[Closed] Democratise the tax system?

From my memory when folk were actually surveyed on this defense spending would be dramatically reduced and NHS increased

Say at the end of every year you get a form where you can specify I want to pay more to such and such as a percentage.

Do we get to say what we would like to pay less to as well?

People are generally selfish and short sighted. Government spending needs to be neither....

19 pages, you supply the biscuits.

Nin. Well the exact system is up for discussion. something like 50% goes where the government wants. 50% goes where you want. Surpluses revert back to government control.

So you've got control of 50% of your tax to send anywhere you like.

People are generally selfish and short sighted. Government spending needs to be neither....

This. If tax was voluntary people wouldn't pay.

OP you can democratise "tax" as the Americans do and make charitable donations 100% tax deductible. That's why their Universities are so well funded. People donate to their old colleges so that they can provide scolarships.

But what do you see as the good and bad to such a system?

The bad:

It gives direct democracy direct control of the purse strings

because

People are generally selfish[b], ill-informed[/b] and short sighted. Government spending needs to be neither....

you supply the biscuits.

I demand biscuits as an inalienable oooman right! The government should provide biscuits for all.

and make charitable donations 100% tax deductible.

They already are.

footflaps - Member
People are generally selfish and short sighted. Government spending needs to be neither..

True people are selfish, but when funding dries up for something like want they'll soon think about it a bit more.

Surpluses revert back to government control.

is where the idea falls before it starts

but perhaps like in Scotland where I am told that it is too expensive to administer a simple rise in taxes*, this idea might be a bit expensive to run!!

*unreliable source mind

Thm, reign it back fella no need to turn this into yet another of your personal attacks on Scotland! 😆

How's about I just keep 50% of it instead?

I'm all for it, but If we did democratise the tax system then it's easy for popular stuff like the NHS, but how do you think things like prisons and international aid would fare? Public sector pensions policy should be fun...

teamhurtmore - Member
Surpluses revert back to government control.
is where the idea falls before it starts

What wouldn't you protect?

There is no way 50% of the tax bill is flexible year on year.

Sorry it would be a distaster

What wouldn't you protect?

The £350 million a week we send to the EU!

CFH - sorry - no biscuits left
[img] [/img]

There's a difference between democracy and a popularity contest.

[quote="seosamh77"]

Thm, reign it back fella no need to turn this into yet another of your personal attacks on Scotland!

*s****s* He does have an odd obsession doesn't he.

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much

Maybe 50% is too much. However, if you could choose exactly where the final 5-10% of your taxation went it could be taken by government as a very accurate social indicator of how their own financial policy should be developed.

This is already happening. Direct taxation has been dropping, and Indirect taxation, VAT as an example, on something you decide whether to purchase, or not.

The £350 million a week we send to the EU!

Can't protect something that only exists in your mind.

welshfarmer - Member
Maybe 50% is too much. However, if you could choose exactly where the final 5-10% of your taxation went it could be [b]taken by government as a very accurate social indicator of how their own financial policy should be developed[/b].

This is fair comment, and the latter part in bold is really where I guess the point of this thought lies. With the likes of brexit, it was extremely obvious that it's very easy for people to try to use public opinion to their own ends, but this just seems to be what the percieve to be public opinion. They just take bits of a manifesto, and promote their own agendas, there's no real scientific way to measure what people actually wanted at the end up.

Now, I'm for democracy, but, I just think that it's too easily manipulated and if we are going to say we are democratic, we should at least take people views on a range of subjects, democratizing the tax system is just one idea of expanding democracy away from manipulative proxies..(not something you'll every completely eliminate, I'll concede.)

When asked most folk are willing to pay more tax to have a better health service. However the tory government prefer taxcuts for their friends

So you've got control of 50% of your tax to send anywhere you like.

No point as the govt will just spend the remaining 50% on what you don't want, possibly even causing more resentment.

Budgets might also change rapidly - imagine a long term project like, say, HS2. Might get funding for the first couple of years then the doubts set in and the populations yanks the chain and it collapses with no funding. If the govt 50% is just funding the long term stuff then it'd be even worse depending on 'popular' votes for certain budgets.

