Just a Thought: Elective Taxes

[FiveParadox]

I may have posted this here somewhere already (though it would have been years ago), as I have bandied about this idea in my own head for quite some time now. Before I get into the core of my question here, the issue that brought this up in my own mind was the sore lack of a proper space program in Canada, coupled with the acknowledgment that it’s a luxury that we simply can’t accomodate right now.

What would Canadians think of an elective tax system?

Obviously every Government department needs a very base level of funding from Her Majesty’s Government for Canada, but what if Canadians were able to decide where to channel a certain amount of their taxes? Based on a number of factors, such as personal interests, department performance, and perceived need, Canadians would be able to choose how much goes to which department (on an individual basis), and Canadians could have the option to fund some departments not at all (on an individual basis). The reason I considered this is because there are some Canadians, such as myself, who feel that a space program is desperately needed for a number of reasons, and this would enable me (and others) to fund that program, even if not all Canadians agree.

So, for example, I could elect to have 3% of my payroll automatically deducted and earmarked for the Canadian Space Agency. Now, there would be technicalities to work out (for example, would there be incentives for paying more tax than is technically owed), but...

In principle, would you support an elective tax system for some (or all) Government departments?

 

[JLM]

I may have posted this here somewhere already (though it would have been years ago), as I have bandied about this idea in my own head for quite some time now. Before I get into the core of my question here, the issue that brought this up in my own mind was the sore lack of a proper space program in Canada, coupled with the acknowledgment that it’s a luxury that we simply can’t accomodate right now.

What would Canadians think of an elective tax system?

Obviously every Government department needs a very base level of funding from Her Majesty’s Government for Canada, but what if Canadians were able to decide where to channel a certain amount of their taxes? Based on a number of factors, such as personal interests, department performance, and perceived need, Canadians would be able to choose how much goes to which department (on an individual basis), and Canadians could have the option to fund some departments not at all (on an individual basis). The reason I considered this is because there are some Canadians, such as myself, who feel that a space program is desperately needed for a number of reasons, and this would enable me (and others) to fund that program, even if not all Canadians agree.

So, for example, I could elect to have 3% of my payroll automatically deducted and earmarked for the Canadian Space Agency. Now, there would be technicalities to work out (for example, would there be incentives for paying more tax than is technically owed), but...

In principle, would you support an elective tax system for some (or all) Government departments?

I think it's a hell of an idea. It would be tough to implement and quite costly (initially) How would you go about finding a trust worthy person (board) who would see to it that the money goes directly to where you want it without it ever touching Gov't hands? A lot of my taxes would go to creating employment building lots of concrete bunkers (just steel and concrete) for containing these white collar criminals both from Gov't and from the private sector. A second problem would be having a tax system where Gov't is not involved and yet have the Gov't portion reduced by the elective amount. Another worthy cause I would support would be decentralizing Gov't right out of Ottawa and Victoria- with things like video conferencing we no longer need these "rat infested havens". I sure don't have all the ideas but I'm sure there's enough intelligent people who if they put their heads together could come up with somethng a heck of a lot better than we have now.

 

[karrie]

I pay electively into things I support... it's called a portfolio. And I'd prefer the gov keep their noses out of it as much as possible thanks. :lol:

 

[JLM]

I pay electively into things I support... it's called a portfolio. And I'd prefer the gov keep their noses out of it as much as possible thanks. :lol:

You just ain't whistling Dixie. :lol::lol:

 

[eh1eh]

I suppose this would be completely optional the way income tax was a temporary measure, right?

 

[JLM]

Just had one more thought that kind of makes me shudder. What happens when people donate for cross purposes? Like me, I'd be donating a sh*t load to get rid of the Charter and another to build gallows for the likes of Picton, Olson et al.

 

[Avro]

What sort of bureaucracy would have to be set up for this and how much would it cost?

 

[Machjo]

I may have posted this here somewhere already (though it would have been years ago), as I have bandied about this idea in my own head for quite some time now. Before I get into the core of my question here, the issue that brought this up in my own mind was the sore lack of a proper space program in Canada, coupled with the acknowledgment that it’s a luxury that we simply can’t accomodate right now.

What would Canadians think of an elective tax system?

Obviously every Government department needs a very base level of funding from Her Majesty’s Government for Canada, but what if Canadians were able to decide where to channel a certain amount of their taxes? Based on a number of factors, such as personal interests, department performance, and perceived need, Canadians would be able to choose how much goes to which department (on an individual basis), and Canadians could have the option to fund some departments not at all (on an individual basis). The reason I considered this is because there are some Canadians, such as myself, who feel that a space program is desperately needed for a number of reasons, and this would enable me (and others) to fund that program, even if not all Canadians agree.

So, for example, I could elect to have 3% of my payroll automatically deducted and earmarked for the Canadian Space Agency. Now, there would be technicalities to work out (for example, would there be incentives for paying more tax than is technically owed), but...

In principle, would you support an elective tax system for some (or all) Government departments?

I'd voted yes. Personally, I think a space programme would be a waste of money right now. That said, a lot of government spending right now is a waste of money anyway, and so I'd be more than willing to allow you to fund a space programme in exchange for having more say in how my money is spent.

One simple option I could see would be something like this, more or less (and not making any distinction between levels of government, be it Federal, Provincial, or Territorial):

1. All of your personal income tax is 100% charity deductible at a 1:1 ratio to any registered charity or government department of your choice.

2. You must earmark X% of your income towards the poor.

3. You must give Y% of your income to a school of your choice.

4. You must give Z% of your income to a charity of your choice with no requirement to earmark it for any particular purpose.

Five Paradox, that last point is where you could give all the money you wanted towards space exploration.

