Find out now! Here are three relatively recent articles... From a libertarian... http://www.forbes.com/sites/brittanybinowski/2012/06/18/how-to-get-americans-to-pay-taxes-willingly/ From a liberal economist... http://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/30196025443/no-tax-increase-without-recompense From a scientist... http://www.bestthinking.com/article...de-how-their-own-tax-payments-should-be-spent Wouldn't it be the best to have a system that would allow us to agree to disagree?
It seems like a good idea, but it would be exploited, and not much better than what we have now. Like what if the super-rich or some big corporation who commands huge amounts of tax money, decided to earmark all their taxes for "Black Ops"(who knows WHAT the hell they're doing), "mass media manipulation"(propaganda), or "population reduction"(war, famine, death, etc.)? It would be a direct plutocracy. But how would you handle deficits? What if nobody wanted to pay the interest on the debt? If we had a clean slate, that would be one thing, but we're knee deep in (*)(*)(*)(*) already.
But you don't become rich...and stay rich...by ignoring your bottom line. Every company in the private sector depends on some combination of inputs supplied by the public sector... The thing is...Elizabeth Warren is completely conceited if she believes she knows better than business owners where the bottlenecks are in the public sector. If a shortage of public transportation is limiting the movement of employees/customers to your place of business...then this would hurt your bottom line...which is why nobody would be more motivated than you to spend your taxes to try and solve this bottleneck. Economics is based on the concept that actions speak louder than words. This means that how a poor person spends their $15,000 a year...on affordable food, clothing, shelter, entertainment...speaks volumes louder than how they cast their political vote. Therefore, nothing more effectively silences the voices of the vast majority of people than preventing taxpayers from spending their taxes in the public sector. Therefore, the next time you spend your dollars...it's fundamentally important that you realize that you're economically voting for the people who use our society's limited resources for your benefit. Therefore, you're shooting yourself in the foot by preventing these taxpayers from using their taxes to address the shortages of the public sector inputs that they need to successfully operate their businesses. Why would people bother paying off the deficit when absolutely nothing prevents it from growing? In a pragmatarian system...people would have absolutely no problem paying off our debt because the debt would no longer be centralized. Each government organization would be solely responsible for any debt that it took on. If the Dept of Education wanted to borrow $50 million dollars...then who would be on the hook to pay off their debt? That would be all the taxpayers who would chose to give their taxes to the Dept of Education. Would you continue to give your taxes to an organization that was financially irresponsible and consistently made risky investments? Most people wouldn't...so the Dept of Education would have to think long and hard before they decided to borrow a substantial amount of money. That's why...it's more likely that government organizations would operate like non-profit organizations...they wouldn't spend more money than they could raise.
