Self-Directed Taxes

Our tax payments are spent by politicians on what they think is best for us. We may elect them and hear the promises, but in practice dollars get routed as they see fit — sometimes wisely, sometimes not. Wouldn’t it be better if taxpayers could direct where their tax dollars go?

Key Takeaways

• Taxpayers allocate dollars into predefined spending “buckets” (e.g., infrastructure, defense, healthcare).
• Underfunded buckets signal low public support; overfunded buckets can be rebalanced with consent.
• A simple, transparent app increases participation and makes spending auditable.
• Politicians still lead and educate, but citizens choose priorities.
• Start with software + a pilot run in parallel to today’s system.

The Concept

Each person gets a government account (local, state, or federal). This is your digital identity with the government (paper options can exist, too). When it’s time to pay taxes, you allocate your payment across spending buckets — for instance: infrastructure, defense, social security, healthcare, and debt interest. If you don’t care how funds are spent, choose a “miscellaneous” bucket that government can allocate at its discretion.

Handling Funding Imbalances

What if one bucket fills quickly and others don’t? If some buckets remain underfunded, it reveals that citizens did not prioritize those programs. That’s the feature — citizens fund only what they deem necessary. Programs that fail to receive sufficient funding get scaled back or terminated. On the flip side, if defense or infrastructure gets “too much” funding, politicians can communicate that the target is met and ask contributors for permission to reallocate a portion elsewhere.

Communication and Accountability

Communication with constituents is a good thing. Participation depends on simplicity, transparency, and accountability. Today’s systems are complex, partially opaque, and light on accountability. A shared, credible, transparent ledger would let everyone see where money went by bucket. Instead of arguing over biased interpretations, citizens could verify allocations directly and hold leaders accountable when spending diverges from stated priorities.

Implementation Plan

1. Build software for digital identity and a simple app to allocate taxes and view bucket balances/expenditures.
2. Add accounting that collects funds into buckets and publishes itemized, auditable spend data.
3. Pilot in parallel with the current system for one or more fiscal years to measure participation, bucket creation/termination, and software adequacy.
4. If successful, start locally and partner with politicians. Pitch the benefits: voter agency, transparency, and clearer mandate signals.

Risks and Objections

• Critical services risk underfunding: politicians must educate and advocate; minimum guarantees may be required.
• Popularity contests: set guardrails (caps, floors, and staged reallocation with consent).
• Digital divide: maintain paper or assisted options; keep UX simple.
• Gaming and fraud: require identity verification and public audit trails.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will essential programs be starved?

They could be without safeguards. That’s why education, clear targets, and minimal floor funding or backstops may be necessary, especially during pilots.

Do politicians still matter in this model?

Yes. They set strategy, make the case for programs, and execute. Citizens’ allocations provide a clearer mandate signal and accountability layer.

What if a bucket is overfunded?

Notify contributors that targets are met and request permission to reallocate the excess. Publish reallocation rules up front.

What if I don’t want to choose?

Select the “miscellaneous” bucket and allow elected officials to allocate on your behalf.