What's the bright idea?

catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
I've been thinking about the fiscal situation our country is in,
as many have I'm sure.

I've come up with a partial plan idea, I'd like to throw out there, and get your input on...

I know many people that are fairly charitable, but don't trust the
government to appropriate properly. (among other things)

So, if there were an easy way for a person to contribute funds to be
designated for a 'spacific' purpose, like say roads, other infrasturcture,
science projects, environment projects...,
and there was a law made that those funds could only be used for that purpose,
I think people might be inclined to contribute what they want to those projects, or areas.

Of coarse legislation would have to be very stric and spacific, so people would trust in it.

opinions...ideas?
 
It's called 'earmarking' and much frowned upon unfortunately. A fairly misunderstood concept only partially related to 'pork-barrel spending'
which is the real crime.

Next time that you get to go to a council meeting, ask for a percentage of your collected taxes to be earmarked for infrastructure. Once you get past the glares, you'll see what I mean about the misunderstanding.
 
I'm not talking about regular tax moneys.
I'm against earmarking too.

I'm talking about setting up a separate fund for other projects,
and the money "the person decides they want to contribute" goes
to the funds which "the person giving" specifies.

If the project happens to be something like someone would earmark,
that's fine, because the giver decides if they want to give or not.
It's not just taken from them like taxes.
 
I think the secondary purpose it would serve also is,
it would show where the concern is from people in different places.

I know several people that would give to see something real put up like
a fence along the border.
That's something that could be done fast in private hands, but it HAS to be
done through the government.
 
Social Security was designed to be its own fund. Future politicians came along & changed the rules. That's why that doesn't work.

Infrastructure is the job of the government. Roads, bridges, tunnels. They don't need special angels to come along & finance them. My $3.199/gallon gas tax does that.

The federal government is supposed to PROMOTE useful sciences, not provide for them.

Get government out of the way of the entreprenuer, the private & public corporations. End the hoops & redtape that stifle individual achievement. Edison didn't need a federal grant. Neither does General Electric.
 
so, that's 1, maybe 2 for
"No. I don't like the idea. It's unworkable."

next?

maybe I shoulda done a poll.
 
catocom said:
I'm not talking about regular tax moneys.
I'm against earmarking too.

I'm talking about setting up a separate fund for other projects,
and the money "the person decides they want to contribute" goes
to the funds which "the person giving" specifies.

If the project happens to be something like someone would earmark,
that's fine, because the giver decides if they want to give or not.
It's not just taken from them like taxes.
Click to expand...
So... money you can donate to above and beyond tax money? Doesn't strike me as anything that most people would go for. Easier to make noise, get some like-minded people together and TELL the local/state/federal gvt what needs to be fixed.
 
most? maybe, maybe not.
I KNOW people won't, if they don't feel the trust. That's the key.

or
a lobby of some kind might be created for the ideas.
If they aren't going to get rid of lobbying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top