Since mandatory taxes require an immoral initiation of force against a peaceful, innocent person, I would think more Objectivists would be in favor of voluntary funding. If the ends do not justify the means, if might does not make right, and if the individual does in fact have unalienable rights to person and property, mandatory taxes should not be the way government is funded.

Not near enough revenue from the sources listed. Voluntary funding is highly unlikely to be successful, given human nature. Any funding alternatives seem to sidestep the first necessary act, which is the abolition of the 16th amendment that authorizes the government to tax income.

The Federal government already imposes fees on many aspects of the services we use, especially communications. Expanding those significantly complicates things and brings up questions of regressive economic impact. Likewise, the various forms of proposed consumption tax (Fair Tax, e.g.) impose impact on states and municipalities that rely on sales taxes.

What is achievable to alter the way we fund government? We can start by altering and simplifying the tax codes. Reduce income tax to a flat tax, possibly in stages, coupled with a reduction in allowable deductions. No form of consumption tax, like a VAT, can be allowed. Tax unimproved and unused properties. Expand immigrant agricultural worker programs, charging a fee for a worker visa, paid either by the worker or the employer. Privatize national parks. Privatize the interstate highway system. Sell unused federal properties. Usage fees for government services (this would be one way to see which agencies should be eliminated). I'm sure there are others, but it isn't simple if the goal is to eliminate the burden of income tax as much as possible.

I'd love to try it and see if it worked. My caution is that we saw something very similar under the Articles of Confederation. The long and the short of it was that without the power to directly tax and enforce collection of taxes, the Federal government couldn't function - and they were trying to win the War of Independence!

"A small annual fee might be required for someone to maintain citizenship. Non-citizens would still be protected by the government in its jurisdiction, but would not be able to vote for government officials, and wouldn’t receive US government protection when traveling internationally."
What? Government allowing people to be free?
Government protection while traveling internationally? Maybe for diplomats and statist politicians, but for the people? There isn't a penny spent to protect individuals rights , property, or personal wellbeing while traveling overseas.
I'd trade my utterly worthless voting priviledge for the rights protected by the consttution and the bill of rights in a second, but the federal government will never offer that exchange. It would restrict their power over the millions of people who accept their personal responsibility.

I am intrigued by voluntary funding of gov't. I agree with j_IR that it could not work if gov't remains a huge chunk of GDP. That's the core problem, or maybe more fundamentally the problem is people can vote themselves gov't money.

Also, when we say gov't must fund things like military and police, it doesn't have to be in its current form. We don't need an alphabet soup of AFT, DEA, FBI, and so on. Much defense could be handled by a well-regulated militia that becomes a full-time army only when the country is being invaded. We would still need a standing military for things like missile defense. The savings would be huge, though, if we only had gov't filling in where needed.

These ideas could work if, and only if, the government’s powers were limited to a military force, a police force, and a system of courts. I doubt that In today’s America, there is the will “…to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness….”. The enemies of the mind of Man have largely succeeded in rendering millions of young people incapable of using their natural ability to think. A rebirth of Reason is called for but hurling Logic at Emotions has the same effect as does spitting upwind.

Interesting discussion. Number 5 is one of the reforms that settled the novelette The Secret of the League a precursor to Atlas Shrugged from 100 years ago.

A small annual fee might be required for someone to maintain citizenship. Non-citizens would still be protected by the government in its jurisdiction, but would not be able to vote for government officials, and wouldn’t receive US government protection when traveling internationally.

In The Secret of the League voting was by shares in the government, and shares started at 500 pounds and you could buy as many as you want.

That also raises the question of "one person one vote." Why? Why not let some people have more than one vote. Corporations run that way with those most invested having the most say -- and with proxies being allowed, as well. Selling votes in a secondary market could be acceptable.