US Government: Stop Taxing, Start Billing

The Core Idea: User Pays for Government Services Directly

Instead of a general tax pool funding everything, you're suggesting a more direct system where individuals and corporations are billed for the specific government services they utilize and benefit from.  This is a shift from a "common pot" model to a "fee-for-service" model for the public sector.

Let's go through your examples and see how billing could work:

 * "Probably US government should bill corporations and people for services, rather than collect tax": This is the fundamental statement. The implication is that the current tax system is inefficient, opaque, or perhaps unfair in its distribution of costs and benefits. Billing aims for greater transparency and accountability – those who use the services pay for them.

 * "Collect the cost of welfare benefits collected by Wal Mart employees":  This is a powerful example.  The argument here is that companies like Walmart, by paying very low wages, are essentially relying on the government (taxpayers) to subsidize their labor costs through welfare programs (like Medicaid, SNAP).  Billing Walmart for the actual cost of welfare benefits used by their employees reframes welfare as a service that Walmart is indirectly consuming.

   * How billing would work:  The government would track welfare benefits usage (perhaps by employer if feasible, or using statistical models).  Then, companies with a significant proportion of employees using welfare would be billed proportionally to the cost incurred by the government for those benefits.

   * Benefit: This could incentivize companies to pay higher wages and benefits to reduce their reliance on government welfare, potentially reducing the need for such extensive welfare programs in the long run.  It directly links the cost of low wages to the companies profiting from them.

 * "Most expensive of services of federal government is used by rich and powerful corporations. NSF, NIH outputs, State Department battling for corporations overseas etc.":  You're highlighting that a significant chunk of federal spending benefits corporations, sometimes very directly.  NSF and NIH research, while broadly beneficial, often leads to commercially valuable patents and products for corporations. The State Department's efforts to create favorable international conditions for businesses operating overseas is also a direct service to those corporations.

   * How billing would work:

     * NSF/NIH Outputs: When research funded by NSF/NIH leads to patents or commercially viable technologies, the corporations that profit from these could be billed a percentage of the development cost or future revenue.  This is tricky but could involve royalty-like payments or a "success fee" when public research leads to private profit.

     * State Department/International Services:  Corporations benefiting from specific State Department initiatives (trade deals, diplomatic interventions supporting their overseas operations) could be billed for the costs of those specific services. This might be based on the scale of their international operations and the level of government support they receive.

   * Benefit:  This would make corporations directly accountable for the cost of government services they utilize to enhance their profitability. It could also lead to a re-evaluation of which services are truly in the public interest versus primarily benefiting private corporations.

 * "Charge for the time Congress Members and other officials take to meet lobbyists.": This is a particularly innovative idea. Lobbying is about corporations and special interests seeking to influence government policy.  You're suggesting that access to government officials is a valuable service and should be priced accordingly.

   * How billing would work:  Lobbyists (or the organizations they represent) would be billed an hourly (or per-meeting) rate for the time spent by Congress members and other high-level officials in meetings with them. This could be tiered based on the seniority of the official and the duration of the meeting.

   * Benefit: This could disincentivize excessive lobbying, particularly by powerful special interests. It would also generate revenue from those who are actively seeking to influence government, reflecting the cost of officials' time and the potential impact of lobbying on policy decisions. It might also increase transparency by requiring a clear record of who is meeting with officials and for how long, linked to billing.

 * "For every college graduate employed collect FAFSA fees.": This is a bit different. FAFSA is about student financial aid.  You seem to be suggesting a form of "graduate tax" or "benefit recapture" related to higher education.  Perhaps the idea is that the government invests in higher education (partially through FAFSA and other means), and employed college graduates are the direct beneficiaries of this investment through increased earning potential.

   * How billing would work:  Upon employment after graduation, college graduates could be billed a fee related to the cost of their higher education.  This might be a one-time fee or a small percentage of their income for a set period.  It could be linked to whether they received FAFSA assistance, but potentially extended to all graduates to reflect the broader public investment in higher education.

   * Benefit:  This could help recover some of the public cost of higher education.  It also frames higher education more explicitly as an investment in individual earning potential, where the beneficiary (the graduate) contributes to the cost.  However, this needs to be carefully considered to avoid discouraging people from pursuing higher education or creating undue financial burdens on new graduates.

 * "Do true costing, collect from ultimate beneficiaries.": This is the overarching principle that ties everything together.  It's about:

   * True Costing:  Accurately determining the actual cost of providing government services. This is a significant undertaking in itself, as current government accounting isn't always structured for this level of service-based costing.

   * Identifying Ultimate Beneficiaries:  Clearly defining who ultimately benefits from each government service. This can be complex as many services have multiple layers of beneficiaries and societal-level benefits.

   * Collecting from Beneficiaries:  Establishing mechanisms to bill and collect payment directly from those identified as the ultimate beneficiaries.

Potential Advantages of this System:

 * Increased Transparency and Accountability: It would be much clearer who is paying for what government services.  This could lead to greater public awareness and accountability for both government spending and the beneficiaries of that spending.

 * Direct Link between Cost and Benefit:  Those who use and benefit from government services would directly bear the cost, creating a more direct economic signal and potentially leading to more efficient use of resources.

 * Incentives for Efficiency:  Government agencies might be incentivized to be more efficient and cost-effective if they are directly billing for their services and need to justify those costs to payers.

 * Reduced Tax Burden (Potentially):  If a significant portion of government services are funded through direct billing, the need for broad-based taxes (like income tax) could potentially be reduced.

 * Fairer Distribution (in some interpretations):  Proponents could argue it's fairer because those who use the services pay, rather than everyone paying regardless of usage.

Significant Challenges and Considerations:

 * Defining "Services" and "Beneficiaries":  This is complex. Many government services are public goods with diffuse benefits (national defense, basic research, infrastructure). Defining specific beneficiaries and billing them directly might be impossible or distort the nature of these goods.

 * Administrative Complexity:  Implementing a billing system for a vast range of government services would be incredibly complex and require a massive overhaul of government accounting and administration.

 * Equity and Access:  Could this system make essential government services less accessible to those who cannot afford to pay directly, even if they are "beneficiaries" in a broader societal sense?  What about social safety nets and services for vulnerable populations?

 * Economic Impacts:  How would this shift affect corporate behavior, investment, and economic growth?  Would it create unintended consequences or loopholes? Could it discourage the use of beneficial government services if they come with direct costs?

 * Political Feasibility:  Such a radical shift in government funding would face immense political opposition from various interest groups and require a fundamental change in public perception about the role of government and taxation.

Conclusion:

Your idea of billing for government services instead of taxes is a provocative and thought-provoking concept. It highlights a valid point – that the current tax system can sometimes feel opaque and disconnected from the actual services the government provides.  Focusing on "true costing" and "ultimate beneficiaries" is a powerful framework for rethinking government finance.

However, implementing such a system in its entirety would be incredibly complex and likely face significant practical and philosophical challenges.  It might be more realistic to consider applying elements of this "billing for services" approach to specific areas where it makes the most sense, rather than a complete overhaul of the entire government funding model. For example, your ideas about welfare costs for low-wage employers and charging for lobbying time seem like potentially more feasible and targeted applications of this broader principle.