From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:38:27 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:

~In article <930108.150220.1l3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk~ mathew
~<mathew@mantis.co.uk~ writes:
~~What I imagine is a tax form that looks something like:
~~
~~"Your tax payment for the year is xxxxxxxx.xxxx ECU.

~~						      The idea is to give
~~individuals the freedom to choose how their money gets spent.  Even if 51% of
~~the population wants billions wasted on nuclear missiles, I don't want any of
~~*my* money spent on them.

~	Fine, but if 49% won't pay, then the 51% shouldn't either, because
~a half-baked nuclear deterrent is actually worse than none.  This is the
~tyranny of the minority. 

translation: If we can't have it all our own way then we`ll cut off our
nose to spite our face.

~ In this case, you might think that a good thing,

Maybe not. Nuclear missiles are probably a *cheap* way to conduct
defense. It's cheaper to say "One false move and we zap your major city"
than it is to station all sorts of army units everywhere. Once people
have a line item bill/menu for things then they actually begin to see
what they need to pay for things like defence. At that point some might
convert to the cheaper options.

~but the same applies to a huge range of expenditure.  Try another case --
~if you neither have nor intend to have children, why should you spend any
~of your tax on education?

You might believe that education leads to less social unrest, a more
productive economy and thus a better lifestyle for yourself. Hell I'd
pay it just to have a better quality of argument with people :-)

~Well, you aren't *completely* selfish, I guess,
~so you might allow a little bit.  You could devote the hundreds of pounds
~you save to the NHS, and make yourself feel better that way.  Next year,
~the guideline expenditure for education has to go up to allow for you and
~those like you, so there is even more pressure to underspend on education.
~Those of us with children might get resentful.  Result -- collapse of the
~state education system, and social anarchy.

Death of Society predicted - film at eleven. Maybe there should be a new
usenet rule to join the Nazis one: An argument ends when someone
predicts the death of Usenet/Society or Anarchy of Feudalism.

The result could alternately be that folks had less children since the
costs would become transparent. Or maybe the folks with children would
compensate for the effect you describe by voting more money for
education. 

~	At the moment, we all contribute more-or-less fairly to things like
~[subsidised] theatre, music, libraries, and so on.  I console myself for
~the expenditure on theatre [which I, personally, dislike] with the thought
~that theatre-goers are cross-subsidising "my" library.  I think that giving
~taxpayers the ability to hypothecate their taxes would simply lead to a
~[more] selfish regime in which all subsidies and benefits collapse.

Another collapse predicted. Maybe some of these things could stand being
paid for directly. Theatre wouldn't disappear just because the patrons
had to pay. Neither would libraries. There have been private libraries
built in the past. They could run benefit systems where the poor paid
less or nothing to borrow a book just as many other private institutions do.

~~If people are presented with a sensible plan for how their tax money is to be
~~spent, what makes you think they won't mostly say "Yeah, go ahead"? Remember,
~~in this hypothetical scheme they have to spend the money on *something* from
~~the list, they can only juggle between categories.  I suspect that most
~~people will agree with most government expenditure.

~	I suspect you're wrong.  (a) This will be a major political item
~each year, in respect of which the opposition parties will have their chance
~to re-run the election and to embarrass the government. 

No, the government would embarras itself if it proposed schemes which
were clearly not supported by the public. It is the job of a government
to find out what the public want and to enable them to have it. If it
can't do that then embarrasment is the least that should happen.

~If this happened
~today, we'd have nice Mr Major and honest Norm telling us to say "Yeah,
~go ahead", while Mr Smith and Mr Ashdown would be on our screens telling us
~to zap Trident, spend more on the NHS, less on this, more on that, until
~we were dizzy. 

translation: I don't believe in participatory democracy because I don't
think people are up to it.

~ (b) It would be even worse with Labour in power, because
~I suspect [to coin a phrase] that most taxpayers, and especially those
~with deep pockets, are not exactly Labour sympathisers.  It would be easy
~for the opposition to mount a wrecking campaign. 

If Labour want to do some social engineering then they and their
supporters should pay for it. You can't expect those discriminated
against in such a scheme to pay for inconvenience to themselves. 

If you want such people to have less power, then just tax them less.

~(c) Even the members of
~the Cabinet don't agree with most government expenditure;  they compromise.

And all that's really being proposed here is that they compromise with
the taxpayers instead of just with each other.

~~Fewer still would refuse to spend on a couple of things and add the money to
~~other categories.  Very few would work out their own spending plan.  Hardly
~~any would allocate all their tax money to just one or two categories, and
~~even if lots of them did, what's the chance of them all choosing the same
~~categories?

~	Even when Mr Smith or Mr Ashdown or the Daily Mirror or the Sun or
~the Times is running a campaign?  "Tell the Queen we love her -- put zero
~against item 1234 [Gay Lib] and double the amount against 2345 [Restoration
~of Windsor Castle]!"

If that's what they want to do then tehy're entitled. If you disagree,
then run your own campaign against them.

~	Oh, there's another snag.  Some individuals pay *huge* amounts
~of tax.  What's to stop Mr Sainsbury zapping all categories except "9876
~-- new supermarket scheme for the Outer Hebrides" and devoting *his* N
~million pounds entirely to that cause, while effectively paying no other
~tax?

Nothing. But that's no different from a parent putting it all on
education. As I said, if you want Mr X to have less power in this way,
then tax him less.

~Well, it needed be so crass, it could be a cancer clinic, or whatever.
~Effectively, benefactions stop being a bolt-on goody, and become the way
~in which rich people avoid taxes.

He doesn't avoid tax in this situation.

~It's a sort-of return to feudalism,

Or a sort of return to participatory democracy?

~-- 
~Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
~anw@maths.nott.ac.uk

FoFP