"Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782"
Go for it.
I am not saying go after them but it is important for everyone to contribute as a citizen and as someone who uses infrastructure built and maintained on the tax payers dollar.
It's about paying in, even if it's a small percentage of your check.
The other thing that kills me is that people act like if Bill Gates would just pay an extra $100 in taxes, there would be 10 fewer starving babies. Or something.
In reality, Gates paying $100 more means the gov't would blow about $95 more on something completely stupid. Paying more taxes is like giving in to your heroin addict son's request for more money; he's already blowing through your money on stupid isht, why would you give him MORE? Does anyone really, truly believe the federal government is a good steward of their money, or do they just want rich people to pay more out of spite and envy?
There's a pretty big fallacy in the... "we need to shrink government" argument. Operating budgets of entire departments can be paid for in a few days of military deployment. I recently read an article supporting the expansion of free education. You could send every college bound high school student to college for ~50 billion. That's basically our military presence in the Middle East for about a week.
I'm not saying we need a reduction in forces, just that keeping them deployed is incredibly expensive. In my mind it's difficult to argue for a reduction in services provided by the government when most of what's being argued is a proverbial drop in the bucket. Until we unfrack ourselves regarding multiple front endless conflicts and spiraling health care costs, everything else is kind of moot.
As for a progressive tax system, I'm with Egilbe. The relative cost of living is so much higher as you approach the poverty line and practically insignificant as you approach Mitt Romney. As a moderately well paid, actually middle class individual who's finally made it past living month to month, I can understand why people who make less than me should pay a lower effective tax rate. I find it a little harder to understand why people who make 20x what I make sometimes also pay a lower effective rate.
Now, was Al Gore exrtemely stingy with his money (ie: gave almost none to charity) but still called for higher taxes or not?
Then, what is wrong with directing your wealth to the programs you want to help out others as opposed to giving it to the government to split many different ways with so much of it going to waste?