[kitt]

And this is what I was about to post, but instead of 20-30%, make it 51%. Allow taxpayers to decide where (the broad categories the receipt listed are a perfect starting point) their tax dollars are going. The remaining 49% can be discretionary, let the government decide where that goes: fill in the gaps for items needed, but that no one wants to pay for.

Such a policy would give people a sense of power over the money they're paying. I, for one, would begrudge less the paying of taxes if the monies went to programs important to me.

[zumda]

But then the rich would have a lot more power over the budget then the poor.

[kitt]

1. That's pretty much already the case (lobbyists are paid by someone, and that someone isn't the poor).

2. You make that sound like a bad thing, when it's not.

Given the categories listed on the receipt, which one of those would you really be upset if a rich person decided to put 51% of his taxes to? Medicaid? Pell Grants? How about the National Parks?

"If the wars are important to you, use your money to pay for it, stop using mine," is pretty much my philosophy. Having no control over where my taxes go makes me significantly less pleased with paying them.

[jimmyk]

Well, that's already the case, but I agree in that this would make it considerably worse. If you look at the government as legal force, then this scheme would amount to paying for influence over a group with legal force.