[NeoTar]

> It'd be nice to be able to earmark it to particular government functions, maybe even charities in the area, etc.

"[Your Town] has finest municipal art galleries in the state whilst streets are filled with pot-holes"

Allowing people to allocate money to government functions is generally a bad idea except if very tightly limited. Things which are 'nice' will get over-funded, and things which people find unpleasant* will not getting the funding needed. I think the problem would be ten times worse if it is people who don't actual live in an area get to choose how funds are allocated.

[teeray]

> things which people find unpleasant* will not getting the funding needed.

Septic systems are a great example of this on a home scale. So many people treat them as a mysterious vortex in the ground where all sewage magically vanishes. They don’t bother to pump the tank every few years because it costs a couple hundred dollars. Then they’re shocked when their leech field is completely failed and needs to be replaced to the tune of $30k.

[Scoundreller]

I can't wait for (nicer) incinerating toilets to cost less than $5k. Going to put a real damper in septic tank builds in areas that allow simple graywater systems.

[johnnyanmac]

To be fair, the current realistic alternative still has potholes. Maybe we should entertain a tightly limited allocation. Sure, let the people from outside of town donate to whatever (it's free money at best and no gain at worst), but local citizens can only allocate a portion to specific public goods.

[soperj]

> "[Your Town] has finest municipal art galleries in the state whilst streets are filled with pot-holes"

Maybe they have too many roads?

[naniwaduni]

Sounds like they don't have enough art galleries.