[ojmneguh] Line-item tax evasion and jury nullification

Suppose, after calculating the tax you owe, the government provides a breakdown of where your tax dollars go.  After which point, you can strike out items you don't wish to pay, and pay the rest.

It is illegal to strike out any items.  The government prosecutes you for tax evasion, but not tax evasion in general, but tax evasion for specifically each item you refused to pay.  You are granted a jury trial, at which point the government needs to convince a jury to unanimously agree that it is indeed a crime not to pay taxes for that line item.  Such a trial may be difficult (with the threat of jury nullification) if the line item is very unpopular.  The purpose of this mechanism is to avoid sleazy political maneuvers which result in higher taxes: the purpose is better government.

If a criminal law passes by a slim 51% majority, it will never survive trials by jury; it's certain that a member of the 49% will hang any jury.  This is checks and balances between the branches of government in action.  Therefore, why should a budget which passes by 51% have force of law not able to be checked by the judicial branch?

However, the result to society, if implemented like this, will likely be complete anarchy, perhaps putting most of the populace on trial.  How can we prevent anarchy?

The government can present a different breakdown of taxes per person, reflecting the items they are most likely to agree to pay.  How can the government do this?  Should each tax payer decide on breakdown? For each tax evasion, you are offered a settlement to pay more on items you care about, to make up for a shortfall of others refusing to pay. So long as you end up paying the total you owe, the government drops charges. Some devilish details remain.

We need to avoid money laundering though debt, where an unpopular item is first paid for not by taxes, but by debt spending, then later taxes are raised to pay down the debt.