Lv 7
WJ asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 7 years ago

Rather than require high taxes, can we instead just pay what we think government is worth?

I'm sure voluntary contributions would be far more reflective of the real value of government in our lives.

13 Answers

  • Dallas
    Lv 6
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I wish we could. The government has wasted more money that we can imagine.

    Mr. Government:

    War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 47 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the professional poor” and they only want more.

    The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. You have had 236 years to get it right and it is broke.

    Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 73 years to get it right and it is broke.

    Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 46 years to get it right and they are broke.

    Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 41 years to get it right and it is broke.

    The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 34 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

    Abound Solar, after receiving $400 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection

    Solyndra, after receiving $535 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection

    Babcock & Brown (an Australian company), after receiving $178 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.

    Solar Trust for America, after receiving a $2.1-billion loan guarantee from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.

    Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty.

    You have FAILED in every “government service or adventure” you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars


  • ?
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    People have a false notion that if they pay less taxes they'll have more money. The problem is everybody will have more money. If everybody has more disposable income then they'll tend to spend it.

    If the majority spends their new found income then the demand for goods will go up. If the demand goes up so will the price.

    In the end we'd find that we've just spun our wheels with less government and government services to show for it. And that's just what the GOP is shooting for.

    You see, the one percent and corporate America can't wrist money away from the government. They need to find a way to get it away from the government and into our pockets where it would be like taking candy from a baby.

    Why the thumbs down? That is exactly how it is. I know those GOP rats. But that's another story.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Wouldn't work.

    Most people for instance have no idea what we spend on the military.

    Oh and greedy objectivists would like always pay nothing, claiming that is "what everyone does." You'll find the people that gripe the most tend to steal and scheme for every dime they can steal.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    No. People are too stingy

    Government coercion is the best method of tax collection

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    No. People are motivated by self-interest. They will give nothing to the government because they are selfish. Your proposal would not be a true reflection of what the people think government is worth.

    Rich people are just full of themselves and refuse to acknowledge everything government does to protect their ability to be rich people. Their money makes them elitists with entitlement mentalities. We need to tax them heavily in order to save their children from the scourge of "affluenza."

  • Q1: For taxpayers, is our “national debt” really a burden? Must it really be repaid?

    A1: No. For taxpayers, it lacks the qualities of a real debt. It’s a “Debt In Name Only”, a “DINO”-*


    It is not the taxpayers but rather the buyers of newly-issued treasuries who, in a virtual bond rollover, pay for redemption of mature treasuries. In every auction, more bonds are demanded than are available. Auction winners get the safest, most liquid US dollar instruments; the losers are stuck with bank risk. If it were necessary, the Fed, with cost-free keystrokes, could increase the demand for treasuries by buying a large slice of the DINO in the open market. Theoretically, it could buy the whole DINO! Good-bye DINO!


    Only a budget surplus can reduce the DINO. Since Truman, no President has reduced the DINO and no annual budget surplus is now in sight. To supply enough treasuries, the ONLY risk-free securities used for trade collateral, insurance, pensions, bank reserves, etc., the DINO MUST GROW with the economy!

    Every federal dollar spent and not taxed is saved by the private sector. Yes! DEFICITS = SAVINGS! The Treasury has a “national debt” and the private sector has a “national asset”! The bad “Debt Clock” is also the good “Asset Clock”. Since, with our trade deficit, we export money, deficit spending is our economy’s SOLE source of savings! In fact, if large budget deficits don’t soon replace our vanishing cash, deflation will freeze our economy solid. Who would spend a dollar today if it would buy more tomorrow?

    Our economy is suffering from acute anemia. There is simply not enough money in circulation. Our (DINO + total bank deposits) / GDP ratio is less than half of China’s comparable figure. Our M2 (money supply) / GDP ratio is half of Switzerland’s ratio and one fourth of Hong Kong’s ratio. To become and stay prosperous, we need to DOUBLE the DINO / GDP ratio to return it to the World War II level that was followed by 35 years of prosperity without harmful inflation. Ask Grandma about the good old days!

    Inequality worsens the anemia. Most of the paltry money supply circulates among the Rich who corrupt Congress to get generous inheritance laws to get richer to corrupt Congress to get laws that enrich… etc.

    Wealth is power and inherited wealth is inherited power: aristocracy, the enemy of meritocracy and us!

    Q2: Won’t the annual debt interest expense explode the budget?

    A2: Bond-holders’ taxes return about 20% of their interest income. New bond issues finance the rest. As no physical resources are consumed and the money supply does not change, there is no inflationary effect. About 80% of the interest is added to the DINO, which is good. For those reasons, CBO budget economists deal only with the “primary” budget, which excludes the annual debt interest expense. If necessary, the Fed can practically eliminate the cost of interest. During World War II, the Treasury issued debt at near-zero interest rates. Purchasers were assured that bonds would sell near face value.

    Q3: Could savers make a “run” on US Treasury bonds?

    A3: Only when savers can get risk-free returns from the Wall Street casino or from GM bonds, Illinois bonds, or Detroit bonds. Safety is not everything. Safety is the ONLY thing! That’s why the whole world relies on US bonds.

    Q4. Could savers stop buying US Treasury bonds?

    A4. Yes, indeed! SAVERS WILL ALWAYS WANT THE SAFEST BONDS for trade collateral, insurance, pensions, bank reserves, etc. Now, almost two thirds of the world’s reserve currencies are in US dollars and about half of all US Treasury bonds are held by foreigners. But if China’s infrastructure and productivity become better than ours, its bonds could become safer than ours and we could then lose our bond-buyers. And that could happen if US voters let their DINO concerns stop the renewal of falling bridges, failing schools, creaking railroads, leaking sewers, etc. Money can be printed, but infrastructure has to be built with real resources over time, which has no substitute.

  • 7 years ago

    That ain't gonna work. The government wouldn't send its employees out to panhandlers and deal drugs to finance itself.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    We have a voluntary system now. You play and pay or get out. You are free to leave.

  • bil
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Until LBJ and the 3/4 Democrat majority in both houses in the 1960s...That is what we did...Now we have a "new" category of DEMOCRAT mandatory spending (meaning not mentioned or authorized by our constitution)...Not to mention the $17T in "new" Democrat DEBT caused by illegal "great society" spending

  • 7 years ago

    Great idea. That said, we should also say where we want our portion to go, right?

    And since you are so pro-military, you should be giving at least half of your money to our men and women in uniform and our vet administrations, right? Because they keep you "safe", right? They keep us free and I'm sure that's more important to you than keeping your money, right?

    Or is "believing in" easier than actually supporting?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.