voluntary taxes

The_White_Horse

perhaps taxes for education, nhs, roads etc, defence, police and courts should be mandatory and the rest voluntary?

this way the government would get what the public thinks is fair. if they get nothing, then so be it, the people have decreed it.

the govt should then just spend what they get.

no problems.

chucknorris

The_White_Horse wrote: »

perhaps taxes for education, nhs, roads etc, defence, police and courts should be mandatory and the rest voluntary?

this way the government would get what the public thinks is fair. if they get nothing, then so be it, the people have decreed it.

the govt should then just spend what they get.

no problems.

Don't get me wrong I am no lefty when it comes to handing out benefits, but there has to be a better system than just charity.

Fella

I think the Government should implement a simple way for people to opt-out of benefits they don't need. Just one example would be winter fuel allowance which is not required (or wanted) by all pensioners.

Probably not many would opt-out but it should be simple to implement the facility & everything gained is money in the bank so why not.

Personally I've not claimed on various occasions in the past when I could have but I have my own way of looking at these things. The concept of claiming anything it's theoretically possible to claim just because it is I find repugnant & just plain wrong.

dtsazza

chucknorris wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I am no lefty when it comes to handing out benefits, but there has to be a better system than just charity.

If someone isn't able to independently earn enough to support themselves, then whatever do they receive is a form of charity.

There are obviously differences between state-mandated programs, voluntary ad-hoc donations and other things in between, but I don't think the organisational or compulsion aspect changes its nature.

pqrdef

dtsazza wrote: »

If someone isn't able to independently earn enough to support themselves, then whatever do they receive is a form of charity.

No, it's a recognition of our human rights. We all run the same risks. Any of us could bust a blood-vessel tomorrow.

Some of us may be old enough to have accumulated some wealth before calamity strikes. Others may not have had time.

And some will have inherited wealth, irrespective of their personal talents and merits, or lack of them.

We have this notion that parents should be able to benefit their children, and we also have this notion that those not lucky enough to choose the right parents shouldn't be disadvantaged. Hmm.

oldvicar

What lies behind this is surely the chancellor's intention to introduce personal statements showing where our taxes are spent.

Anybody that interested can find out what govt spending in most areas is and tell where their taxes are spent. But the chancellor's goal isn't fairness and openness about taxes. It's to whip up feeling to support e.g. reducing "scrounger's" benefits, or cutting back on "gold standard" public sector pensions, or proving that overseas aid is just a drop in the ocean and easily affordable, or whatever the politcal goal may be.

The trouble with the proposal is that it risks making it seem that taxes are hypothecated. With a personal statement showing where taxes are spent, people might take a view that they don't mind paying most of their taxes, but they don't like e.g. the 50p spent on the Queen, or £100 spent on nuclear weapons, etc. and will "opt out". It could build into a serious problem for tax collectors and backfire rather splendidly.

chucknorris

dtsazza wrote: »

If someone isn't able to independently earn enough to support themselves, then whatever do they receive is a form of charity.

There are obviously differences between state-mandated programs, voluntary ad-hoc donations and other things in between, but I don't think the organisational or compulsion aspect changes its nature.

But the difference is that I decide how much I donate to charity (not the gov), you can't have a system where tax payers decide how much they pay. TBH I thought that would have been obvious to everyone. How would you expect it to work?

daveyjp

Come on then White Horse - list the voluntary taxes you would pay.

geordie28

oldvicar wrote: »

What lies behind this is surely the chancellor's intention to introduce personal statements showing where our taxes are spent.

Anybody that interested can find out what govt spending in most areas is and tell where their taxes are spent. But the chancellor's goal isn't fairness and openness about taxes. It's to whip up feeling to support e.g. reducing "scrounger's" benefits, or cutting back on "gold standard" public sector pensions, or proving that overseas aid is just a drop in the ocean and easily affordable, or whatever the politcal goal may be.

The trouble with the proposal is that it risks making it seem that taxes are hypothecated. With a personal statement showing where taxes are spent, people might take a view that they don't mind paying most of their taxes, but they don't like e.g. the 50p spent on the Queen, or £100 spent on nuclear weapons, etc. and will "opt out". It could build into a serious problem for tax collectors and backfire rather splendidly.

I agree. i think this government has on a few occasions tried to play 95% of the population against each other. eg public vs private sector, those on benefits v those who work, plus the growing resentment towards the baby boomers. they keep us busy blaming each other and pointing the finger when the mega rich continue to reap the rewards.

someone please tell me if im wrong about the mega rich. i dont mind being educated

oldvicar

TBH, I do think you are completely wrong about the mega rich. Mega rich are not the problem: Philanthropy is thriving.

I don't mind being educated either. But I do think it a great shame that today's young adults have to take loans to pay for 'Uni'.

A._Badger

oldvicar wrote: »

The trouble with the proposal is that it risks making it seem that taxes are hypothecated. With a personal statement showing where taxes are spent, people might take a view that they don't mind paying most of their taxes, but they don't like e.g. the 50p spent on the Queen, or £100 spent on nuclear weapons, etc. and will "opt out". It could build into a serious problem for tax collectors and backfire rather splendidly.

I'm not sure I see it as a 'backfire' at all. The political classes get away with an awful lot by relying on the obfuscatory nature of the system and general apathy of the taxpayer.

It's time they were called to account.

If people are woken up to the reality of why their pockets are dipped so deeply, I would see that as 'a Good Thing'.