Any guaranteed revenue the government wants would have to be collected from fines and the sale of the Crown's natural resources.

Considering that Canada's population is simply too small for us to establish a space programme of our own, I could see the government eliminating any requirement for the funds to be used exclusively in Canada.

 

[Machjo]

I think it's a hell of an idea. It would be tough to implement and quite costly (initially) How would you go about finding a trust worthy person (board) who would see to it that the money goes directly to where you want it without it ever touching Gov't hands? A lot of my taxes would go to creating employment building lots of concrete bunkers (just steel and concrete) for containing these white collar criminals both from Gov't and from the private sector. A second problem would be having a tax system where Gov't is not involved and yet have the Gov't portion reduced by the elective amount. Another worthy cause I would support would be decentralizing Gov't right out of Ottawa and Victoria- with things like video conferencing we no longer need these "rat infested havens". I sure don't have all the ideas but I'm sure there's enough intelligent people who if they put their heads together could come up with somethng a heck of a lot better than we have now.

If you just make all of your personal income tax 100% tax deductible at a 1:1 ratio, then by giving the money directly to a charity of your choosing, then come tax time, all you'd have to do is send out your receipts the charities give you as proof and, bingo, the government would not get one dirty paw on your personal income tax at least.

 

[JLM]

If you just make all of your personal income tax 100% tax deductible at a 1:1 ratio, then by giving the money directly to a charity of your choosing, then come tax time, all you'd have to do is send out your receipts the charities give you as proof and, bingo, the government would not get one dirty paw on your personal income tax at least.

Now we are starting to get somewhere, many great minds sure beats a few. :lol::lol:, Although I was slowly coming around to thinking along those lines. The one down side I could see would be restricted to existing charities.....................there goes the gallows. Maybe we'd just have to settle for what you suggest- keep it simple and get rid of the bureaucracy.

 

[Machjo]

Now we are starting to get somewhere, many great minds sure beats a few. :lol::lol:, Although I was slowly coming around to thinking along those lines. The one down side I could see would be restricted to existing charities.....................there goes the gallows. Maybe we'd just have to settle for what you suggest- keep it simple and get rid of the bureaucracy.

though with that, Five paradox would have the responsibility to set up a charity dedicated to space exploration, or have someone else to so, and then register it.

As for the gallows, same thing, but hey, worth a try. The worst they could say is no.

 

[Machjo]

Now as for my first post in this thread, of course the government would decide the values of X, Y, and Z. But at least we'd have more say in how it's spent, which would still be an improvement.

 

[AnnaG]

I may have posted this here somewhere already (though it would have been years ago), as I have bandied about this idea in my own head for quite some time now. Before I get into the core of my question here, the issue that brought this up in my own mind was the sore lack of a proper space program in Canada, coupled with the acknowledgment that it’s a luxury that we simply can’t accomodate right now.

I think a flat tax with actual input from the public as to what money is spent on would be loads better. Some countries are starting to see the value in having non-governmental input concerning budgetary matters from the public.

http://www.mekonginfo.org/HDP/Lib.nsf/0/AB13F4D51C6A161647256D9E0033F014/$FILE/Q%203.4%20-%20IBP%20-%20civilsociety.pdf

So far budget matters are a big secret until the finance minister makes a speech and there's nothing that forces the gov't to even stick to its budget speech points. Switzerland has been doing this for years. ScienceDirect - Journal of Public Economics : Budget referendums and government spending: evidence from Swiss cantons

It'll never happen in Canuckville, though, too many executives wangle the bureaucracy in their favor. Nothing will change in the foreseeable future.

Direct input from the public into gov't decisions (in all areas) would be vastly better than the caricature of gov't we've had for decades. It works in Switzerland. What we have obviously doesn't work.

 

[AnnaG]

I pay electively into things I support... it's called a portfolio. And I'd prefer the gov keep their noses out of it as much as possible thanks. :lol:

And what politicians would prefer is to have the public keep its nose out of government affairs, too. All is well in Canuckville.

 

[Machjo]

I could also see a downside to this though. Since government revenue would become less predictable, it may become harder for the government to guarantee help to the more vulnerable members of society. As a result, society would need to become much more regulated. For example, the government might introduce something like this:

A mandatory savings programme, whereby 10% of your income must go into the mandatory savings plan, and could only be used:

1. for education at any time, though you would be free to spend it on anyone's education and it would not necessarily have to be your own.

2. as you wish when the national inflation rate drops to below 0%, the government is debt-free, and the Bank of Canada rate is at 0%; or

3.as you wish after you reach the age of seventy or when you pass away, in which case it goes to your estate to be disposed of as you prefer.

The second point above would likely occur only in a severe recession to say the least.

The government would likewise have to easily accessible forms of gambling such as lottery tickets, seeing that the poor are the ones most likely to purchase them, thus making it a regressive form of taxation.

Alcohol and cigarettes would need to be more tightly controlled too so as to bring down medical and other costs.

Also, some kind of Singaporean-style compulsory Medicare savings programme would be required.

In short, we'd have more say in how we contribute to society, but since this would make it more difficult for the government to guarantee help when people need it, it would therefore have to impose more regulations to ensure we take responsibility for ourselves.

At that stage, we're essentially moving towards a kind of corporatist economic system:

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps even a form of social corporatism:

Social corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though I'd be willing to submit to such restrictions if it meant more say in where my money went. Besides, if such regulation would be put in place, it would not impact on my current lifestyle very much anyway.

 

[Machjo]

I could see some people fearing that the government would lose all control over revenue collection. That would not be the case though since this would apply exclusively to personal income taxes. Other taxes would still go straight into government coffers, thus ensuring the government still have money for other basic government services like the police, military, regular government operations, etc.