Non-snarky: where do you thinks the biggest wastes are?
Ineffective systems , management, and no oversight.
These sound like Fox News talking bites. My agency has plenty of oversight through the three other agencies that regulate us in addition to Congress. Now, you could certainly argue about the ability of those agencies to implement change, but there is plenty of oversight.
Our tax system is stupid, there are a lot of lifestyle choices that are subsidized or penalized in the tax code and shouldn't be. For example, the marriage penalty - we pay a couple thousand more being married than if we were single - the system favors single-income couples for no apparent reason (which is even weirder when you realize that single-income families don't have to pay for daycare and dual-income ones do).
Not having thought this all the way through (so it might actually be a horrible idea), I think it would be cool if you could designate where some portion of your tax dollars go, for example say you don't want to contribute to defense spending and you want a bunch of money to go towards NASA or education, etc.
I'm indifferent to the federal taxes, I guess, but when all the taxes we pay are combined, I will admit it stings a little thinking of the actual numbers. We are DINKS in a L/MCOL, we just don't have a lot of deductions or exemptions. We have federal, state income, state sales tax and high property taxes here. I wish it could be simplified a little.
Ineffective systems , management, and no oversight.
Riiiiiiight, because the private sector is so famously efficient. I'm sure there's no waste in the typical Fortune 500 company's T&E budget. Do feds even get continental breakfast at events now, or is that completely gone now thanks to Fox News?
Completely gone. Although, if you followed the rules it was always difficult to pay for food with appropriated funds (ie what congress gives). Now it's impossible. We actually had a meeting where we were told we couldn't provide coffee for attendees out of our own pocket, bc the agency couldn't pay (see above), and if I paid for it, that would violate the anti-deficiency act. So, you know, invite 100 people to a big event, but don't even offer coffee. WTF?! I was embarrassed. Totally embarrassed that I had people coming in from all over the country and couldn't even give them a cup of coffee I paid for.
And that's for visitors. The only reason we get subway sandwiches (literally) for our employee award day is bc the agency head pays for it. I kinda miss the days where our agency head was a rich administration donor. They bought peel and eat shrimp.
I think we actually need to get rid of the FICA maximum to help fund more services. It doesn't make sense to me why the tax does not apply to income above $118K or whatever the limit is this year.
Getting rid of the max wouldn't help if they still paid out proportionally. The payouts are capped, too. They'd have to change the tax so it's no longer "savings" and make it more like a tax with some people paying in more than they get out (which I'm fine with). Its just not as simple as saying we need to get rid of the max. If we keep the system the same but get rid of the max, then it wouldn't provide money for more services. It would just be that those who pay in more would get more out later.
Not having thought this all the way through (so it might actually be a horrible idea), I think it would be cool if you could designate where some portion of your tax dollars go, for example say you don't want to contribute to defense spending and you want a bunch of money to go towards NASA or education, etc.
That is a horrible idea. Important but less "sexy" things would be underfunded while others might wind up overfunded.
If there are specific causes you wish to support above and beyond what goes to them from tax dollars, that's what charities are for.
Not having thought this all the way through (so it might actually be a horrible idea), I think it would be cool if you could designate where some portion of your tax dollars go, for example say you don't want to contribute to defense spending and you want a bunch of money to go towards NASA or education, etc.
That is a horrible idea. Important but less "sexy" things would be underfunded while others might wind up overfunded.
If there are specific causes you wish to support above and beyond what goes to them from tax dollars, that's what charities are for.
Well, like I said I hadn't thought it through fully. As I understand it, much of the federal budget consists of mandatory spending determined by various laws, so most of our taxes we wouldn't have control over. But like that what you pay for site was showing, some of it is discretionary, so what if you had some control over it? I'm more thinking as a thought experiment than anything, but it would be really interesting to see what was important to people. To make it fair, make it a dollar amount, like $1000 per taxpayer so that the rich don't get extra votes. The point is that plenty of lower income people don't have extra money for charities.
Federal doesn't bother me. I think it is about right.
It's state that I have an issue with.....
X2. Our property taxes are insane in IL and I don't see much benefit to it. If also like a complete overhaul of the way money for education is allocated.
That is a horrible idea. Important but less "sexy" things would be underfunded while others might wind up overfunded.
If there are specific causes you wish to support above and beyond what goes to them from tax dollars, that's what charities are for.
Well, like I said I hadn't thought it through fully. As I understand it, much of the federal budget consists of mandatory spending determined by various laws, so most of our taxes we wouldn't have control over. But like that what you pay for site was showing, some of it is discretionary, so what if you had some control over it? I'm more thinking as a thought experiment than anything, but it would be really interesting to see what was important to people. To make it fair, make it a dollar amount, like $1000 per taxpayer so that the rich don't get extra votes. The point is that plenty of lower income people don't have extra money for charities.
I'll just put this here: I think our government worked a lot better when there were earmarks. If I ever run for office, that will be my platform. That and raise taxes. Alas, I will never be elected.
Well, like I said I hadn't thought it through fully. As I understand it, much of the federal budget consists of mandatory spending determined by various laws, so most of our taxes we wouldn't have control over. But like that what you pay for site was showing, some of it is discretionary, so what if you had some control over it? I'm more thinking as a thought experiment than anything, but it would be really interesting to see what was important to people. To make it fair, make it a dollar amount, like $1000 per taxpayer so that the rich don't get extra votes. The point is that plenty of lower income people don't have extra money for charities.
This is why you vote for representatives.
Yeah, but I've lost faith in our system for electing representatives, big money has too much control and I'm not sure I see that ever changing.