same trap every time:

1) No two systems in league with each other are equal.
2) A lack of checks and balances leads to significant disparities between systems.
3) Disparities between systems eventually becomes large enough that secondary systems either become completely dependent on the primary system to survive, or they are simply swallowed completely.

If the world was a significantly smaller place, I think it would be an excellent model. With size and extent of global interaction though, there is literally no way to make this system work effectively without sacrificing freedoms. In the current model, we sacrifice freedoms based off of a predetermined consensus. We sacrifice the freedom to keep all the money we've genuinely earned, but we retain the right for everyone to have a voice. An economic confederation simply guarantees that whoever has the most money will decide which freedoms you keep or give up. That could be a very good thing, or it could be a very bad thing. If history has anything to say about it, it usually winds up being the latter.

This isn't to say that a confederate approach to solving social issues is altogether bad. The truth is that most social organizations in their most pure form come with a lot of glaring weaknesses. No government is exempt from that. The best approach to social management has always been a balance.

[SquidDNA]

roflmao, the only difference in what I'm initially proposing is that existing programs and new programs be funded differently. If you would like to propose any changes in how programs are administrated based on this new funding model, please do so!

However, you may be asking about something that falls under "what systems would be necessary to support this model" which is basically a very small amount of internet kittens (Starfisher, point 3) in order to effectively promote the funding of bills. On the one hand, The infrastructure between the congressional aides sitting at their computers and the public isn't there, but it's not the stuff of dreams, either. American Idol and Eurovision are real things. Text "ASDFASDF" to #CSPAN-3 to [allocate grant funds to the NSF/build an interstate highway/get those local kids some new textbooks.] And so forth.

Bugaba, I am pressed for time to reply to your post properly.

[Black]

What a great way to let rich people decide what government does.

[Aron_DeTomado]

Congresses and Parliaments are divided into committees because even with people working full time as lawmakers division of labour is still required for decisions to be informed. I can't see how you could possibly expect people to make informed judgements about how the entire country should be run in their spare time.

That said, implementation also matters. It has always struck me as odd that government institutions don't solicit donations, at the very least by sticking a donation button on their website. If people got into the habit of donating money to programs they value, it is probable that obligatory funding of the public sector could be scaled down, even if taxes would still remain a necessity.

[roflmao]

@SquidDNA:
Oh I see. I completely misunderstood then. I thought the idea was that the government was going to create actual businesses (like a new Facebook) and use the profits from said businesses to fund social programs. But that's not at all what you're saying. I get it now. Thanks for the clarification.

Basically you're democratizing the funding of social programs. Well, such a system does get rid of the principle agent problem, that's for sure.

Maybe not every social program should work this way, but I definitely think some could. Government programs such as PBS could exclusively run off of donations (PBS kind of already does) and they'd work well.

@Starfisher:
Okay, I'm really nitpicking here. I get your overall argument and it's a sound one, however I don't think your example is the best. Privatized bus systems work great :P.

What a great way to let rich people decide what government does.

This is a great point. However, rich people already lobby the government so we have similar effects today. Obviously not the same, but somewhat similar.

[SquidDNA]

Black (and Bugaba in a sense) it would be honest at least. ;P

[Starfisher]

Well, I seriously doubt there'd be an effective private system to replace public transit in two days. Even the wildest of wild-eyed libertarians I've met wouldn't go so far as to predict that. Besides, good private services are captured in possible futures #1 and #3

[roflmao]

Hmm, yes, that'd be pretty difficult .

[Moe]

but it's not the stuff of dreams, either

Given the insane amount of lobbying and legal gymnastics that the wealthiest people go through in order to avoid paying taxes, and given that everyone who doesn't consider themselves wealthy would probably rather spend money on themselves than on the government, I'm pretty sure that this is indeed the stuff of dreams.

I mean, try turning this into a poll and see how many people would be willing to pay how much.

Well, I seriously doubt there'd be an effective private system to replace public transit in two days.