The issue would be where you get a far-right leaning national newspaper (hypothetically speaking), which has a long standing campaign to end foreign aid because we should spend it on our elderly for example. But the hypothetical fans of far-right goose-stepping and black shirts manage to avoid paying a wedge of tax in the UK.

But the public still falls for the argument everytime, because as has already been pointed out, we're selfish and not in full possession of facts.

As for me, the NHS, social services etc would get loads, but I wouldn't want to spend a penny on the Queen, rebuilding the houses of parliament or Trident Mk 2.

When asked most folk are willing to pay more tax to have a better health service.

When asked, most folk [I]say[/I] they are willing to pay more tax to have a better health service. However, when they are asked to put their c0ck on the block, i.e. vote governments in, they vote for the ones, generally, who promise the lower taxes.

Because, and this is the general point, people are idiots.

Thm, reign it back fella no need to turn this into yet another of your personal attacks on Scotland!

not an attack at all - an unreliable source told me that yesterday, I was just passing it on.

We have a simplified version of this anyway. Most governments raise the same amount of tax. But they do it slightly differently and then they allocate it slightly differently too. So you know that the nasty Tories have a triple lock on their spending which means that other areas suffer. If you dont want spending on the NHS and state pensions protected you simply vote for someone else.... 😉

Do we need any more complexity?

tjagain - Member

*s****s* He does have an odd obsession doesn't he.

Says THM's own personal stalker.
If I didn't know better I'd say your juvenile churlish behaviour was probably down to a playground crush. 💡

welshfarmer - Member

if you could choose exactly where the final 5-10% of your taxation went

I don't think 5-10% of my tax is going to do anything other than highlight how
little I (financially) contribute to society. 😆

Can I vote 10% of my tax bill is given back In the equivalent tax allowance

Ideally the U.K. Needs to take norways lead and publicise all tax returns,
Only those with something to hide must be against

Although it shows the taxpayer exactly who has looked ;0(

Ideally the U.K. Needs to take norways lead and publicise all tax returns,
Only those with something to hide must be against

I've suggested that on here before, it didn't go down well.

and make charitable donations 100% tax deductible.

They already are.

A policy introduced (well significantly expanded) by Gordon Brown if memory serves. Nice to see Jamba is a fan.

I had a similar discussion with my (American) sister in law recently. She suggested the needy should be supported by charity not by the government.

The issue with that is that people will give to whatever they feel is worthy, and not give to what they don't. So for example heroin addicts would probably get nothing, but we'd probably have fantastic government funded stray dogs' homes.

Government *should* be informed by academic research and science. Not whim and sentimentality.

There's a difference between democracy and a popularity contest.

The evidence seems to suggest otherwise. 🙄

The first thing that springs to mind when you give people control of where they want their taxes spent is the unofficial STW motto: "Coke and Hookers!"

footflaps - Member

People are generally selfish and short sighted. Government spending needs to be neither....

This,

When I worked in Finance and later for an Accountancy Firm I spoke to lots of people about Tax, and not many of them thought it was fair.

"Why should I pay 50% of my income in tax, it's a tax on working hard!"
"Why should my company have to pay tax, I could spend that on wages!"
"Why should I pay tax on my pension, I've already paid tax on it"
"Why should I pay tax at all, I'm always skint".

Etc etc etc.

You'd be AMAZED at how many people genuinely think they're special, it's unfair, how almost by magic, the method of taxation they think is fairest and would even mean everything is better for everyone - is the one that would benefit them personally.

Oddly, I've met a surprising number of people who moan about it, but don't understand it - I know a few people for example who think that if they hit the 40% bracket, even by a penny, they have to pay 40% on every penny they earn "Why bother? they only take it all, it's a tax on working hard" blah blah blah, when I tell them it's only on the bit that earn over the threshold and in actual fact because their national insurance contributions drop off at the same threshold their income tax raises it's not a 20% hike, it's 12% and because it's only the bit at the top the total change in rate of deductions is usually sub 3% it's like I've shown them how to turn lead into gold.

