Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou2a.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5g!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!hogpc!houxm!hou2a!murphy
From: murphy@hou2a.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.taxes
Subject: earmarking tax money
Message-ID: <163@hou2a.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Nov-83 13:22:05 EST
Article-I.D.: hou2a.163
Posted: Tue Nov  1 13:22:05 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Nov-83 06:10:11 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 22


       I would be willing to bet that if earmarking of tax money were
       allowed, that the number who participate would be larger than
       the number of people who generally vote; the earmarking would
       be done right on the tax form, and would take only a minute or
       two more time. Thus it would be more convenient than voting,
        and with the added advantage that the taxpayer knows generally
       where his money is going (theoretically). I suppose that it
       could be made mandatory that the taxpayer earmark some minimum
       fraction to go to administrative costs (i.e., politicians' and
       bureaucrats' salaries and operating costs). Anyone who did not
       earmark their tax could have it automatically allocated in
       the proportions given by overall averages of the allocation
       breakdowns specified by those who did earmark.

        I think that non-participation on the part of some taxpayers
       would no more jeopardize the scheme than non-voting by some
       citizens jeopardizes the general election process.

        I also think that the current powers-that-be have every reason
       to hope that such a scheme is not taken seriously.
                                              Rich Ganns
                                              hou2a!murphy