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: health and education | |
Author: Ian (Australia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 15:47:37 11/20/04 Sat In reply to: Nick (UK) 's message, "tax" on 14:41:38 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. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |