PDA

View Full Version : THE FINAL SOLUTION


SARF
11th Mar 2014, 22:31
to taxpayers angst .. Why not have one vote for every 'personal' tax pound paid over the duration of government.. That way slackers and youth get no say as it should be, and arsehole whiners like elton John and macartney and geldof and bono and all other serial whiners who pay their tax in jersey can shut up..
And Connery for that matter. And all tax payers should get in the fast Q at airports whilst those who chose not to repay their dues like Hamilton and button can Q for an hour or,two in the non taxpayer line

Hyph
11th Mar 2014, 22:38
I would refine your proposal and base it on the percentage of income paid in tax rather than the actual amount paid. :E

SARF
11th Mar 2014, 22:50
Oh well played. I totally agree

perthsaint
11th Mar 2014, 22:54
You need an inverse relationship between income and tax paid.:E

SARF
11th Mar 2014, 22:55
Hyph has taken control..
My concept had been overtaken by pragmatism

TomJoad
11th Mar 2014, 23:21
I would refine your proposal and base it on the percentage of income paid in tax rather than the actual amount paid. :E

Wonder if this were applied what the outcome would actually be - be interesting and bit of fun if there were any way to model it.:p

awblain
11th Mar 2014, 23:21
I see… no representation without taxation.

Mah dear ol' poll tax...

ex_matelot
11th Mar 2014, 23:30
I read somewhere that the average Joe is actually tax-neutral as the amount we pay is used in services rendered - and that the big corporations / pop stars and high-flyers are the main contributers.
I once read somewhere something along the lines of say Bono - pays more in tax per year than the whole city of Glasgow.

Happy to be corrected.

Sallyann1234
11th Mar 2014, 23:39
Hamilton and button can Q for an hour or,two in the non taxpayer line
Unlikely. They fly everywhere in private charter.

sitigeltfel
11th Mar 2014, 23:41
Google 'Bono tax dodging' to be enlightened.

ex_matelot
12th Mar 2014, 00:03
Tax avoiding or tax dodging? There is a legal distinction.

chiglet
12th Mar 2014, 00:39
I'm a pensioner, where do I stand?

SARF
12th Mar 2014, 00:44
Anywhere you want.. Tax is paid on pensions. Plus i feel a 25 years or more N.I.contributions fast track at airports is in order.. Especially if it makes F 1 private charter Monaco types wait in customs for an extra hour or three

TURIN
12th Mar 2014, 00:47
It would only last one election though.

Higher tax payers would vote for a lowering of taxes. Consequently they would not get the vote next time....I think. :\

defizr
12th Mar 2014, 00:51
How would you count everyone's VAT contribution? VAT's a tax too...

TURIN
12th Mar 2014, 01:32
And Duty.

If you drive a gas guzzler far and wide, more votes.

Alcoholic? More votes.

Travel a lot, APD? More votes.

Smoker? Have another vote.

TV Licence paid, put your x here please.

And the list goes on...:mad:

ex_matelot
12th Mar 2014, 01:48
I get a pension every month and it is tax exempt.

If I could wipe that away and carry on doing what I did prior, I would do so in a heartbeat.

llondel
12th Mar 2014, 03:07
Tax avoiding or tax dodging? There is a legal distinction.

Tax avoidance is legal, using loopholes in the law. Tax evasion is illegal. Tax dodging is a nice ambiguous term that can cover either situation.

Oktas8
12th Mar 2014, 06:20
Read an interesting novel called "In the Wet". From wikipedia:

Perhaps the most interesting, and enduring, feature of the book is the "multiple vote", seen as a necessary reform of democracy. A person can have up to seven votes. Everyone gets a basic vote. Other votes can be earned for education (including a commission in the armed forces), earning one's living overseas for two years, raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing, being an official of a Christian church, or having a high earned income. The seventh vote, which in the book is awarded to Nigger for his heroism, is only given at the Queen's discretion by Royal Charter.

