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

[darkfenrir]

Ok so remind me, what are the flaws of my idea, as well as the positive aspects?

 

[funkshen]

Ok so remind me, what are the flaws of my idea, as well as the positive aspects?

I'm going to call these flaws, because they're serious flaws, but they're also questions that you could answer if you so choose.

Flaw #1:

I dont know exactly how it works but I assume people just get forms which say "You must pay this much tax" right?

No, that's not how it works. Most Australians are not self-employed and are taxed via PAYG, where a certain amount is withheld from their weekly/bi-weekly/monthly wages pro rata. At the end of the year, people file a tax return in which they claim deductions (e.g. if they have negative geared investments) and so on. They don't get a bill at the end of the year saying "cough up this much m8 or you're done m8".

Flaw #2: How deep does the rabbit hole go?

I was thinking that the goverment could instead give out forms that list out ALL the areas that the government uses taxes for

What's an area? How big is it? How far does the rabbit hole go? Where do you draw the line at categorising expenditures? This would be next to impossible for the purposes of allowing the everyman to make any decision regarding where his taxes are or should go. The "government" has no infrastructure budget - expenditure is divided between all the departments and others. Furthermore, some sections of a department have nothing to do with infrastructure, while some are only do with infrastructure. And do you mean the maintenance of infrastructure, infrastructure service personnel (e.g. IT and helpdesk staff), or the creation of new infrastructure? How could someone truly compare the budgets of different deparments vis a vis the needs of the department? And this is all supposed to be on a form to be completed by the everyman?

Flaw #3: Who ticks what box?

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.

When is someone required to tick a box? Is it a user-pays system, where you only tick the boxes you used? Or do you only tick the boxes you want to tick? Who decides? And who the hell wants to read a massive form? Ain't nobody got time for that. Are you allowed to donkey vote - just tick the first few boxes and be done with it? In that case, how are the boxes ordered - alphabetically, or by priority? And how are the boxes worded? We know that wording has an enormous impact? Would anything be opt-out, or would it all be opt-in? We know that organ donor rates are consistently (much, much) higher in countries with opt-out donorship rather than opt-in.

Also, what does ticking a box mean? Would you be given your tax liability as a budget, your monopoly money, that you can distribute among the different items? Is it like a menu, or a game show? "I'll take roads and national parks for $1,000, Bob!"

Flaw #4: Mob rule

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.

The West abandoned 'true democracy' a long, long time ago because it was a fucking terrible idea. Instead, we all decided that some things should be beyond the whims of the mob; fundamental (constitutional) rights of free speech or association, so on and so forth. We know that what 'society' (the mob) wants always has the potential (or rather, the likelihood) to not be what is best.

You're also begging the question; do you actually know whether 'society' knows what is better for it than its government? You assume these premises three to be true: 1) that a step in the direction of true democracy is a 'good' thing, 2) that this method could ever reflect the needs of society rather than their idiotic or abstract wants, and 3) that people really know what they need or want, and are emotionally or physically able to express it (in tax form, no less). You probably also need to believe that the government is able to effectively (both in time and in result) implement spending programs that are subject to the vicissitudes of the mob.

Flaw #5: How the hell is it even going to work?

The biggest problem with this whole idea is probably just ensuring compliance; enforcement, monitoring, and correcting mistakes are the big things with anything like tax. Sure, out of the goodness of their hearts (and aversion to jail and/or fines) most people don't cheat the tax system, but some do. Not only that, but on something so complicated as this, you'd need to correct for simple mistakes. I'd wager that such mistakes would be stochastic, and although there might be some significant canceling out (mistakes in both directions) out on a population-wide basis, who's to know? Your tax return is also a confidential document... too complicated.


Your proposal is just mob rule with a big wallet. Furthermore, this is to ignore the nuances of you argument and its contra that go much, much deeper than the explicit flaws I identified alone in what you typed.

 

[darkfenrir]

I'm going to call these flaws, because they're serious flaws, but they're also questions that you could answer if you so choose.

