Scrap income tax

[kabbes]

If I could extend the digression about the nature of tax itself, my objection is that it is being used outside what I would consider its remit. Stoat Boy does have a kernel of a point, in that tax may be totally necessary but it is fundamentally coercive, which places a responsibility on those who collect it to use it appropriately. We can argue this way and that about what constitutes appropriateness, but I think that many people would consider the spending of billions in the pursuit of an illegal war way outside our sovereign boundaries to be waaaaaaay over the line. That money was forcibly removed from me (even if I did agree with the need for it to be taken) and then spent in a way that can't possibly be argued to lie within the boundaries of why it was taken.

 

[BlueSquareThing]

But ultimately all tax is wrong.

What, to provide for *anything* you mean? Anything at all?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If I could extend the digression about the nature of tax itself, my objection is that it is being used outside what I would consider its remit. Stoat Boy does have a kernel of a point, in that tax may be totally necessary but it is fundamentally coercive, which places a responsibility on those who collect it to use it appropriately. We can argue this way and that about what constitutes appropriateness, but I think that many people would consider the spending of billions in the pursuit of an illegal war way outside our sovereign boundaries to be waaaaaaay over the line. That money was forcibly removed from me (even if I did agree with the need for it to be taken) and then spent in a way that can't possibly be argued to lie within the boundaries of why it was taken.

This is where democracy is supposed to come in. Unfortunately in the particular case you cite, our system has let us all down. The Iraq war exemplifies the long way we have to go to become properly democratic.

 

[Nigel]

If you want to argue about inequalities in society then fair enough but taxing people more because they earn more is merely the politics of envy.


If we have to have income tax then I would actually have it so that everybody pays the same percentage up to a certain point but that over that then the amount of tax payable decreases. Say 20% on the first £50,000 and 10% above that.

But ultimately all tax is wrong.

surely if you are on that sort of salary/earnings, there are plenty of tax breaks, self employed or running a business, you could claim much of the tax you pay back on 'business lunches', 'training', plant, capital etc., and then claim the money you spend on accountant back as well.

If things were so bad for the rich, it is suprising that so many of them from all over the world choose to live in this country

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Stoat Boy does have a kernel of a point, in that tax may be totally necessary but it is fundamentally coercive.

It is, yes. But a system that allows the levels of inequality that we have is also necessarily fundamentally coercive. The police force was originally introduced first and foremost to protect property.

 

[kabbes]

That's true, and I'm not even saying that coersion is necessarily wrong. It depends on the circumstances. But it does, at least, create a duty of care on the part of the one exercising it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's true, and I'm not even saying that coersion is necessarily wrong. It depends on the circumstances. But it does, at least, create a duty of care on the part of the one exercising it.

Yes it does. And that's where democratic accountability is supposed to come in. It does to an extent – Britain is far from a totalitarian state – but sometimes to a fairly lamentable extent.

 

[teuchter]

Now on this one I fully admit to not thinking it through. Its easier to know what I am against as opposed to knowing what should be done.

I need a ponder.

The only argument I can think of that you could come back with would be that charity would fill the gap.

Either that or you accept that people with low earning power simply don't survive.

 

[kittyP]

Or:

Badgers!!

 

[kyser_soze]

OK, I basically agree with Kabbes' proposal back around post #15 or so. I also agree with his point about it being coercively aquired - it's done under threat of punishment.

Now while I agree that it's not a bad thing that it's paid by compulsion (I make the same argument about the funding of the BBC), it's not ideal and the democratic deficit in how that money is spent is a huge problem - what would be ideal is that people get to choose, in 2-4 year chunks, how much money they want to get spent on specific things (within a set framework - i.e. you have to contribute minimum X% of your tax to health, welfare, education, but are then free to decide how the rest of your money gets spent. Or have a 'minimum contribution' across all areas of govt, and then get the option of 'topping up' - i.e. i don't want to pay for defence spending, so I'll contribute the minimum amount to that; I also want to fund education and health, so will give more to that.

Bugger to administer, and would make longer term planning harder for govts, but at least people would pay for what they wanted to pay for...

 

[DotCommunist]

and when the option for 'how much do you want to spend on Ministers spouses onanism aids' came up we could all say 'fuck all, youporn it with the rest of the plebs'

 

[berniedicters]

That's true, and I'm not even saying that coersion is necessarily wrong. It depends on the circumstances. But it does, at least, create a duty of care on the part of the one exercising it.

In many ways, coercion IS necessarily wrong. But those who would advocate some kind of People's Paradise generally go very quiet when it gets down to the details. Do we seriously believe that a purely elective system would stand any chance of raising anywhere near the amounts necessary to run the State? I don't.

But, in some ways, our system isn't purely coercive, and that is the tightrope the government must walk. If enough people turned around and said "can't pay, won't pay", the system would grind to a halt, and concessions would have to be made. It would be nice to think that enough of us might stand up and refuse, say, to pay that element of our tax that represents the cost of the war in Iraq, though of course PAYE means that they've got that sewn up quite nicely. And, of course, the socialist paradisers around here would no doubt view the decision of those in a position to do something like that (ie those who didn't PAYE...in other words, The Rich ) in a completely different light...

Nah, like Churchill's democracy, coercive taxation is not a good system, but it's the best one we've got.

And I, too, would like to think that there was a way in which a government could be held to account for something like Iraq - but that points to a much bigger flaw in the way the system works, though, than how (or how much) we get taxed.

 

[berniedicters]

OK, I basically agree with Kabbes' proposal back around post #15 or so. I also agree with his point about it being coercively aquired - it's done under threat of punishment.

Now while I agree that it's not a bad thing that it's paid by compulsion (I make the same argument about the funding of the BBC), it's not ideal and the democratic deficit in how that money is spent is a huge problem - what would be ideal is that people get to choose, in 2-4 year chunks, how much money they want to get spent on specific things (within a set framework - i.e. you have to contribute minimum X% of your tax to health, welfare, education, but are then free to decide how the rest of your money gets spent. Or have a 'minimum contribution' across all areas of govt, and then get the option of 'topping up' - i.e. i don't want to pay for defence spending, so I'll contribute the minimum amount to that; I also want to fund education and health, so will give more to that.

Bugger to administer, and would make longer term planning harder for govts, but at least people would pay for what they wanted to pay for...

What usually gets called "hypothecation". Nice idea, but - as you say - hard to administer.

 

[kyser_soze]

Indeedy!

The thing is, while the state takes it's tax cut, we're ultimately ensuring it's continued existance. How would the state function if paying it's taxes were completely volountary on the proviso that if you don't pay any of it, you cannot access any kind of state service? The opportunities for community action would explode - there is always the automatic assumption that such a policy would only favour the rich, but that would depend on how it was implemented.

 

[Crispy]

Indeedy!

The thing is, while the state takes it's tax cut, we're ultimately ensuring it's continued existance. How would the state function if paying it's taxes were completely volountary on the proviso that if you don't pay any of it, you cannot access any kind of state service? The opportunities for community action would explode - there is always the automatic assumption that such a policy would only favour the rich, but that would depend on how it was implemented.

Except, of course, those who cannot pay tax are often those who most need the state services in the first place. It might be an opportunity for community action, but it would also be an opportunity for exploitation.

 

[kyser_soze]

What usually gets called "hypothecation". Nice idea, but - as you say - hard to administer.

Cheers, I always forget that word! My idea would take it further than it's usual application (e.g. X party promising to hypothecate X amount of taxes to pay for Y service), and make it a personal hypothecation.

Oh, and VAT needs to go, to be replaced by a genuine luxury goods tax. VAt on fucking sanitary protection FFS.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Indeedy!

The thing is, while the state takes it's tax cut, we're ultimately ensuring it's continued existance. How would the state function if paying it's taxes were completely volountary on the proviso that if you don't pay any of it, you cannot access any kind of state service? The opportunities for community action would explode - there is always the automatic assumption that such a policy would only favour the rich, but that would depend on how it was implemented.

Presumably you'd have to carry an 'I pay tax' card, so that the ambulance crews knew who to scrape off the pavement and who to leave to bleed to death.

I couldn't see that being anything other than incredibly divisive.

 

[kyser_soze]

At some point if anyone wants long term change to happen we need to start weening ourselves away from the notion that we need a centralised state to manage everything, to provide all the services. Whether that means taxes still exist, with the same penalties but are collected and spent under local control or some other way, or something completely different, if you ever want anarchism and self determinism to take hold at a grass roots level you've got to get rid of centralised state services, takes collection etc, and work out what, if anything, you need national governance for - and that includes looking at taxation.

It is interesting seeing proclaimed anarchists defending the central plank of the current model of the State tho.

 

[teuchter]

OK, I basically agree with Kabbes' proposal back around post #15 or so. I also agree with his point about it being coercively aquired - it's done under threat of punishment.

Now while I agree that it's not a bad thing that it's paid by compulsion (I make the same argument about the funding of the BBC), it's not ideal and the democratic deficit in how that money is spent is a huge problem - what would be ideal is that people get to choose, in 2-4 year chunks, how much money they want to get spent on specific things (within a set framework - i.e. you have to contribute minimum X% of your tax to health, welfare, education, but are then free to decide how the rest of your money gets spent. Or have a 'minimum contribution' across all areas of govt, and then get the option of 'topping up' - i.e. i don't want to pay for defence spending, so I'll contribute the minimum amount to that; I also want to fund education and health, so will give more to that.

Bugger to administer, and would make longer term planning harder for govts, but at least people would pay for what they wanted to pay for...

That seems fundamentally undemocratic to me because effectively the wealthier you are, the more tax you are paying, and therefore the more influence your decisions about what it should be spent on would have.

Why not just keep the tax system as is and have a referendum every four years or whatever to decide what % of the total tax revenue is spent on what?

 

[DotCommunist]

At some point if anyone wants long term change to happen we need to start weening ourselves away from the notion that we need a centralised state to manage everything, to provide all the services. Whether that means taxes still exist, with the same penalties but are collected and spent under local control or some other way, or something completely different, if you ever want anarchism and self determinism to take hold at a grass roots level you've got to get rid of centralised state services, takes collection etc, and work out what, if anything, you need national governance for - and that includes looking at taxation.

surely if a centralised state imposed the sort of fundamental changes needed to make collectivism viable it would naturally wither and die?


Although that does strike me as I type it as a sort of 'let us study the ways of the heretic to better combat him' argument...

 

[berniedicters]

Presumably you'd have to carry an 'I pay tax' card, so that the ambulance crews knew who to scrape off the pavement and who to leave to bleed to death.

I couldn't see that being anything other than incredibly divisive.

And that's a nice example of why we pay taxes. OK, so it's helping the vagrant ne'erdowell who got run by a bus, or housing the drug addict, but it's also the price we pay to live in a society where people aren't starving to death in the streets or coughing consumptively all over our kids as they walk around the place, etc...

 

[kyser_soze]

That seems fundamentally undemocratic to me because effectively the wealthier you are, the more tax you are paying, and therefore the more influence your decisions about what it should be spent on would have.

Why not just keep the tax system as is and have a referendum every four years or whatever to decide what % of the total tax revenue is spent on what?

interesting point, will have to chew on that one...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That seems fundamentally undemocratic to me because effectively the wealthier you are, the more tax you are paying, and therefore the more influence your decisions about what it should be spent on would have.

Good point.

@Kyser. Problem is, you can't impose anarchy from the top, which is what your idea amounts to..

 

[kyser_soze]

So then, we're stuck with a coercive, centralised system to which there is no alternative other than 'more democracy' being thrown at it to police how it's spent. Splendid.

 

[teuchter]

interesting point, will have to chew on that one...

I don't like the more "democratic" referendum version either, because it just seems like design by committee which as far as I am concerned is seldom a good thing.

I much prefer the principle of electing someone based on their general policies, and then giving them the time and power to implement them without interference.

 

[Crispy]

Democracy and centralisation should be proportional to the effect that decisions will have. Should Developer Blogs be allowed to build 20 new homes on the school playing field? Local decision. Should certain crimes be tried without a jury? National decision. Should new nuclear power stations be built? International decision (maybe). My examples might be a bit crap, but my point is that democracy and the local/central questions have answers all along the spectrum.

 

[kabbes]

That seems fundamentally undemocratic to me because effectively the wealthier you are, the more tax you are paying, and therefore the more influence your decisions about what it should be spent on would have.

Why not just keep the tax system as is and have a referendum every four years or whatever to decide what % of the total tax revenue is spent on what?

interesting point, will have to chew on that one...

Good point.

Funny, I actually interpreted Kyser's suggestion as being a simple referendum in the first place. That is, everybody says "I want X% on A and Y% on B" and then the aggregate percentage allocated to A is pro-rated for the actual amount of tax available. No need to have it in actual money terms.

 

[belboid]

So then, we're stuck with a coercive, centralised system to which there is no alternative other than 'more democracy' being thrown at it to police how it's spent. Splendid.

Well, it's run by the state which means it is inevitably coercive, cos that's what the state is, innit? Nothing more than an armed body of men.

 

[Stoat Boy]

At some point if anyone wants long term change to happen we need to start weening ourselves away from the notion that we need a centralised state to manage everything, to provide all the services. Whether that means taxes still exist, with the same penalties but are collected and spent under local control or some other way, or something completely different, if you ever want anarchism and self determinism to take hold at a grass roots level you've got to get rid of centralised state services, takes collection etc, and work out what, if anything, you need national governance for - and that includes looking at taxation.

It is interesting seeing proclaimed anarchists defending the central plank of the current model of the State tho.

It does amuse me. I guess its because most self-proclaimed Anarchists are actually dependant on the state in terms of benefits and so on.

Only came to this anarchist lark of late and it has really struck a cord with me how much emphasis the notion of self-responsibility that seems to come through much of what I have been reading gets ignored.

And as to the person who started on about the NHS to me, well to be honest I do think that people should be expected to pay for it. I just dont think that complusory taxation is the best way to fund it.

Been giving some thought to how an alternative could be arrived at.

Perhaps make it so that Government automatically gets a certain stake in all businesses that operate in the UK with these companies being required to pay a certain percentage of their profits directly into the coffers. Whilst it would be a form of taxation, it would be one linked directly to how well the company where performing. Maybe have some sort of system linked to the top peoples pay which had to come from the same profit pot as which the Government slice of income would come from. It would work the same way with foreign companies selling products here and would encourage companies to employ British workers along with simplifying the entire system of revenue raising which in itself would save billions.

 

[belboid]

And as to the person who started on about the NHS to me, well to be honest I do think that people should be expected to pay for it. I just dont think that complusory taxation is the best way to fund it.

you'd prefer voluntary taxation then? that'd work well.

No one should pay for their health treatment at the point of use, that's the point of it. We all do pay for it already, it's in our taxes. Which is how it should be.