Many of us have accepted we have to pay taxes and some are fine with it. Some feel too much is being paid. Some feel more should be taken.

My question to you is ... where do you want that money to go? How do you want it used? Answer that in a fashion that makes YOU content with how much you're paying.


Example, I'm fine with paying taxes provided the schools are top notch and the roads are good.

Something on those lines, but with more depth and thought out more thoroughly.

---

I am fine with paying taxes as long as what is paid is not wasted or abused. I think anything that private entities can provide should not be provided by government (example TSA). I think we should expect family members to take care of their family members instead of government. That is the way it use to be, and it worked fine.

---

My taxes should go to pay for people like Cheesey who can't work anymore because of medical reasons. They should not go for appropriations to finance the war machine so that wealthy stockholders in Haliburton make more blood money in the market.

---

Why not just donate your money directly to people who can't work? Is that to much effort. Need to have somebody else do for you?

---

Because I can't afford both, and I have to by law pay Federal Income Tax. I make donations to children's cancer research because of what my daughter went through.

---

If you didn't get the point of the thread. It is not about what is, it is about what you think should be. Do you think government knows what you want your money to go to better than you know what you want to give your money to.

Would you not prefer being able to give more to children's cancer research?

---

Sorry man, I don't live in a fantasy world where our country's economics is left up to human kindness, because I don't believe there is enough of it to make it work. This country badly needs infrastructure attention, not war machine attention anymore.

I understood the thread, and I commented on where I'd like to see my tax dollars go.

---

Two posts in and we're on redistribution of wealth again.

I agree with Dakota, though. I'd like to see my tax dollars help those who need it and don't give a break to those who don't. I'd like to see that whether I'd make €1,000.- a month or €1,000,000.-.

Maybe even more importantly, education. It all starts with education. And not education for those who happen to be good at sports or have wealthy parents, but proper education for every single person. Of course, you can leave some kind of financial dependence in as motivation to not screw around and get through college, but everyone should be able to afford to make something of his/her life.

This is such a loaded question, that one should write a verbosely response upon. ( But I will make it brief.)

1. Infrastructure - Roadways, Airways and other means of travel and communication. The economy and our way of life depends upon these avenues. On the communication aspect, the governments purpose there is to provide the resources (easement and installation pathways) for the companies to provide the service. Not to head the effort, just to provide the necessary support to allow the services to be installed. Basically, within the right of ways for the roadways or along the roadways in which the company contracts the land from a private citizen or entity.

2. Human Services - As Dakota notated, provide for those that truly cannot provide for themselves. Sure we could rely upon donations, but when push comes to shove, will those lines of donations cease. Having the government (which should be a neutral administrator, but realistically isn't) oversee the placement of funds, will ensure that they get the assistance they need. Education would fall within this sector as it provides a basic human service for the good of the country.

3. Regulatory arm of the financial markets - Again, should be a neutral party without biased interest in making sure that the dealings are made in a fair and ethical manner within the letter of the laws. Not influencing the markets, but in the same, making sure their is no undue influence favoring any party.

4. Judicial system - Another aspect that should be a neutral party providing the enforcement of common laws and disputes.

5. Defense - As much as we wish that it wasn't needed, realistically it is needed. However, oversight of spending should be more prevalent than it currently is. This is probably the hardest of the arms of the government to set spending upon and determining actual need. The needs probably change daily.

That is basically my expectations of the government in about a concise of a statement possible. A body that represents the well being of the people and nothing more; a non biased public servant.

---

Primary requirement: Only spend on activities for which the government actor has a comparative advantage (i.e. can do it better, at a lower opportunity cost, than any market actor could).

First example: Various "security" and "war" services: Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force combat personnel. Coast Guard search and rescue. The uniformed beat cop. Fire departments. Criminal court. Border control to prevent entry of criminals and infectious diseases.

Does not include such things such as REMF functions, police detectives, or anyone or any function provided bye the so-called "Department of Homeland Security". Does not include enforcers of "limit immigration" laws.

Second example: Licensing of renewable resources where without some mechanism to exclude users, the renewable resource would be used up. Fishing and hunting licenses, for example. Park rangers and the collection of fees for use of public parks, wilderness preserves, and the like.

Third example: (Some) roads, bridges, navigable waterways, coastlines, and the like. Not all, however -- if it is possible to prevent free-riders (e.g. by tolls), then there is no need for the government to be involved. City streets -- yes. Interstate tollways, no.

Secondary requirement: Only if the government and those who work for it are willing to accept civil liability for breach of contract and for intentional and negligent torts they commit. No sovereign immunity except in cases of bona fide emergency national defense in response to outside aggression by other states. And absolutely no immunity to be extended to elected officials, non-combat personnel, general officer in any service, or any civilian employee with a title of "Assistant Secretary of ..." or above, that is not also extendable to non-government individuals.

---