There are very, very few people I'd trust to act unselfishly when it comes to taxation - but then I don't trust Westminster either - I am absolutely certain that our complex taxation system and continually change is as much about keeping us all arguing about income tax as it is making it 'fair'.

Whilst we're all arguing about income tax, we're not arguing about the top 1% who pay little, or none - because we tax income and not wealth.

because we tax income and not wealth.

sBob - I know black is white in your world but I block his posts. He makes snide comments after mine. I don't read his nor do I reply to them. That one only came to notice because someone called him out.

so who is the obsessed stalker?

tjagain - Member
someone called him out.

Norway publishes how much each person pays in tax each year- I wonder if people would get competitive?

sBob - I know black is white in your world but I block his posts. He makes snide comments after mine. I don't read his nor do I reply to them. That one only came to notice because someone called him out.

so who is the obsessed stalker?

Give it up Teej, you've only just got back.

Why should my company have to pay tax, I could spend that on wages!"

People are generally selfish and short sighted. Government spending needs to be neither....

I can't remember what the economic principal is called, but it's the one explained by "why do people order expensive steak at a restaurant when in groups"?

Go to a restaurant on your own a steak is £20

Go as a group and it's only x + [(y-x)/g]

x = average meal price
y = price of steak
g = number in the group

The same would apply to voluntary tax.

I'm in favour of higher taxes, but they should be mandatory, otherwise people will avoid them, just like most people opt out of PAYE and become contractors as soon as they earn enough to justify the cost of an accountant.

When I worked in Finance and later for an Accountancy Firm I spoke to lots of people about Tax, and not many of them thought it was fair.

"Why should I pay 50% of my income in tax, it's a tax on working hard!"
"Why should my company have to pay tax, I could spend that on wages!"
"Why should I pay tax on my pension, I've already paid tax on it"
"Why should I pay tax at all, I'm always skint".

Etc etc etc.

You'd be AMAZED at how many people genuinely think they're special, it's unfair, how almost by magic, the method of taxation they think is fairest and would even mean everything is better for everyone - is the one that would benefit them personally.

Oddly, I've met a surprising number of people who moan about it, but don't understand it - I know a few people for example who think that if they hit the 40% bracket, even by a penny, they have to pay 40% on every penny they earn "Why bother? they only take it all, it's a tax on working hard" blah blah blah, when I tell them it's only on the bit that earn over the threshold and in actual fact because their national insurance contributions drop off at the same threshold their income tax raises it's not a 20% hike, it's 12% and because it's only the bit at the top the total change in rate of deductions is usually sub 3% it's like I've shown them how to turn lead into gold.

There are very, very few people I'd trust to act unselfishly when it comes to taxation - but then I don't trust Westminster either - I am absolutely certain that our complex taxation system and continually change is as much about keeping us all arguing about income tax as it is making it 'fair'.

Whilst we're all arguing about income tax, we're not arguing about the top 1% who pay little, or none - because we tax income and not wealth.

Well informed post, not what was called for

Back to the random spouting folks

PS tried to explain student loan repayments the other day. 9% of everything over £21,000 a year.

"What I'm paying 9% of 21,000 a year that's loads....."

Norway publishes how much each person pays in tax each year- I wonder if people would get competitive?

Strava do a tax app in Norway. You get little stickers for your car depending on how much tax you pay.

sbob - have you not heard?

The problem with making tax a choice is that most people think that somebody else should pay the tax. Or, at best, that they would agree to it if and only if it was spent on exactly what they think.

"Higher taxes are OK as long as they don't apply to me" is the approach taken by the man on the street.

Most people are blissfully unaware of where public money is spent.

when I tell them it's only on the bit that earn over the threshold and in actual fact because their national insurance contributions drop off at the same threshold their income tax raises

Except if you are Scottish, we are going to have an effective 52% marginal rate band because this doesn't happen 🙂 It will affect my tax planning - as high marginal rates generally change behaviours more than government revenue.