Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    1: Should you be able to opt out of paying certain taxes (e.g. Foreign aid)?

    2: Taken to its extremes (minimal tax- a la Night watchman state) would this make democracy or at least parliament redundant?

    3: would either of these be a good thing?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    1) If we don't get PR any time soon then yes, otherwise no. We're an extremely charitable nation so optional foreign aid is legit

    2) Not unless changes were sweeping; it would simply rebalance and mean greater political scrutiny of remnant powers

    3) Parliamentary Democracy is alright, and wouldn't necessarily be terribly threatened by this evolution toward direct Democracy
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Definitionally, no, taxes are payments you cannot opt out of.

    If foreign aid funding becomes voluntary then it simply becomes a subscription charity that happens to be administered by HMG.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Definitionally, no, taxes are payments you cannot opt out of.

    If foreign aid funding becomes voluntary then it simply becomes a subscription charity that happens to be administered by HMG.
    Just to play devils advocate - you personally prefer the status quo to this arrangement?

    Additionally assume that you were automatically enrolled for full tax- upon age 18 but could choose to opt out of most of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    1) If we don't get PR any time soon then yes, otherwise no.
    Why is PR better than this? I thought you wanted to end party politics?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Just to play devils advocate - you personally prefer the status quo to this arrangement?

    Additionally assume that you were automatically enrolled for full tax- upon age 18 but could choose to opt out of most of it.
    I don't see a substantive difference between making funding DIFD voluntary and abolishing DIFD. That is not say I oppose abolishing DIFD.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    1. How much could I opt out of? What if I dont want to pay for the NHS, do I get denied treatment? If I dont want to pay for welfare what happens when my private pension collapses? How much is this going to cost and administer an how much is it going to cost in terms of a loss of services?

    2. I fail to see how this would result in a shrinking state, the admin alone would be a nightmare, unless of course there is far bigger changes to how the UK is governed.

    3. I dont think tax optouts are at all viable ever really and while I would prefer a smaller State this seems a very ponderous and risky way to do it..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Why is PR better than this? I thought you wanted to end party politics?
    It's not that PR is better than this per sae, it's that this sort of measure would seem less reasonable in the context of a system that incorporated a broader and more representative diversity of political views

    Such a system will doubtless prove a handy, and perhaps necessary, stepping stone to the next phase in political evolution: The Fourth Way. T'would be unrealistic to presuppose we could just fast forward to the end of party politics absent such transitional arrangements, people/systems/networks/elites are generally a little too self-interested/set in their ways for this to seem plausible
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    1. How much could I opt out of? What if I dont want to pay for the NHS, do I get denied treatment? If I dont want to pay for welfare what happens when my private pension collapses? How much is this going to cost and administer an how much is it going to cost in terms of a loss of services?

    2. I fail to see how this would result in a shrinking state, the admin alone would be a nightmare, unless of course there is far bigger changes to how the UK is governed.

    3. I dont think tax optouts are at all viable ever really and while I would prefer a smaller State this seems a very ponderous and risky way to do it..
    1: Opt out max would be paying for a limited military, the police and the courts. If say they declined to pay for the NHS then they would be refused treatment or would have to be charged substantially more.

    2: Woukd have to be decentralised massively and to be done online.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    1: Should you be able to opt out of paying certain taxes (e.g. Foreign aid)?

    2: Taken to its extremes (minimal tax- a la Night watchman state) would this make democracy or at least parliament redundant?

    3: would either of these be a good thing?
    An individual shouldn't be able to opt out of a tax.

    The state should however have a referendum when giving money away outside of our own country such as the foreign aid budget.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    An individual shouldn't be able to opt out of a tax.
    Why?

    The state should however have a referendum when giving money away outside of our own country such as the foreign aid budget.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why?

    Additionally, why can a party not have a mandate for foreign aid via includeing it in a manifesto and being elected? (As they would do so otherwise?)

    Additionally 'giving it away' can be argued to be in our long term interests in some cases- e.g. A stable Middle East has plenty of benefits to the UK
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    1: Opt out max would be paying for a limited military, the police and the courts. If say they declined to pay for the NHS then they would be refused treatment or would have to be charged substantially more.

    2: Woukd have to be decentralised massively and to be done online.
    Let me tell you exactly how that would go.

    Poor people would be incentivised to opt out of all tax, we can agree about that I assume? So what happens when a poor person needs the services of the police/NHS/whatever? Those least able to pay would have to take the risk even if losing comes with crippling costs.

    If you want to see what this looks like look at US healthcare, where the poorest have to put up with simple but untreated conditions for years or be shackled with thousands of dollars of debt for the rest of their lives.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    1: Should you be able to opt out of paying certain taxes (e.g. Foreign aid)?

    2: Taken to its extremes (minimal tax- a la Night watchman state) would this make democracy or at least parliament redundant?

    3: would either of these be a good thing?
    No. This is simply libertarianism gone mad and weakens representative democracy. I also fundamentally believe that tax is not inherently wrong in a free society so although i oppose it myself, i acknowledge the will of the people in an election. There's no need for referenda.

    This is libertarianism taken to it's extreme, something i am fundamentally against. I'm sympathetic to libertarianism but consider it too idealistic.

    No. Experts elected to parliament are in a better place to make these decisions subject to electoral mandates.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    People wouldn't be able to opt out of paying to the police as well as the courts and armed forces. I'm not so sure if poorer people would opt out of the NHS- unlike the US we have and are used to a national health service.

    I should add I'm brainstorming (sorry if anyone's triggered by that expression ) and this doesn't represent my actual views. I was merely intrigued by this idea.

    Among other reasons, it would make my foreign policy and welfare stances untenable- (universal income and interventionism)
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Why?



    Why?

    Additionally, why can a party not have a mandate for foreign aid via includeing it in a manifesto and being elected? (As they would do so otherwise?)

    Additionally 'giving it away' can be argued to be in our long term interests in some cases- e.g. A stable Middle East has plenty of benefits to the UK
    Why 1,

    Because the rich who pay for a very large percentage of tax would simply opt out of those tax areas and source their own service which of course would save them money.

    Why 2,

    Because the government has a budget to spend over a Parliament of several trillion pounds and it shouldn't change anyone's vote to save 50 billion of that.
    There are bigger issues for ones vote and a referendum is quick and easy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Why 1,

    Because the rich who pay for a very large percentage of tax would simply opt out of those tax areas and source their own service which of course would save them money.

    Why 2,

    Because the government has a budget to spend over a Parliament of several trillion pounds and it shouldn't change anyone's vote to save 50 billion of that.
    There are bigger issues for ones vote and a referendum is quick and easy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Cool thanks.

    (Prsom)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    From a practical view, how could 'opting out of taxation/s possibly be realistically administered?

    Not to mention what it would set in train. Mrs Mills doesn't want to pay tax to dirty foreigners. Mrs Jones doesn't want to pay tax for those fat benefit scroungers. Mrs Owens doesn't want to pay tax to dirty foreigners, nor fat benefit scroungers, nor those disabled kiddies who get free stuff to study with....

    And on it would go.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    From a practical view, how could 'opting out of taxation/s possibly be realistically administered?
    I imagine by some online self administrative system- do you choose your 'package' ,


    Not to mention what it would set in train. Mrs Mills doesn't want to pay tax to dirty foreigners. Mrs Jones doesn't want to pay tax for those fat benefit scroungers. Mrs Owens doesn't want to pay tax to dirty foreigners, nor fat benefit scroungers, nor those disabled kiddies who get free stuff to study with....

    And on it would go.
    Im not sure I understand your point- are you saying if would encourage her to decrease her taxation? If so it's no different in theory to how older people are more inclined to vote Tory as they get older.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I imagine by some online self administrative system- do you choose your 'package' ,




    Im not sure I understand your point- are you saying if would encourage her to decrease her taxation? If so it's no different in theory to how older people are more inclined to vote Tory as they get older.
    No, I'm suggesting that who is going to choose which taxes are eligible for opt-out and which ones aren't. How would you start to divide a general taxation like Income Tax into 'funds'. And more importantly, NI? The point I was making is that a small selection of opt-out taxes would in very short order become a target for lobbyists to include their particular hobby-horse tax. In effect, you would end up with every tax up for discussion and no-one wanting to pay any of them, all for personal reasons.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    People wouldn't be able to opt out of paying to the police as well as the courts and armed forces. I'm not so sure if poorer people would opt out of the NHS- unlike the US we have and are used to a national health service.

    I should add I'm brainstorming (sorry if anyone's triggered by that expression ) and this doesn't represent my actual views. I was merely intrigued by this idea.

    Among other reasons, it would make my foreign policy and welfare stances untenable- (universal income and interventionism)
    Ah I misread your previous post, apologies.

    I guarantee that given the choice between what, like £50 a week, vs hypothetical medical care, is going to be too good to turn down, eapecially if you dont have a job or you are young and hence require less medical care.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

4,531

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.