Tax Choice Discussion Thread

[Xerographica]

Cait Lamberton recently discussed tax choice on NPR (Philadelphia)... Taxes: What we think about them, what we’d like to do with them, and some handy tips. Her section begins around 13:00.

If you haven't read it already... here's her tax choice article in Democracy Journal... Your Money, Your Choice. The article is based on this study... A Spoonful of Choice: How Allocation Increases Satisfaction with Tax Payments.

What is better, having some tax choice or having none? I like the idea of tax choice because it assures that people receive more of the public goods that they truly want. I do not believe that we should trust people's words (ballot votes) more than we trust their actions (dollar votes).

What do you think? Is Cait Lamberton on the right track?

[Ceannairceach]

I don't know anything about budgeting for a nation, or about the needs of each individual department, organization, yadda yadda of my government. I don't think the average person should have a say when they have no idea what actually needs what amount of funding.

If they want a say, they should campaign and win election or lobby their elected leaders.

[Esternial]

A lot of people are idiots and don't know shit about where their tax money goes to. If people got to choose where funding goes to it'd all go to things they can pronounce and/or even know the existence of, and I wouldn't entrust the funding of my country's infrastructure to a winy twat who want to choose where "his" money goes to.

It's not your money, anyway. Not anymore. They call it "paying" taxes for a reason.

[Conserative Morality]

None. Decentralization of budgeting for a centralized entity is a terrible idea.

[Infected Mushroom]

no this will just lead to increased taxation as politicians get to say...

''See we get to take your money because you affirmed the system.''

Kind of like how they have a ''mandate'' to rule the people despite the main parties being rigged and voter turnout being so low.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

It might be interesting to try something like 5% as a pilot program. See if this kind of crowdsourcing actually gets us anywhere.

[Conserative Morality]

How about "Pay 5% flat, or pay 10% and choose where it goes"? Something along those lines?

[Scandinavian Nations]

What is better, having some tax choice or having none?

Not having taxes.

The second best thing, since some services like police, defense, etc can only be provided centrally, is not to have any more taxes than the absolute minimum necessary for these functions and holding the society together.

All that "tax choice" will accomplish is make higher taxes more palatable to the population, while the politicians will simply defund the most popular programs with their managed budget and have the people put their tax choice into them.

[Infected Mushroom]

How about "Pay 5% flat, or pay 10% and choose where it goes"? Something along those lines?

I choose to pay 10%... back into my own pocket.

[Conserative Morality]

I choose to pay 10%... back into my own pocket.

Pretty sure that's not an option.

[Infected Mushroom]

I choose to pay 10%... back into my own pocket.

Pretty sure that's not an option.

if they drag me away my argument in court will be...

''Well if Parliament INTENDED to limit the choice of where the 10% could go into, they would have and could have said so in the wording of the provision. Therefore, change the rule if you want, but I'm keeping my money. I have elected to pay 10% of my income back into my own bank. Take it as you will.''

Kefka v MNR (I can imagine it in a textbook already)

[Clan Skirata]

A lot of people are idiots and don't know shit about where their tax money goes to. If people got to choose where funding goes to it'd all go to things they can pronounce and/or even know the existence of, and I wouldn't entrust the funding of my country's infrastructure to a winy twat who want to choose where "his" money goes to.

It's not your money, anyway. Not anymore. They call it "paying" taxes for a reason.

If thats true then why is it called the taxpayer's money?

I say we have a flat tax rate of 0% or at most 1%

[Conserative Morality]

if they drag me away my argument in court will be...

''Well if Parliament INTENDED to limit the choice of where the 10% could go into, they would have and could have said so in the wording of the provision. Therefore, change the rule if you want, but I'm keeping my money. I have elected to pay 10% of my income back into my own bank. Take it as you will.''

Good luck with that. More likely is that you'd end up paying well over 10% for tax evasion.

[Conserative Morality]

If thats true then why is it called the taxpayer's money?

Because Captain Capitalism and the Free Marketeers have decided that government contracts don't count, only contracts with good, upstanding businessmen can be consented to.

[Infected Mushroom]

if they drag me away my argument in court will be...

''Well if Parliament INTENDED to limit the choice of where the 10% could go into, they would have and could have said so in the wording of the provision. Therefore, change the rule if you want, but I'm keeping my money. I have elected to pay 10% of my income back into my own bank. Take it as you will.''

Good luck with that. More likely is that you'd end up paying well over 10% for tax evasion.

sounds like oppression

[Conserative Morality]

sounds like oppression

Being punished for breaking a contract is oppression. Really. Is this like your "making your bed is oppression" schtick from not too long ago?

[Infected Mushroom]

sounds like oppression

Being punished for breaking a contract is oppression. Really. Is this like your "making your bed is oppression" schtick from not too long ago?

i never entered into a contract to part with that 10% of my money

[Ceannairceach]

Being punished for breaking a contract is oppression. Really. Is this like your "making your bed is oppression" schtick from not too long ago?

i never entered into a contract to part with that 10% of my money

If you are a citizen of the country and use public services, you did.

Legally speaking, anyway.

[Infected Mushroom]

i never entered into a contract to part with that 10% of my money

If you are a citizen of the country and use public services, you did.

Legally speaking, anyway.

not really

what consideration did I provide for this contract?

[Conserative Morality]

i never entered into a contract to part with that 10% of my money

Presumably then you don't use any government services. Otherwise that would be theft of goods and services allocated only under the assumption of social contract. Are you a thief?

[Infected Mushroom]

i never entered into a contract to part with that 10% of my money

Presumably then you don't use any government services. Otherwise that would be theft of goods and services allocated only under the assumption of social contract. Are you a thief?

I don't believe in the social contract (it doesn't meet the form requirements for a contract; there isn't consideration from both sides and there isn't a meaningful moment we can point to specifically and say THAT is the moment of Offer and THAT is the moment of Acceptance).

Even IF there is a social contract, it would have to be unconscionable.

[Ceannairceach]

Presumably then you don't use any government services. Otherwise that would be theft of goods and services allocated only under the assumption of social contract. Are you a thief?

I don't believe in the social contract (it doesn't meet the form requirements for a contract; there isn't consideration from both sides and there isn't a meaningful moment we can point to specifically and say THAT is the moment of Offer and THAT is the moment of Acceptance).

Even IF there is a social contract, it would have to be unconscionable.

Social contracts between states and their citizens do not work like the contracts made between people.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't believe in the social contract (it doesn't meet the form requirements for a contract; there isn't consideration from both sides and there isn't a meaningful moment we can point to specifically and say THAT is the moment of Offer and THAT is the moment of Acceptance).

Even IF there is a social contract, it would have to be unconscionable.

Social contracts between states and their citizens do not work like the contracts made between people.

then they are not real contracts and the word ''contract'' is just rhetoric to give legitimisation to the powerful.

[Conserative Morality]

I don't believe in the social contract (it doesn't meet the form requirements for a contract; there isn't consideration from both sides and there isn't a meaningful moment we can point to specifically and say THAT is the moment of Offer and THAT is the moment of Acceptance).

Even IF there is a social contract, it would have to be unconscionable.

So you think that you can steal from organizations because you haven't entered into a contract with them? If you refuse the implicit contract, you cannot benefit from it.

[Conserative Morality]

then they are not real contracts and the word ''contract'' is just rhetoric to give legitimisation to the powerful.

Weren't you just talking about how great feudalism was last week or somesuch?