Flaw #1:



No, that's not how it works. Most Australians are not self-employed and are taxed via PAYG, where a certain amount is withheld from their weekly/bi-weekly/monthly wages pro rata. At the end of the year, people file a tax return in which they claim deductions (e.g. if they have negative geared investments) and so on. They don't get a bill at the end of the year saying "cough up this much m8 or you're done m8".

Flaw #2: How deep does the rabbit hole go?



What's an area? How big is it? How far does the rabbit hole go? Where do you draw the line at categorising expenditures? This would be next to impossible for the purposes of allowing the everyman to make any decision regarding where his taxes are or should go. The "government" has no infrastructure budget - expenditure is divided between all the departments and others. Furthermore, some sections of a department have nothing to do with infrastructure, while some are only do with infrastructure. And do you mean the maintenance of infrastructure, infrastructure service personnel (e.g. IT and helpdesk staff), or the creation of new infrastructure? How could someone truly compare the budgets of different deparments vis a vis the needs of the department? And this is all supposed to be on a form to be completed by the everyman?

Flaw #3: Who ticks what box?



When is someone required to tick a box? Is it a user-pays system, where you only tick the boxes you used? Or do you only tick the boxes you want to tick? Who decides? And who the hell wants to read a massive form? Ain't nobody got time for that. Are you allowed to donkey vote - just tick the first few boxes and be done with it? In that case, how are the boxes ordered - alphabetically, or by priority? And how are the boxes worded? We know that wording has an enormous impact? Would anything be opt-out, or would it all be opt-in? We know that organ donor rates are consistently (much, much) higher in countries with opt-out donorship rather than opt-in.

Also, what does ticking a box mean? Would you be given your tax liability as a budget, your monopoly money, that you can distribute among the different items? Is it like a menu, or a game show? "I'll take roads and national parks for $1,000, Bob!"

Flaw #4: Mob rule



The West abandoned 'true democracy' a long, long time ago because it was a fucking terrible idea. Instead, we all decided that some things should be beyond the whims of the mob; fundamental (constitutional) rights of free speech or association, so on and so forth. We know that what 'society' (the mob) wants always has the potential (or rather, the likelihood) to not be what is best.

You're also begging the question; do you actually know whether 'society' knows what is better for it than its government? You assume these premises three to be true: 1) that a step in the direction of true democracy is a 'good' thing, 2) that this method could ever reflect the needs of society rather than their idiotic or abstract wants, and 3) that people really know what they need or want, and are emotionally or physically able to express it (in tax form, no less). You probably also need to believe that the government is able to effectively (both in time and in result) implement spending programs that are subject to the vicissitudes of the mob.

Flaw #5: How the hell is it even going to work?

The biggest problem with this whole idea is probably just ensuring compliance; enforcement, monitoring, and correcting mistakes are the big things with anything like tax. Sure, out of the goodness of their hearts (and aversion to jail and/or fines) most people don't cheat the tax system, but some do. Not only that, but on something so complicated as this, you'd need to correct for simple mistakes. I'd wager that such mistakes would be stochastic, and although there might be some significant canceling out (mistakes in both directions) out on a population-wide basis, who's to know? Your tax return is also a confidential document... too complicated.


Your proposal is just mob rule with a big wallet. Furthermore, this is to ignore the nuances of you argument and its contra that go much, much deeper than the explicit flaws I identified alone in what you typed.

Ok thanks I see now. Stupid idea lol.

 

[funkshen]

Facist

I'm pro-face.

 

[Lolsmith]

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

hey fuck you man I want a goddamn monster truck

 

[seremify007]

Ok thanks I see now. Stupid idea lol.

Was worth a shot. I think once you start paying taxes and then seeing how it gets used your views on tax will change. Just keep in mind that there are lots of taxes out there- some are more obvious than others based on where they impact and who ultimately pays them.

 

[Newbie]

i dont want any tax money going to any programs that benefit aboriginals simply because they are aboriginal.

anyone agree? or feel free to debate me

 

[darkfenrir]

i dont want any tax money going to any programs that benefit aboriginals simply because they are aboriginal.

anyone agree? or feel free to debate me

Agreed, this is one of the many reasons I think we should choose where our taxes go, be it for only a small variety of the areas the government invests money, we simply can't be paying for shit that is irrelevant and unnecessary when we have larger problems on our hands.

I emphasise that we do not have to control EVERYTHING, only a few things may suffice. We just need to start directing taxpayer money to things that improve australia as a whole, NOT fucking greedy and lazy individuals who feel they are "entitled" to cash.

 

[darkfenrir]

wtf noone agrees with us...

 

[Lolsmith]

Because it is *powerfully* dumb, not thought out in the slightest and apparently based on jealousy

Do you have any fucking idea how tiny Aboriginal specific employment, scholarships, training, etc. are in the budget? There are more incredulous expenditures (such as the fucking light rail proposal in Sydney (yes I realise this is a NSW initiative)) at your front door, but you choose to complain about affirmative action? Jesus fucking christ. Please attempt to be less childish about economics in future.

 

[moll.]

Affirmative action welfare is a pretty stupid idea though. Trying to make up for past wrongs against a segment of society by throwing welfare dollars at them just end ups forcing them to declare their own self-imposed segregation from the rest of society in order to try and get those dollars, exacerbating the original problem of discrimination through exclusion.

 

[darkfenrir]

Because it is *powerfully* dumb, not thought out in the slightest and apparently based on jealousy

Do you have any fucking idea how tiny Aboriginal specific employment, scholarships, training, etc. are in the budget? There are more incredulous expenditures (such as the fucking light rail proposal in Sydney (yes I realise this is a NSW initiative)) at your front door, but you choose to complain about affirmative action? Jesus fucking christ. Please attempt to be less childish about economics in future.

Then lets go for elimination of all the "tiny" things, that will save a shitload of cash already. That is somewhat the main point here, going a step at a time to cut down on the loads and loads of "tiny" things so we can keep the "big and important" things, though if there are pointless "big and important things" we can eliminate them too. ITS NOT JUST CUTTING DOWN ON MONEY FOR ABORIGINALS its cutting down on EVERYTHING that is not helping the WHOLE COMMUNITY but only a small group of people or individuals.

 

[seremify007]

I think the key thing you guys need to remember is that the reason why the government has to pay for these things which are aimed at improving Australia as a whole (apparently) is because no individuals would want to bear that cost themselves- therefore isn't it natural and obvious that is why people resent a lot of the government expenditures?

 

[SylviaB]

Facist

oh dear

 

[darkfenrir]

I think the key thing you guys need to remember is that the reason why the government has to pay for these things which are aimed at improving Australia as a whole (apparently) is because no individuals would want to bear that cost themselves- therefore isn't it natural and obvious that is why people resent a lot of the government expenditures?

of course we dont want to bear the cost, because its a stupid and unnecessary cost that is pointless to have. hence im sayin ELIMINATE unecessary shit

 

[Absolutezero]

The elimination of unnecessary, tiny costs and the selection of expenditure by the public are entirely different concepts.

 

[Newbie]

im just trolling by the way, i dont just hate money going to aboriginals. i hate paying tax in general

and so will all of you once you guys start losing a third to a half of what you earn.
i only pay 15% tax and its still painful

 

[darkfenrir]

The elimination of unnecessary, tiny costs and the selection of expenditure by the public are entirely different concepts.

If the public chooses, by sheer majority the unnecessary things will pop out as people dont pick them.

 

[Absolutezero]

If the public chooses, by sheer majority the unnecessary things will pop out as people dont pick them.

The opinions of the majority don't necessarily effectively determine the unnecessary, nor are the opinions of the majority always in the best interest of everyone.

 

[seremify007]

The elimination of unnecessary, tiny costs and the selection of expenditure by the public are entirely different concepts.

Bingo.

If the public chooses, by sheer majority the unnecessary things will pop out as people dont pick them.

Again I reiterate my previous point of government expenditure is often on things no individuals would actually want to pay for but society (including those individuals) would collectively benefit from. Selective expenditure to focus spending on certain areas is a policy choice, but ultimately the transfer of wealth through taxation is to facilitate certain outcomes (as determined by the elected government) which would not be achievable in the market without some form of intervention.