Are the Tories going to tear themselves apart?

Mistermeaner

If we are generally a left wing society and people want a wwelfare state then why is it compulsory to pay into it via taxes. How about low taxation by law and then voluntary contributions by those with more left wing leanings to pay extra to fund the welfare they believe in?

Or Moby, Jason and MWPT why don't you each send me £100 a month by way of a tax rebate so I can pay less tax (what I want) and you can pay more (what you want) in order to fund the welfare you believe in

Jason74

Mistermeaner wrote: »

If we are generally a left wing society and people want a wwelfare state then why is it compulsory to pay into it via taxes. How about low taxation by law and then voluntary contributions by those with more left wing leanings to pay extra to fund the welfare they believe in?

Or Moby, Jason and MWPT why don't you each send me £100 a month by way of a tax rebate so I can pay less tax (what I want) and you can pay more (what you want) in order to fund the welfare you believe in

What you're proposing here doesn't really work at all. The only way for a Government system to work is by a set of rules that are agreed and that apply by all. You can't have a "voluntary" tax system any more than you can have a voluntary decision as to what side of the road to drive on. If you did, you would have many people paying next to nothing, simply because they could, while others opted out of various social obligations because they felt like it. What happens if (for example) large numbers of people decide that they don't want to pay for the police, or schools (to name but two). Social security is not a special case that is somehow more suited to an individual opt out than other areas of Government spending.

This is why we have the system we do. A set of alternatives are proposed, and the one with the most support is given the power to make laws which then (in theory at least) apply to all. Where things have clearly not been working, the British public has shown itself willing to vote for someone proposing a very different way of doing things, as was the case in 1945 and (in the other direction) 1979. But generally, the electorate tends to choose relatively centre ground politicians, with a consensus around the need for the better off to pay a higher proportion of income to support those who cannot support themselves.

If you want something different, you can't just opt out of what has been collectively agreed through the political process, you need to support someone putting forward an alternative, and if that alternative gathers enough support, it becomes law. And as for your final point about paying more for a system I believe in, I already do that in the form of supporting a number of organisations who I believe do valuable work supporting people needing help. It's just that giving money to someone earning a decent salary already who just doesn't like paying tax isn't a cause I would even think about supporting. Sorry .

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Mistermeaner wrote: »

If we are generally a left wing society and people want a wwelfare state then why is it compulsory to pay into it via taxes. How about low taxation by law and then voluntary contributions by those with more left wing leanings to pay extra to fund the welfare they believe in?

Or Moby, Jason and MWPT why don't you each send me £100 a month by way of a tax rebate so I can pay less tax (what I want) and you can pay more (what you want) in order to fund the welfare you believe in

I'm alright Jack.

wotsthat

Mistermeaner wrote: »

If we are generally a left wing society and people want a wwelfare state then why is it compulsory to pay into it via taxes. How about low taxation by law and then voluntary contributions by those with more left wing leanings to pay extra to fund the welfare they believe in?

Or Moby, Jason and MWPT why don't you each send me £100 a month by way of a tax rebate so I can pay less tax (what I want) and you can pay more (what you want) in order to fund the welfare you believe in

Hand wringers don't want to pay more for their pet projects - they want YOU to pay more.

A voluntary tax system couldn't possibly work. I'd halve my tax and reckon most people would choose to pay nothing. The current system of deciding what to spend money on and then forcing people to pay for it isn't great either - it's turned us into a bloated nation of rent seekers.

Personally I think people spending other people's money have become too detached from the source. Just a small example but my local council decided to spend £250 on a football kit for a kids team - they wouldn't spend their own money on such a frippery - mine; no problem.

westernpromise

wotsthat wrote: »

Personally I think people spending other people's money have become too detached from the source. Just a small example but my local council decided to spend £250 on a football kit for a kids team - they wouldn't spend their own money on such a frippery - mine; no problem.

Some eighteenth-century economist, perhaps even Adam Smith, makes exactly your point as follows.

1. If you’re buying something for yourself and paying with your own money, you care about the quality, and you care how much it costs.
2. If you’re buying something for yourself and paying with someone else’s money, you care about the quality, but you don’t care how much it costs.
3. If you’re buying something for someone else and paying with your own money, you don’t care about the quality, but you do care how much it costs.
4. If you’re buying something for someone else and paying with someone else’s money, you care about neither the quality nor the cost.

You’ve just given a nice example of 4, which is the public sector procurement process.

HornetSaver

westernpromise wrote: »

You’ve just given a nice example of 4, which is the public sector procurement process.

Yes and no.

Yes, the public sector procurement process operates more or less as you say.

No, this doesn't sound like an example of it, more likely a councillor using part of their discretionary spending allowance on this. Which sounds ridiculous, until you realise how few votes a local councillor needs to take a council seat. If a councillor hoping to retain their seat can use money that doesn't count towards their campaign to literally buy votes, why on earth would they spend it on something more productive but for which they would get less personal credit?

HornetSaver

Though that wasn't why I came back to this thread.

My thoughts at the moment are that the Tories must be thanking their lucky stars that they killed off the Lib Dems when they did and to the extent that they did, purely because of the extent of anti-EU sentiment. If the Europhiles had a viable place to threaten to go to, I think a lot of them would be at that stage right now.

And they must equally be thanking their lucky stars that the UKIP hierarchy has remained intact, because if it wasn't for Farage remaining in charge I can well imagine Tory defections with the hope of in effect taking over that party, but Tory loathing of him despite his main issue seems to be keeping that threat in check.

padington

Did everyone read about the Mathew Paris's knifing of Boris Johnson's hollow 'vacuity' ?

westernpromise

padington wrote: »

Did everyone read about the Mathew Paris's knifing of Boris Johnson's hollow 'vacuity' ?

Paywall.

But my reading of the Boris situation is that 2015 was a disaster for him. He expected Cameron to lose the GE which would mean Cameron would resign and he could offer himself as leader, being a residually popular and electable Tory.

This has flopped so he has to find a basis on which to claim to represent a significant electoral constituency. Brexit is about all there is, so he's pro-Bexit because he has to be, not because he wants to be.

He strikes me as a Michael Heseltine figure somewhat.