I bought stamps yesterday and as I left Safeway I had an epiphany which has long since passed. The following is an attempt to recapture it.
Stamps are a funny requirement. It is not a tax – but if you want to send anything through the mail it is just as guaranteed as death that you’ll have to pay for it.
And while the fees are small, they can add up. A book of 20 stamps is close to $10 now.What is also unique about purchasing 20 stamps is that they represent credits. I can use those stamps however I want. To mail bills, postcards, or store them away as prized possessions. There is a decision made for each stamp. There is transparency in how I use them privately (it is my choice) and publicly if I use them.
In a Sunday Digi-Dream I brainstormed about how taxes could be revolutionized online.
That thought process went like this.
- The government (local, state, federal) still determines how much money is needed for specific programs (roads, education, bailout)
- Individuals still figure out how much money they owe in taxes every year.
- The individual decides where they want their taxes paid. Which programs do they want to support?
The fun part is that the individual decides where the money should go. If they are passionate about education – they can donate all their money towards the education fund. If that fund is already filled with the money it needs, the individual must give the money towards another government need. This encourages people to file their taxes early (so you feel as though your money went towards something you believe) and might make the feeling of paying your taxes suck less.
Note: The shift in mindset. My taxes almost become a “donation.” While it wouldn’t really be a choice (taxes are guaranteed like death), it would be a choice about which government program my money goes to support. There is a sense of transparency, civic engagement and more.
Recently a bunch of newspaper execs met in a dark room to talk about micropayments.
I’m actually happy that something in the micropayment space might happen. I’d much rather a major company try it and fail then for the larger industry continue to debate about it back and forth for months. Somebody has to suck it up and try something.
But here is my advice: Add transparency and control for the user of where the money goes!!! People aren’t used to paying for the news. Charging somebody a small fee for access to an article they are going to read once is bound to disappoint somebody. Those people won’t become regular consumers.
In truth this notion of transparency and control over a donation is the real revolution of Spot.Us and why people continue to find it fascinating. Because we let the user decide and know exactly where their money is going.
It is the difference between donating to the Red Cross and donating on Kiva.org, the difference between giving to a sludge fund for educators or giving on DonorsChoose.org.
Giving to journalism isn’t new. NPR has been around for some time. But when you donate to NPR you are throwing money over a fence and hoping your money lands on good journalism. It is a donation of guilt or hope, but there is no sense of control or power on the part of the contributor.
Donating on Spot.Us is a choice that engages. It defacto brings the user into the editorial process and encourages them to be engaged throughout. They aren’t donating to a finished product – they are donating to a process that invites them in.
NPR could try something like Spot.Us tomorrow and blow me out of the water. So could any of these newspaper companies that are thinking about micropayments.
Hmm. Interesting idea about them taxes, but tough to do. We could make everything as transparent as possible, but it’s so much more fun to donate to a specific classroom than it is to fund the electric bill in the HR department that processes state payroll. Would we only fund the popular programs instead of the needed programs?
I like the idea of more transparency and control, and could see something potentially working with a split — one chunk of taxes to the general fund, another to the area of your choice. But even then, bookmarked funds add another layer of bureaucracy and inflexibility. I’ve seen schools with not enough copies of Hamlet build million-dollar swimming pools, and it’s because of those earmarked sources of cash. Is that just?
@Suzanne
“Would we only fund the popular programs instead of the needed programs?”
At first we would – yes. But the popular programs would have a certain limit of how much they need in funding. Once that limit is reached – they are taken off the board and folks have to fund another less fun project. And so on and so forth until everything is funded.
Of course – this assumes that taxes are a zero sum game – which they probably aren’t.
But perhaps in the future there will be computer that can calculate all this so that it does become a zero sum game…….. in a DIGI-DREAM!!!!
“Somebody has to suck it up and try something.”
I really, really, really like this idea. It’s a way to guarantee truly stupid government “projects” die from lack of funding. No 10,000 thousand dollar toiletseats with transparency like this.
Unfortunately, what will prevent it from coming to pass (save revolution) is wrestling power, and control from the few and putting it into the hands of the many.
Politicians, and other figures of power are in the place they are for a reason — and it isn’t because they do the best job. It’s because they’re willing to do what it takes to install themselves in those positions.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that.
But hey… If no one dreams than change can never truly happen. Keep it up, and keep it public. Scream the truth, and what SHOULD be as loud as you can.
It’s an interesting idea but wouldn’t some of those on the edges of society, the unheard cases become more isolated?
@jules
No. I don’t think that is the case.
I mean – maybe your point holds. But I feel like it is pretty broad and can be said about anything.
Chocolate is an interesting flavor – but wouldn’t some of those on the edges of society, the unheard cases, become more isolated?
I’m not sure I grok what you were trying to get across.