Would you...?

[johnnyg]

Be happier paying tax if you got to decide where the money went to? Eg at the end of each tax return you had the categories where your taxes get placed -

• Social security & welfare
• Payments to State & Territory Governments
• Health
• Education
• Defence
• General public services
• Other purposes
• Housing & community amenities
• Fuel and energy
• Other economic affairs
• Transport and communication
• Public order and safety
• Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
• Recreation & culture
• Assistance to the mining, manufacturing, and construction industries
• Budget deficit & implied borrowing on your behalf

With a brief run down of what each category includes and you can decide from there.

 

[pj2105]

I wouldn't 'be happier'.

Your question hides another question. Why is it that the people do not have a more direct voice in where there money goes?

I see with Obama's health reforms I see alot of Americans dissatisfied and they are sending emails/text/letters to their senators.

What I find interesting is why is it that just the sentors (or here) the parlimentarians get to vote on new laws that effect all?

In ancient greece every male citizen over 21 (or was it 18?) was allowed to vote on all new laws and were allowed to be on a jury for all court matters (yes cases might have 200 jurors). It diluted the ability to 'buy off' the jurors and effect laws.

Think of it this way, let us say a citizen in America really does not want these new health laws to pass. Why is it then that a senator that represents his area might vote the other way? Does it not make sense to have 'direct representation', everybody votes on everything! Senators and law makers won't be able to be 'bought' off by special interest groups, because everybody votes.

After all that is what democracy means. The people vote for what they believe in, not the people vote for some bloke to act on behalf of them.

 

[jono1887]

Be happier paying tax if you got to decide where the money went to? Eg at the end of each tax return you had the categories where your taxes get placed -

• Social security & welfare
• Payments to State & Territory Governments
• Health
• Education
• Defence
• General public services
• Other purposes
• Housing & community amenities
• Fuel and energy
• Other economic affairs
• Transport and communication
• Public order and safety
• Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
• Recreation & culture
• Assistance to the mining, manufacturing, and construction industries
• Budget deficit & implied borrowing on your behalf

With a brief run down of what each category includes and you can decide from there.

That would NOT work... what if we assume a bunch of the population will put into defense and everyone happens to think this resulting in no one allocating their taxes towards defense. Then we will have no spending on defense for a whole year... what happens then?

The problem is not all 10M or so tax payers are able to get togther to collectively agree... even if they could, it would be inefficient. Thats why we elect a govt to do the choosing...

 

[jono1887]

After all that is what democracy means. The people vote for what they believe in, not the people vote for some bloke to act on behalf of them.

How do you propose getting the 10mil or so population that are elligble to vote to cast a vote for each bill that goes through parliament?

I would probably say that 90+% of them dont even know much about what is going to get passed, or even care about or have the knowledge to make an educated decision on the economic reprecussions of an ETS (or even get through the first page of the report for that matter)...

If your idea was brought ahead, I would say that the media would control the country. All you would need was to blast the message on TV, newspapers, net and radio about how bad a particular bill is and I would say that the majority of the pop would not even look into it and vote against it.

I'm also sure that any future tax increases would be virtually impossible if the gen pop was making the decisions...

 

[johnnyg]

That would NOT work... what if we assume a bunch of the population will put into defense and everyone happens to think this resulting in no one allocating their taxes towards defense. Then we will have no spending on defense for a whole year... what happens then?

The problem is not all 10M or so tax payers are able to get togther to collectively agree... even if they could, it would be inefficient. Thats why we elect a govt to do the choosing...

I never said it would, I simply asked the question would you be happier having a more direct say on where your hard earned tax dollars are put into. I for one would be.

 

[Mofra]

No, I really don't like the idea of knowing how much of my hard earned is p!ssed up against the wall and wasted by beaurocracy. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

 

[white_goodman]

im as right wing as they come, but it probably wouldnt be best for the gap between the rich and poor... the rich paying more taxes probably dont want it put in public schools and public healthcare etc.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

“I pay what I’m required to pay, not a penny more, not a penny less. If anybody in this country doesn’t minimise their tax, they want their heads read because, as a government, I can tell you you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.”

The above is a quote from Kerry Packer testifying in front of a Senate committee in 1991.

It says it all really.

gg