Comments on: Could the Internet Revolutionize Taxes? http://blog.digidave.org/2008/08/could-the-internet-revolutionize-taxes Journalism is a Process, Not a Product Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:45:43 +0000 hourly 1 By: exabeaccusy http://blog.digidave.org/2008/08/could-the-internet-revolutionize-taxes/comment-page-1#comment-24282 exabeaccusy Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:02:20 +0000 http://www.digidave.org/2008/08/could-the-internet-revolutionize-taxes.html#comment-24282 It sounds like you're creating problems yourself by trying to solve this issue instead of looking at why their is a problem in the first place It sounds like you’re creating problems yourself by trying to solve this issue instead of looking at why their is a problem in the first place

]]> By: The Postal Theory of News « DigiDave - Journalism is a Process, Not a Product http://blog.digidave.org/2008/08/could-the-internet-revolutionize-taxes/comment-page-1#comment-9857 The Postal Theory of News « DigiDave - Journalism is a Process, Not a Product Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:21:16 +0000 http://www.digidave.org/2008/08/could-the-internet-revolutionize-taxes.html#comment-9857 [...] In a Sunday Digi-Dream I brainstormed about how taxes could be revolutionized online. [...] [...] In a Sunday Digi-Dream I brainstormed about how taxes could be revolutionized online. [...]

]]> By: William Hudson http://blog.digidave.org/2008/08/could-the-internet-revolutionize-taxes/comment-page-1#comment-231 William Hudson Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:29:00 +0000 http://www.digidave.org/2008/08/could-the-internet-revolutionize-taxes.html#comment-231 <p>Yeah, I love this thought, how about taking it to this step:</p> <p>What if citizens could continue giving to certain government programs after the required amount had already maxed out.</p> <p>THEN, although the extra amounts would still go to a DIFFERENT program (you could rank your preferences), the government would actually increase the budgets for programs that raised surplus funds, by some percentage of the surplus funds raised.</p> <p>SO, for example:</p> <p>1. Roads need $100 Billion for 2009.</p> <p>2. People have to pay their taxes, and in doing so, prefer $250 Billion towards roads. </p> <p>3. Only $100 Billion goes to roads in 2009, but in 2010 that budget increases by say %10 of $150 Billion, making the 2010 roads budget $115 Billion.</p> <p>This way, we'd see a steady increase in programs that people care about. </p> <p>And programs that people DON'T preference well...could congress be required to reevaluate those budgets?</p> Yeah, I love this thought, how about taking it to this step:

What if citizens could continue giving to certain government programs after the required amount had already maxed out.

THEN, although the extra amounts would still go to a DIFFERENT program (you could rank your preferences), the government would actually increase the budgets for programs that raised surplus funds, by some percentage of the surplus funds raised.

SO, for example:

1. Roads need $100 Billion for 2009.

2. People have to pay their taxes, and in doing so, prefer $250 Billion towards roads.

3. Only $100 Billion goes to roads in 2009, but in 2010 that budget increases by say %10 of $150 Billion, making the 2010 roads budget $115 Billion.

This way, we’d see a steady increase in programs that people care about.

And programs that people DON’T preference well…could congress be required to reevaluate those budgets?

]]>