Oktas "3-vote" 8.

A A Gruntpuddock
12th Mar 2014, 06:25
When they replaced the 'rates' with a system where everyone has to pay I was delighted.

Until I found out that I was liable for my wife's payments as well, so I effectively pay double.

Does this new system mean that I get 2 votes since I am making both payments?

Wingswinger
12th Mar 2014, 06:42
I have often thought along these lines and I'm delighted to find I'm not alone. It would be very tempting to base it purely on income tax but I feel that other direct taxes should be taken into account: CGT and Stamp Duty for a start.

The amount of public expenditure per head of population (PEPH) is known already so we could say that if your annual personal tax bill falls below that figure you don't have a vote. Perhaps that would be too harsh and it would be better to give adults the vote if they are simply income tax payers regardless of how much they actually pay per fiscal year. That could be the basic franchise which would retain some feature of democracy for those who care about such things. Then, if one's personal tax bill exceeds the PEPH one gets an extra vote for each multiple of PEPH that it exceeds is by. For example if PEPH is £8,000, an individual who has an annual personal tax bill of £24,000 in a given fiscal year would have 3 votes in any election held during the following fiscal year. Those who live on benefits and who pay no direct tax at all would, of course, have no vote. That would also deal with those who live in Monaco or BVI, for example.

Do you think it would be a runner? :}

Oktas8
12th Mar 2014, 07:03
Do you think it would be a runner?

No.

First election: fair.
Laws passed which tend to increase number of people on minimum wage, and reduce the real value of that wage. Think USA on steroids. Overseas tax residents begin to return.

Second election: fair-ish, but wealthy people over-represented.
Laws passed which abolish restrictions on how little a person may be paid. Collective bargaining abolished. Minimum wage not sufficient to live on. Market forces, and only market forces, determine salaries and wages. Multi-millionaires openly declare true income, to pay tax for a short time just before the next election.

Third election: what election? Only the very wealthy had any say at all.
Laws passed which... abolish laws. Corporate barons establish fiefdoms to run the country.

...

Twentieth election: no-one noticed, as only the very wealthy can read and write. The year is 1984, by the way.

A A Gruntpuddock
12th Mar 2014, 07:15
I recall a novel by Neville Shute ('In The Wet' ??) where everyone had a basic vote.

Extra votes were added for accomplishments such as education, raising a family, public service, etc.

Seemed like a reasonable idea to me.

Wingswinger
12th Mar 2014, 07:54
Third election: what election? Only the very wealthy had any say at all.
Laws passed which... abolish laws. Corporate barons establish fiefdoms to run the country.

Surely not. The number of middle class voters with multiple votes will be in their millions whereas corporate barons will just be a few hundreds or maybe a thousand or two. Five million middle class voters with an average 3 votes each = 15 million votes. Two thousand corporate barons with an average 125 votes each (average direct tax £1M on £2M salary) = 250 thousand votes. Then there is the question of which constituency the barons would vote in. At worst I think you'd see a return of a few rotten boroughs.

It's more likely that a dictatorship of the middle class would arise. Isn't that what we want?

B Fraser
12th Mar 2014, 08:33
Google 'Bono tax dodging' to be enlightened

When his Bononess played Glastonbury, a wag in the audience held up a huge banner which read "U2 Can Pay Taxes". Priceless.

MagnusP
12th Mar 2014, 09:50
I'm a pensioner, where do I stand?

In the queue at the Post Office? ;)

Wingswinger
12th Mar 2014, 10:02
In Crunland I'd be an epsilon minus. :sad:

awblain
12th Mar 2014, 10:04
There used to be "university constituencies" in the House of Commons, elected by graduates. The reason for this being ended might be informative.

Haraka
12th Mar 2014, 18:32
The problem is the difference between an "opinion" and an "informed opinion"
Unfortunately that involves a value judgement..........