The following are some frequently asked questions regarding pragmatarianism (tax choice). I've selected the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be my default example.
Wouldn't important government organizations be underfunded?
This is logically impossible because "importance" can only be determined by how much people are willing to sacrifice for something. If taxpayers give a lot of their tax dollars to the EPA then, and only then, could we say that the environment is a priority for the American people.
How would it work?
At anytime throughout the year you could go directly to the EPA website and make a tax payment of any amount. The EPA would give you a receipt and you'd submit all your receipts to the IRS by April 15. Anybody who didn't want to shop for themselves could simply give their taxes to their personal shoppers (congress).
How specifically could taxpayers allocate their taxes?
The granularity would be determined by the EPA and its supporters. The greater the granularity, the less control the EPA would have, but the greater its knowledge of taxpayers' true preferences regarding environmental priorities.
Wouldn't taxpayers have to be better informed for this to work?
Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector and markets incorporate infinitely greater amounts of decentralized knowledge than command/planned economies do. This is because if environmentalists and the EPA wanted the environment to be a higher priority for taxpayers...then they would have to provide them with the relevant information.
How would the tax rate be determined?
The initial tax rate would be whatever the tax rate was at the time that pragmatarianism was implemented. Congress would still be in charge of the tax rate. If they set the tax rate too low...or too high...then taxpayers would let them know by giving them less positive feedback (tax dollars). So the optimal tax rate would be the rate at which congress maximized its revenue.
Wouldn't this give too much influence to the wealthy?
Wealth is a reflection of how much positive feedback (money) an individual has received from other people. If you use society's limited resources to benefit a lot of people...then a lot of people will give you positive feedback (money). Shopping is the process by which we, as a society, determine how much influence you should have. This fail safe device ensures that your influence over how society's limited resources are used does not exceed how much you benefit others. Therefore yes, the wealthy would have greater influence, but only because we, as a society, have indicated via our sacrifices that we benefit from them having greater influence.