Taxation

[Molikroth]

Was reading another thread and remembered something I'd been talking to a friend about recently.

Basically, I feel that I should have a far greater degree of control on where my taxes go. That is to say, everyone should be taxed equally but should be able to decide what their own money is spent on. For example, I disapprove of the monarchy - an archaic institution and glorified tourist attraction - but the British adult puts up 62 pence (around $1.30) a year to keep them in caviar. Should I be allowed to opt out of this and have the 62 pence go to something I care about?

My reasoning is that while people on a very basic, general level get to vote for what they believe in - the candidate that most suits their belief system - finer control is required. That is to say, I might agree with the Labour party's stance on crime and toughening laws such as how long one can be held without charge, but disagree with its policy on enabling the unemployed (I AM unemployed, but very happy to take advantage of what I see as Labour's bleeding-heart idiocy). Therefore, part of why I remain unemployed is that I greatly dislike the idea of funding people like me.

Should I (for example) be able to refuse to fund the former (if I paid taxes), and instead have the government allocate the same money from my tax to its police force?

I'm aware of several things people will likely point out (too many people opting out will collapse a certain aspect of the government's spending) but will mention that if enough people opt out of something to force that to happen, isn't it saying something about the failings of how our "democracy" works?

 

[axia777]

While I agree with you on some level trying actually implement such a system would create social and economic chaos.

 

[Molikroth]

Yeah, that's true. Part of what I want to know; is that a bad thing? If in this theoretical new system, so many people disliked how (for example) the NHS (National Health Service) worked that they didn't receive enough funding to continue as a service, doesn't it amount to theft to force people to pay for it, as the system works now? Sure, it saves lives, but some people are against an NHS and would prefer an American-like system of insurance (just for background info, that's optional over here, depending on the level of comfort you'd like to be surrounded by while bedridden).

EDIT: I forgot to mention in the first post, that in my ideal implementation of this system, opting out of a certain aspect of tax would mean losing that service. Ergo, if you choose not to fund the NHS you need to make preparations for private treatment with your own money.

 

[Good morning blues]

If you do that, why have government at all? And who's going to set aside the money for implementing this system? And what if departments get higher budgets than they need?

It's a nice idea, but it's completely unworkable in reality.

 

[Molikroth]

Questions one and two - To oversee the spending of money, and the government.

If departments get higher budgets than they need, they can invest it in improving the service. For example, the department responsible for maintainence of the roads in my area (Glasgow) obviously needs a lot more money than it's getting just to keep up with repairing potholes. With more money, it could build new roads or freeways.

I don't see the idea as being unworkable. People who use and/or approve of certain things will pay for them. Auto owners will pay for roads (non auto-owners will also pay for this by proxy of public transport, which would raise its fees to compensate [incidentally, public transport is run by private industries over here]), people who want to use state healthcare will pay for the NHS and so on.

In this way I can see a lot of private industries arriving on the scene. Over here private healthcare isn't popular because most people don't feel like paying two sets of bills for healthcare (state tax and private health insurance to cover private hospital fees). If people didn't have to pay for the NHS, a service they disapprove of, the private healthcare industry would be far better off.

 

[742]

thats called a totally free market economy and its called "just spending your damn money" instead of taxes. totally unrelated, a horse with a horn on its head is called a unicorn.

and over here in the US without government health insurance, things are pretty hellish if you get sick and cant just sleep it off unless your extremely rich, because even having health insurance isnt nessicarily insurance that you will keep your health. its just insurance that you will be in the physical presence of a doctor, some companies wont even do that unless you walk into their office and scream at them for a few hours, then bleed all over em for a while just to make your point. some juggle you, some just give you a noob, some actually work, but they dont tend to be as profitable and so dont get as big.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Pure Free Market economy: Don't work, can't work, and the product of the English revolution/Civil War (read: Ayn Rand stole all her ideas from Oliver Cromwell and his friends. Read history and find it out), but still don't work.

It's as absurdly unworkable as communism. You get an enormous concentration of wealth, the inevitable crossover of that wealth into politics, absurd corruption at every level (the courts, local and national government etc), and meanwhile the peasants are becoming steadily more unhappy and will doubtless have any compuctions about taking a scythe/pickaxe/razorblade/molotov to you face.

In post 1660 England, the free market economy produced a series of corrupt politicians due to the system of 'rotten boroughs' where you literally bought you appointment, bought the judiciary and bought the workforce wholesale.

In 1890s America, you had that corruption taken to a magnificent scale. Factories with private armies, paying workers in their own currency (could only be redeemed at company stores) buying politicaians left, right and centre, murdering rivals and literally inciting wholescale rioting for the purpose of inciting a McCarthy-style terror of trade unions.

Want my sources?

The American centuary

And

The social consequences of the English revolution.

 

[Dele]

You get an enormous concentration of wealth, the inevitable crossover of that wealth into politics, absurd corruption at every level (the courts, local and national government etc), and meanwhile the peasants are becoming steadily more unhappy and will doubtless have any compuctions about taking a scythe/pickaxe/razorblade/molotov to you face.

How is this different from the current situation?

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Death and taxes, the only two things you can always count on.

 

[the_tramp]

62 pence (around $1.30)

Wah? The pound has become weaker in the past year or so... it is now about 1.6 dollars to the pound so it is closer to 99 cents.

 

[corporate_gamer]

First of all; If your excuse for being unemployed is that you don't want to support people like you, then well you're a complete arse. I pay taxes (not completely without grumble) because i know their are people out there who rely on that money to support them through their hard times. And because i know that safety net is there for me if i fall into trouble.

You dont contribute, Because you dont agree with a bleeding-heart idiocy without which you'd be on the street. But you feel justified in complaining about having to pay for the services and security that you had since birth (if you were born in the UK). Go out and get a job, instead of bitching about taxes you don't pay.

second of all; if you opt out of paying for things then you opt out of the benefits, you don't want to pay 62p a year (not that you do as you're a scrounging pikey)to suport the monarchy. Then you're not allowed to take any pride in your countries history at all. You don't want to pay for the NHS then you have to pay for every doctors appointment you have, which you wouldnt be able do as you're on the dole.

 

[ElephantGuts]

While I agree with you on some level trying actually implement such a system would create social and economic chaos.

This. Also, might I add that this is why dictatorships are a good idea. So there are no complex conversations and debates. Just one answer: no.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

I have thought of this myself. I mean I live in America so no Monarchy here but the money is still spent on stuff I don't support. However the problem with this is that people could then opt out of taxes all together and while I support a massive decrease in government scope and therefore allow for lower taxes I think if no one payed taxes nothing would get done.