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: But.... | |
Author: Nick (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 18:11:56 11/20/04 Sat In reply to: Ian (Australia) 's message, "health and education" on 15:47:37 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. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |