Im no expert, but I have an idea for taxes (1 Viewer)

[darkfenrir]

Hi guys im no pro and I know little about taxes but I thought of an idea which I think might be sensible, regarding taxes.

I dont know exactly how it works but I assume people just get forms which say "You must pay this much tax" right? I was thinking that the goverment could instead give out forms that list out ALL the areas that the government uses taxes for, in whatever detail necessary, like, the government can simply say "Infrastructure" or they can go into more detail than that, listing each expense they make in infrastructure. Everything can be put onto a massive form and then people will, lets say, be required to "tick the box" for a certain amount of different areas, to decide where their taxes will go. Based on all the different types of tax, individuals and institutions can have their usual tax amount correlated with a certain amount of "boxes" the individual or institution must "tick" on the tax form.

\I think this method will almost reflect the needs of society, in a way. The government will be able to observe monetary distribution across all their areas of spending and halt those that most of society doesnt want. Then what society wants the most, the government can put more money in there. It will be a step in the direction of true democracy I think.

And of course one might ask the question "what if blah blah blah" well then I think the government can put out "trial" forms across australia and get a general idea of what society wants, then they can decide if its worth continuing actually following what society wants done with their tax money.

What are your opinions on this idea?

 

[darkfenrir]

What are your opinions guys?

 

[Blue Suede]

Wouldn't work. eg a whole portion of society might be like 'Oh hey, I'm an adult with no children, let's not put any money into education!' which would then end up detrimental for the next generation.

The government is responsible for the WHOLE of Australia and have to act in such a way as to benefit as many people as possible, not just play to the whims of everyone. And could you imagine the crazy amount of admin that would have to go into doing something like that??? I think the tax paying population is about 10 million and as someone who has previously worked for the government, I think that would be a waste of resources, though could create a whole lot more jobs.


Also, they do bring out a list of where all the expenses and such go, it's called the budget.

 

[SylviaB]

It will be a step in the direction of true democracy I think.

That's precisely why it's an absolutely atrocious idea.

 

[seremify007]

Following on from Blue Suede's example of education which is beneficial for future generations (and not to mention a well educated society does have short term benefits such as reduced crime rate, lower unemployment benefits etc), there's the big issue of spend on public goods which doesn't necessarily benefit any individuals specifically (i.e. it can't exclude those who don't wish to pay) such as military spending (e.g. if we avoid a war, everyone wins- even those who didn't pay for it), international relations, etc... heck, even building a strong local economic and regulatory economic environment which entices others to invest in Australia is a cost borne by the government yet no individual would want to pay for it.

Great idea but unfortunately one of the benefits of taxation is it forces people to pay for their share of expenditure which enabled them to earn that income or whatever is being taxed in the first place. The idea put forward by the Op is on the assumption that the taxpayer benefits directly from something and is willing/able to pay for it.

 

[darkfenrir]

well what I should have said probably is that the taxes involved in enforcing human rights should be the compulsory, (I think education is a right isnt it? lol im noob at politics ) and healthcare and stuff, basically anything relating to basic human necessities should be "automatically ticked" for everyone, then each taxpayer chooses for example "another 5 boxes to tick" or something. You know, like english in HSC LOL, everyone has to pay tax for education and healthcare etc, cos those are critical for society.

If the necessities are established then we can progress onto elimination of pointless spending by the government.

SORRY for this whole noob idea but im just thinking about how australia can potentially amend its political situation lol

 

[funkshen]

Proposed future tax expenditures:

[ ] Expanded mental health services provision and awareness programs
[ ] Disability insurance
[ ] Sovereign wealth fund
[ ] Cutting water allocations and restoring the Murray-Darling basin
[✓] Colosseum
[✓] Free monster trucks
[✓] KFC subsidies
[✓] Tax breaks for my boutique winery in the Hunter

yes i can see this working just fine

 

[moll.]

Hahaha what a shit idea. There's a reason why da gubbermen takes your money under threat of imprisonment and violence; it's so that it can spend it on shit which wouldn't get done without it. There are various economic concepts related to this, but the ones you should be researching are: coordination failure, positive/negative externalities, the free rider problem, natural monopolies and hyperbolic discounting.

 

[moll.]

well what I should have said probably is that the taxes involved in enforcing human rights should be the compulsory, (I think education is a right isnt it? lol im noob at politics ) and healthcare and stuff, basically anything relating to basic human necessities should be "automatically ticked" for everyone, then each taxpayer chooses for example "another 5 boxes to tick" or something. You know, like english in HSC LOL, everyone has to pay tax for education and healthcare etc, cos those are critical for society.

If the necessities are established then we can progress onto elimination of pointless spending by the government.

SORRY for this whole noob idea but im just thinking about how australia can potentially amend its political situation lol

Here's a simpler idea to eliminate wasteful spending by the government: just eliminate wasteful spending by the government.

 

[funkshen]

Here's a simpler idea to eliminate wasteful spending by the government: just eliminate wasteful spending by the government.

how do we eliminate the wasteful government spending that is the result of efforts to eliminate wasteful government spending?

 

[SylviaB]

Hahaha what a shit idea. There's a reason why da gubbermen takes your money under threat of imprisonment and violence; it's so that it can spend it on shit which wouldn't get done without it. There are various economic concepts related to this, but the ones you should be researching are: coordination failure, positive/negative externalities, the free rider problem, natural monopolies and hyperbolic discounting.

um, what

this would be a relevant argument if he suggested abolishing taxes. What he actually suggested is democratically decided spending. The government would still be still taking "your money under threat of imprisonment and violence".

Spending would be enormously different if democratically decided compared to if there were no taxes. You can argue that there would be problems with both, but they're vastly different scenarios.

 

[SylviaB]

And there is a reason "why da gubbermen takes your money" i.e. why the state exists, but its not for the reasons listed.

 

[Riproot]

Gubbament*

 

[darkfenrir]

Guys, WE don't choose absolutely, where to put our taxes, we choose from the LIST that the government gives us. And abolishing taxes is ridiculous, taxes are "the price of civilisation", as the saying goes. We need taxes, but we also need to make sure we are spending the money wisely and are not blowing away money on pointless shit. In this method of taxing, as I said before, human essentials like education and medicine will be paid for by everyone, everything else the people decide. After a while, distribution patterns can be clearly depicted and things which society decides it doesnt need, the government will cut off funds for it. Doesnt that sound senseful?

 

[SylviaB]

Guys, WE don't choose absolutely, where to put our taxes, we choose from the LIST that the government gives us.

Oh, the politicians with limited information and extremely short time horizons make the list? Phew, that sounds much better.

And abolishing taxes is ridiculous, taxes are "the price of civilisation", as the saying goes. We need taxes,

Nobody was suggesting otherwise.

but we also need to make sure we are spending the money wisely and are not blowing away money on pointless shit. In this method of taxing, as I said before, human essentials like education and medicine will be paid for by everyone, everything else the people decide. After a while, distribution patterns can be clearly depicted and things which society decides it doesnt need, the government will cut off funds for it. Doesnt that sound senseful?

What society thinks it needs is other people's money being given to them.

 

[teabag]

Doesnt that sound senseful?

no it doesn't

 

[Absolutezero]

Guys, WE don't choose absolutely, where to put our taxes, we choose from the LIST that the government gives us. And abolishing taxes is ridiculous, taxes are "the price of civilisation", as the saying goes. We need taxes, but we also need to make sure we are spending the money wisely and are not blowing away money on pointless shit. In this method of taxing, as I said before, human essentials like education and medicine will be paid for by everyone, everything else the people decide. After a while, distribution patterns can be clearly depicted and things which society decides it doesnt need, the government will cut off funds for it. Doesnt that sound senseful?

What society needs and what society thinks it needs can be entirely different.

 

[darkfenrir]

What society thinks it needs is other people's money being given to them.

The reasonably wealthy people far outnumber the poor, your argument is invalid here.

 

[SylviaB]

The reasonably wealthy people far outnumber the poor, your argument is invalid here.

the non-rich vastly outnumber the rich, therefore your argument is invalid

 

[funkshen]

Why such contempt for the common man?

you're right. who needs a colosseum these days? the everyman just wants a 3D TV and a Snuggie®