From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 15:02:20 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:
>In article <VFsywB32w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>OK.  So let's compromise.  Have government decide how much people are going 
>> to donate, and let the people decide which charities to donate it to.
> 
>         How?  Can you put more flesh on this, please?  OK, so the government
> says "We have #X billion to spend", how do we, the people, decide how much
> goes to the NHS?

What I imagine is a tax form that looks something like:

"Your tax payment for the year is xxxxxxxx.xxxx ECU.  Please indicate how you
 would like it allocated amongst the following causes:

 Amount   Amount
we would  you wish
like you  to give
 to give   
 [    ]   [    ]   Any purpose decided by government
 [    ]   [    ]   National Health Service
 [    ]   [    ]   Nuclear Electric
 [    ]   [    ]   Road construction
 [    ]   [    ]   Road maintenance
 [    ]   [    ]   Public buses
 [    ]   [    ]   Railway construction
 [    ]   [    ]   Railway maintenance
 [    ]   [    ]   Public trains
  ...      ...      
 [    ]   [    ]   Other registered charity / social fund(s) (listed below
                   with breakdown of amount to give to each fund)
  ...      ...
 Total:   [    ]   MUST BE xxxxxxxx.xxxx ECU"
                   
Anyone who likes things the way they are now just writes the full amount in
the top right box.  The amounts in the left column are calculated fractions
of the individual's tax payment.

The government *could* just stick the entire amount in the top left box, but
in practice would probably find that too dangerous and would want to give
more guidance to people who object to only a few of the things government
wants to spend money on.
                   
>                   And does it go to the NHS to spend as the NHS sees fit,
> or do we get to spend some on GPs, some on teaching hospitals, etc., and
> who decides on the split?

The individual funds are listed in some sort of reference book or leaflet
available in the library, and have easy reference codes.  The tax form can
group assorted funds together for convenience (e.g. NHS), and most people
would probably go along with the broad categories suggested.  Those few who
want to do something more cussed can write in categories and amounts at the
bottom using the codes listed in the reference book.

>                              Annual referendums ["Allocate percentages to
> the following areas -- Defence, Education, Health, ....   Indicate how you
> want your Defence expenditure to be allocated between (a) Army, (b) Navy,
> (c) Air Force.  How much of (a) should be spent on (i) Northern Ireland,
> (ii) ....  How much of (ai) should go on paying informers ...."]?

No, a referendum would spoil the whole point of it.  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.

>>For instance, I don't think the general public would choose to close the coal
>>mines.  I don't think they'd choose to spend money on nuclear power.
> 
>         In what circumstances?  *If* the electricity suppliers decided not
> to buy any more coal, then how and why do we *not* close the coal mines?

I'd be surprised and delighted if the electricity suppliers decided not to
buy any more coal.  I gather that energy efficiency could reduce power
requirements in this country by around 45%, and most of the remaining demand
could be satisfied entirely using renewable energy sources.  I don't expect
that to happen in my lifetime, though.  I think we're going to be stuck
burning coal for a long time.

>>                                                                      I do
>>think they'd spend money on the NHS, and not on the Channel Tunnel.
> 
>         Yes, but how much?  There seems to be general agreement that the
> NHS (a) is underfunded, and (b) is out of managerial control.  Solving
> (b) might well solve a large part of (a);  how do we, the public, go
> about using our hold on the pursestrings to encourage this?

If anyone can set up a charitable hospital, the public can divert funds into
whichever one spends the largest proportion of its cash on patient care. 
That is, someone can set up an alternative NHS which isn't out of managerial
control.

>                                                          As regards
> the Channel Tunnel, why do you think we wouldn't spend money on it?

How many people do you know who are actually willing to use the Channel
Tunnel once it's built?  Everyone I've spoken about it has said point blank
that they think it's a deathtrap and that they won't use it.  I'm certain
that the moment it's opened, it'll be the IRA's number one target.

That leaves it for use as a goods transport system, and a hopelessly
expensive one.

> We already have, as private investors.

And look at what's happened.  Twice they've spent all the money and gone
begging for more.  I predict that Channel Tunnel will be a dismal failure,
and the investors won't get a decent return on investment.  In fact, I
suspect they'll be lucky to get anything back at all.

>                                         How do we co-ordinate the spending
> into a strategy -- it's silly to spend money on the Channel Tunnel without
> also spending money on high-speed rail links to our end of it, and vice
> versa, but how do you tie these expenditures together?

You group them together on the tax form, as "Channel Tunnel and high-speed
rail links (funds 2032, 2040 and 2055)".  Most people won't argue with that,
and will let government allocate the cash between those three funds.

>>Also, you wouldn't get special interest groups -- like homeowners -- voting
>>themselves more money.  They would have to convince the rest of us that they
>>deserved it.
> 
>         I don't think that's the problem.  The real problem is that *nothing*
> would get money until it became evident that there was a crisis.

What makes you think that this isn't the case already?

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.  Your average taxpayer
will probably at most refuse to fund a couple of things he doesn't agree
with, and add the money to one or more of the other categories.  On the
whole, this will balance out -- unless government tries to spend money on
something nobody wants.

The point of the system is that it prevents government from forcing the
country to spend money on something against the citizens' wishes.  It
prevents government from grabbing money ostensibly for some good cause, and
spending it on bombs.  Unless the people consent to that, of course.

> these areas -- but we would be lurching from crisis to crisis, and we would
> be being perpetually lobbied by those trying to warn us of impending doom
> in Cinderella areas.  We pay governments to look after these things for us;
> we are all ready to criticise when they get it wrong, but I don't see any
> real evidence that we want the responsibility ourselves.

Under this system if you want government to make the decisions, and you trust
them, then you can let them spend your money.  So the only objection I can
see you having is that you want to force me to trust the government to spend
my money.

Most people are lazy.  Look at the statistics regarding unclaimed tax breaks
and benefits.  I bet most people would say "sure, government, go ahead and
spend my money".  Quite a few would copy the figures in the left column to
the right column, to make sure government didn't divert money elsewhere. 
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?


mathew
Newsgroups: uk.misc
From: Grahame@gbd.demon.co.uk (Grahame Davies)