Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: tax | |
Author: Nick (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 14:41:38 11/20/04 Sat In reply to: Admiral Nelson 's message, "Kiss me, Hardy" on 06:52:35 11/19/04 Fri There isn't a simple answer to the real or appropriate level of taxation. For example, the UK's official tax take as a % of GDP is still below 40%. This isn't as good as the mid 30s level that it fell to under the Major government, but it is significantly lower than most European and other developed countries. Only the US and Ireland trash us on that measure, most OECD countries paying 40-50% (Canada is at the top end of that range), and everyone has to pay for some things that are free elsewhere. And let's face it, what do the US and Ireland have in common? A low level of public health provision. I personally think a two tier NHS might work - but it could be inefficient and disastrous. A bit like 'privatising' education, while giving the wealthy the chance to opt out and giving them tax incentives to do so might appear to be at the expense of the poor, the rationed public service would undoubtedly benefit from having less work to do, and you don't have to give the rich ALL their money, back, do you? On the other hand the UK currently spends about HALF what the US spends on health as a % of GDP (8% vs 16%), and frankly the two services aren't THAT different. Americans have plenty of complaints about their HMOs, prescription costs etc. so the NHS must be doing something right - and the main things it's doing right are getting massive purchasing economies and screwing healthcare workers by telling them they should work for love rather than money. I believe in public services, I think income tax is the most fair and efficient form of taxation, and I think services should be funded by a blend of public and private money, and be as flexible and open to choice and competition as possible. I also think the tax system should be compartmentalised, so we know how much we're paying for what service, and can opt out of services if practical. I think we should invest in transport - high speed trains and better roads. I think we should adopt a voucher system for schools and experiment with regulated private insurance policies for health which allow people to largely opt out of the NHS. But I doubt many people really care very much what I think, and I might have changed my mind in a few years' time. Any new idea can look good on paper until it's tried - then all those external factors you couldn't accurately predict decide whether it's going to work or not. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: health and education | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:47:37 11/20/04 Sat I don’t think I could be comfortable with either a fully private or a fully public system. My ideal is that everyone should have access to good public health and education services, and that these should be funded through a taxation system where people who earn more pay a higher percentage. The level of these services should be as high as possible, based on the society’s ability to pay. Like everything, they should be as efficient as is humanly possible. People who want more specialised services should have the opportunity to buy them, but that should not excuse them from paying taxes to maintain the public services. The benefit of living in a society where people don't die in large numbers in the streets comes at the cost of helping fund services for our neighbours. I think infrastructure should be developed through public-private partnerships, where risks and responsibilities, as well as profits, are assumed by both partners. I don’t go for compartmentalised taxation, though. It works that way in Brazil, with certain taxes introduced specifically to pay for certain services. The problem is, some shift occurs in the economy one year and a given tax doesn’t bring in as much revenue as was expected, so the associated service suffers. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: But.... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:47:07 11/20/04 Sat *I don’t go for compartmentalised taxation, though. It works that way in Brazil, with certain taxes introduced specifically to pay for certain services. The problem is, some shift occurs in the economy one year and a given tax doesn’t bring in as much revenue as was expected, so the associated service suffers.* Surely this happens everywhere as departmental budgets are set out in advance? I don't think taxes should be allocated for one thing like a window tax or a bread tax. I'm referring predominantly to the three main direct taxes in the UK - income tax, national insurance and council tax. Council taxes generally are compartmentalised to a certain extent - the bill comes with a breakdown of how much of the budget is going on the police or education, or in Scotland how much on water and sewerage. National Insurance was set up to pay for pensions - but it is now simply co-opted into general taxation, so is a farce. I think Council bills should go further and show the percentage of your bill that is spent on each department of the council. And I think one's pay slip should detail a number of 'income taxes' and 'national insurances' which represent a certain percentage of one's income and tell you exactly what % is going where - eg Salary 7680 Income Tax 1670 Police Levy (381) Education Levy (643) Defence Levy (48) Iraq War Tax (7) Transport Tax (72) Other (519) Health Insurance 210 Employment Insurance 62 That doesn't necessarily mean that's the only funding those departments receive, and of course it would be reviewed twice a year anyway. But it tells you instantly that there are too many soppy schoolchildren getting textbooks and not enough bombs falling on Iraq, and it might allow one to make additional donations to causes one cared about, or opt out of things like Health Insurance or Employment Insurance, provided a government approved private scheme was adopted in their place. No politican would ever really want to give people that level of disclosure, but that's exactly why it's a good idea. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: But.... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:11:56 11/20/04 Sat *I don’t go for compartmentalised taxation, though. It works that way in Brazil, with certain taxes introduced specifically to pay for certain services. The problem is, some shift occurs in the economy one year and a given tax doesn’t bring in as much revenue as was expected, so the associated service suffers.* But surely that can happen anywhere, as budgets are usually set annually? I wouldn't propose a one tax one department solution, but rather a detailed breakdown in everyone's pay packet of where the tax goes. At the moment of the 3 main direct taxes in the UK, income tax, national insurance and council tax, only council tax issuers occasionally give a brief breakdown as to where some of the money goes. NI was originally set up as a pension contribution, but is now co-opted into general taxation so is a farce. There's no government pension fund to pay retirees, which is why the future of pension provision will be every man for himself. I think a British pay slip in future should like this: Salary 7280 Income Tax 1810 Police Levy (219) Social Security (423) Education Levy (638) Transport Levy (204) Defence Levy (48) Iraq War Tax (7) Civil List (2) Other (215) Health Insurance 218 Health Supplement 0 HMD Gold Plan 168 Employment Insurance 77 There needn't be any problems with funding, since all the money is collected the same way and these departments would doubtless receive funds from elsewhere too, plus the budgets would be reviewed annually or even twice annually anyway. But the point is that a simple glance at one's pay slip reveals instantly that there are too many soppy school children getting exercise books, and not enough bombs falling on Iraq. It also might give the option for people to make extra donations to causes they cared about, or opt out of some payments, like health supplements, if they signed up to a government approved private offering instead. Of course no politician would want to give out that level of disclosure, but it's our money, and they should be required to by law. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ah, I see | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:19:17 11/20/04 Sat I thought you were wanting to link specific taxes to specific services. I'm all in favour of a breakdown of where our money goes to. Something like: Income tax: 1810 President's family: 280 President's friends: 140 Bribes to get opposition members to support government legislation: 750 Programs to reduce to an acceptable level the numbers of people starving to death in the northeast: 2 etc [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Excellent idea | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:29:21 11/20/04 Sat IN 2001, the break down might have been something like: Income tax: 1810 Bribes to get opposition members to support government legislation: 750 Bribes to get backbench Labour party members to support government legislation: 850 Programmes to reduce to an acceptable level the numbers of people starving to death in the northeast: 2 Scottish Parliament extra spending to counter delays: 200 Queen: -650 That sort of thing? (Yes, the Queen actually brought in a massive profit that year.) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |