Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Jolly2 on 13/04/2020 22:53:23

Title: Voluntary Taxation for social services?
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/04/2020 22:53:23
Quiet simply.

You could fund the NHS and "free" Transportation services by allowing people the freedom to voluntarily choose to play the taxation towards it, and also allow people the right to refuse to pay tax for it.

Hence with transportation every voluntary tax payer would be given a transport card that allows them to travel. And all those refusing to pay the tax, and all tourists, would have to buy a ticket. The same could be achieved with the health care system.

Voluntary Taxes- those that believe in socialised services pay tax for them those that don't,  do not... it's the win win of personal choice.

Title: Re: Voluntary Taxation for social services?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/04/2020 23:40:35
Two problems.

1. Treasuries do not like "hypothecated" taxation. It makes life awkward when you need to divert money in an emergency or to cover up a mistake, and it adds to the total burden of bookkeeping. Not everyone agrees with the amount spent on, say, the army, but you can't vote not to be defended.

2. Those most likely to pay are, sadly, those least able to do so. Nobody gets rich by giving their money away. If you have a very large income,  it's cheaper to pay an accountant than the taxman. If you doubt my word, try door-to-door charity collection and assess the ratio of household income to what they put in the tin, or just look at the people queuing up to pay their weekly idiot tax for the lottery.

Nationalised health services are organised as insurance: everyone pays a premium and hopes never to claim, but unlike private health insurance the premium is related to your ability to pay and there's no penalty for claiming.

Free transport is a social benefit to everyone: the more people who use buses, the easier it is for trucks, emergency vehicles and disabled drivers to get around. It's a good idea if it is subsidised by parking or congestion charges, but that's almost the opposite of hypothecation: those who don't use it, pay for it!

Nevertheless, a huge amount of medical research, education and clinical and social care is provided or part-funded by charities, without which the NHS would be in serious trouble. Think Macmillan nurses, volunteer drivers, St John Ambulance, Red Cross, helicopters and hospices.
Title: Re: Voluntary Taxation for social services?
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/04/2020 00:41:25
Two problems.

1. Treasuries do not like "hypothecated" taxation. It makes life awkward when you need to divert money in an emergency or to cover up a mistake, and it adds to the total burden of bookkeeping. Not everyone agrees with the amount spent on, say, the army, but you can't vote not to be defended.

They might not like. I could careless, the entire idea is giving people more say over their taxes and how they are used.

Other types of taxation would be used for the police, army and emergencies.  If not tax then borrowing or printing.
 It's simply not correct that allowing people to choose to pay a tax would prevent funds for emergencies.

Quote
2. Those most likely to pay are, sadly, those least able to do so. Nobody gets rich by giving their money away. If you have a very large income,  it's cheaper to pay an accountant than the taxman. If you doubt my word, try door-to-door charity collection and assess the ratio of household income to what they put in the tin, or just look at the people queuing up to pay their weekly idiot tax for the lottery.

This is unrelated. Charity isnt the same thing as tax funding your transport or paying directly for a ticket each time you travel.
This has nothing to do with charity.
These are different forms of payment for a service.
You always pay the question is how, and what for.

A voluntary tax system allows you to pay for yourself and others if you want to; because you could also choose to simply pay tax for yourself or pay for yourself and others or not pay anything.


Quote
Nationalised health services are organised as insurance: everyone pays a premium and hopes never to claim, but unlike private health insurance the premium is related to your ability to pay and there's no penalty for claiming.

No NHS is not an insurance system noone asks for your insurance when you go to a doctor as they do do in insurance based systems.

Quote
Free transport is a social benefit to everyone: the more people who use buses, the easier it is for trucks, emergency vehicles and disabled drivers to get around. It's a good idea if it is subsidised by parking or congestion charges, but that's almost the opposite of hypothecation: those who don't use it, pay for it!

Which is why a voluntary system is better then forcing everyone to pay for it.

Quote
Nevertheless, a huge amount of medical research, education and clinical and social care is provided or part-funded by charities, without which the NHS would be in serious trouble.

The NHS is in serious trouble because consecutive governments both Tory and Labour have been following the same agenda of privatisation.

Pfi as an example have invested 14 billion into the NHS and extracted currently about 88 billion. That's 74 billion taken out of the NHS as profits by the PFIs.

Oliver Letwin wrote a secret paper during his time in Thatchers government that described the secret steps that should be taken to bring the NHS into private ownership. 40 years on they have almost achieved it.

So the NHS needing charity is simply a reflection of what Labour, the conservatives and the lib dems in coalition have done together, and generally-secretly.