This is a good point. Say the town of West Bumfuck, Iowa, has 1500 inhabitants. Who besides those 1500 people will want their money to go towards a police station, a fire station, a school, roads etc for West Bumfuck? And do you think that even if those 1500 people are willing to pay, that they would be able to come up with enough money to maintain the basic infrastructure? Without someone to pay for subsidies, would Acme Energy Corp. really want to go through the trouble of building and maintaining a local grid just for the 1500 Bumfuckians?

[Starfisher]

No. And they'd have to move closer to a population center capable of supporting them.

See, America has this vast inefficiency predicated on the assumption of eternal cheap gas. We're spread out. Really, really spread out. So while I'm sympathetic to the basic gist of the argument (small groups are not going to be able to survive at current standards of living, since they can't fund necessities for themselves) at the same time, that just means their particular choices about where to live were being subsidized for no particular reason. When the subsidy goes away, reality hits hard.

Stuff like this is why it would never actually happen in America. America is based on hundreds of years of assuming that the government is going to help you out with stuff, regardless of whether it actually makes sense to do so. I don't think there's any way for the country to survive the civic turmoil a move to opt-in government would cause.

[Inq]

Eh, I actually thought about this before.

My suggestion is to combine this idea within current taxation systems, to make itpractical.

So instead of the entirety of the system being elective in how you use it, what if instead you can elect a proportion of your tax funds to go to a certain area,

e.g "please tick the box to where you would like to send 5% of your tax
a, foreign aid
b, educational grants
c, welfare training programs
d, R&D into top causes of disease in country

etc

You could then shift and tailor the options to allow for potential overflows of money, giving tax a more participatory feel and create a discourse with the public as to where and how expenditure is done.

This should also be covered with a simplified breakdown of dollars and percentages of the current budgets, e.g pie chart with "xbillion on defence (22%), y billion of welfare (30%)"

People need to understand how their society is funded and where the money they worked for is being spent.

[Moe]

No. And they'd have to move closer to a population center capable of supporting them.

Wait, how do farmers fit into this idea of yours? They're usually pretty far from population centers for good reason, since you need a lot of land to feed this many people. Having them all move to Chicago isn't going to work - who's going to run the farms?

[Starfisher]

Food would cost a lot more in this system, for one, probably about as much as would be necessary for farming communities to provide themselves with the necessary services.

For two, the majority of people living in bumfuck are not farmers anymore, thanks to mechanization and the fact that subsidies and various big-agra lobbies have made it more or less impossible to actually own a farm or make a living on one.

For three, "this system" is Squids. I was just pointing out that when you remove subsidies that are allowing for a spread out lifestyle, the obvious result will be a contraction. The world wouldn't end, it just wouldn't look the same.

[roflmao]

Contraction is a good thing in every way. The U.S. is far too spread out. Sprawl is a huge issue over there.

[Paladin]

That might be true in the long term. It's definitely not true in the short term. We have a couple of historical models to use as predictors, and they pretty much point to massive privation, an expansion of the lowest economic class and a shrinking of the middle class, particularly the low end of middle class, and that swelling of the underclass will persist for decades...

[Exsus]

This would work, but only if Tim Schaffer was every part of the government.

[Mnementh]

Those with the most money would dictate what the police did and what laws got through.

Kinda like it is now, just more transparent.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Nanaki raises a good point. This was tried before, and it worked out how you might expect. While people can and do vote for higher taxes all the time, the sort of political squabbling involved with 'optional taxation' is absurd and the concept is self defeating. Naturally and inevitably people want contradictory things out of their government budgets. It would get weeird.

I imagine you would end up with government services hunting for other sources of revenue, like asset seizure, excise fees, services fees etc. instead of taxation, to the extent that the distinction between public and private would be meaningless.

On that note - What judges could make decisions based on justice when their funding gets axed? If some judge acts to say protect a minority group his position might vanish next year... if that late. The justice franchise cant afford bad press.

In any case representative governments - rather than pure democracies - exist in part because keeping tracking of the stuff you need to know to make decisions about taxation and appropriations is really difficult. And people are dumb. Look at all the complaints and mobilization about keeping government out of medicare or social security.