English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Call it a democratic income tax if you want.

But did you know that the money you pay towards tax can be used on what ever the Gov sees fit?

I see that as wrong.

I would like all my taxes to be used on Schools in the area I live or hospitals or rest homes. But that is only my choice, your choice might be different and with respect you earnt it so you should have the final say, shouldn't you?????

I don't want my money spent on some things because I earnt it and because of me they have an extra x ? amount of money.

Democratic income tax?

2006-08-05 10:12:51 · 11 answers · asked by Jason 2 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

11 answers

If we lived in a democracy we would. A badly flawed election that allows one party to win with only 22% of the public's support does not give you a democratic say. On top of this, the politicians lie going into the election and then do a U turn after it. Look at top up tuition fees. Labour promised in it's manifesto in 2001 not to introduce them. Sure enough, they were introduced.

So yeah, I would say democratic taxes would be a good idea. That way, we would not be able to afford to lie ourselves into wars. Every time Blair said to the commons in 2003 that Saddam had WMD or WMD programmes, Blair knew this was not true and was Lying his *** off.

He had been briefed and told that Saddam could not possibly have had such weaponry, as even when these programmes where in effect, prior to the first gulf war, they never produced reliable or effective WMD. Their Bulk Liquid Anthrax was impure, had a very short shelf life, and wasn't even kept in sterile containers. The BLA was infected with an algae that destroyed it. Likewise their VX nerve gas was so poor quality it was almost harmless. nevertheless, when stored in their missiles, the warheads threads where so badly milled, the gas leaked out.

Saddam's Iraq was NO threat and Blair and Bush knew that BEFORE the invasion. They were briefed and told in no uncertain terms these truths.

In the whole lead up to the invasion and ever since, not ONE peice of evidence put forward supporting the WMD hypothosis has been found to stand up to scrutiny. NOT ONE!

Sorry to go off track, but if we had your system of democratic taxes, we could pay for an independent media that would have had the balls to actually question our liars in Parliament and tell the public the truth. following this, we, as a nation, would only pay for decent and honest policies that benefit Britain, not the US or the EU or anybody else.

2006-08-05 10:32:43 · answer #1 · answered by kenhallonthenet 5 · 2 0

That sounds good. I'll sign your petition. We elect our government true, but they do not necessarily reflect our views when they have to pass a bill into law, or amend a law. So just because we vote for one person or another, does not mean we are getting what we were promised, it's a crap shoot.
Lobbyists, are allowed to sway the vote, most times in favor of big business, bad news for us little peons. We are needed only until the election is over, then it's back to the old patterns, on both sides.
Despite what the masses wanted in IN, (my state) it was the governor's pet project to change the time zone. Each county voted. DOT decided which zone each county would fall into. EDT, CDT. Some counties were completely ignored. Now our state is split up county by county. Some are on CDT, the rest of us are on EDT. Stupid.
Another pet project was to sell, (lease for 75 years) the Toll Road, to a foreign group of companies, while at the same time attempting to turn another freeway, into a toll road. Australia, along with at least 5 other countries owns the Indiana toll road because our governor could not figure out a way to make a profit from the tolls collected. 3.8 billion dollars is not very much for a 75 year lease. Stupid.
This is just to give everyone a perspective on what kind of people are running our nation today. By the people for the people. We need to make changes. A democratic tax would be a good start. However, the way the congress would look at that, is that the only way it would work is as an added tax, not as the tax.

2006-08-05 18:50:27 · answer #2 · answered by Schona 6 · 0 0

in a democracy, u agree to act as a part of a 'society' and forgo any individual rights like the one that u suggest instead passing these over to others who are 'supposed' to be more able and inclined to make such decisions

i have heard it mentioned here before that the best government does the least work to get by, so government are no longer making decisions to keep the common man happy, who has become incredibly 'complex' with consumerism

instead they keep large organisations happy, this is far easier to do but they still manage to keep up the pretence they have our best wishes at heart - people disinterest in politics actually plays into that and i think the government has only now started to address this issue bcos so few people voted in the last election that it looks bad on theparty in power

we are actually going to be addressed as the 'bad guys'in history, the asian media already dwarfs our own and is growing at a far faster rate - a lot of the people in that part of the world are under developed or coming from completely opposing viewpoints than we are. i think its time that we woke up and realised what our governments are doing??

the above comment about iraq is just a taste, tony blairs legacy is the equivalent of president nixon in america i would say - riddled with corruption and if we can pick holes in it now imagine when further information comes to light down the line, all those top secret documents and back office discussions that we are going to be judged by

and we as a people will be judged by what our 'leaders' did, but what u mention in your opennning post is not a democracy - im not sure what it is really, one of my friends says im an anarchist and i like it - so it must be anarchy ;o)

2006-08-05 13:36:13 · answer #3 · answered by tony h 4 · 0 0

Well, imagine several million people all with different ideas of where their taxes go. A bit difficult in practice, wouldn't you say?

Anyway, you DO have a say on where your money goes, by voting for a political party who you know is going to spend it on defence, or one who's going to spend it on healthcare.

Also, the council tax gets spent locally, and your council should send you a breakdown of how it gets spent every year.

2006-08-05 10:20:47 · answer #4 · answered by Jude 7 · 0 0

as far as you can involve yourself in politics, by voting, by being in pressure groups, by having your opinion herd, you can have this influence. i think what you are suggesting is that your taxes, and mine should be used for what you and i respectivly decide we want them to, this is done to an extent with local levels of government but individual controll over tax spending is as close to anarcho-capitalism as makes no diffrence. the principle reason that it could never be imposed by a central government is that the cost would be absolutly prohibitive, you would probably need 1-1 administrative support for the allocation of money. it would be better just to not collect tax, and let people help each other out.

2006-08-06 05:19:04 · answer #5 · answered by richard 3 · 0 0

Well, you do choose where your taxes go. You elect an offician in your area, mayor, governor, senator, president (or mayor, member of provincial parliament, member of parliament, prime minister), who is supposed to fight for what is best in your area.

If you're not getting what you think is deserving, than run for office.

2006-08-05 10:18:03 · answer #6 · answered by dowboy98 3 · 0 0

My answer to you would be no. Because I don't even believe the people that r in charge of it doesn't even know what they r doing. We the people shouldn't allow elected people to make those decisions it should only be done by professional people.

2006-08-05 10:22:05 · answer #7 · answered by bullsfan_1971 3 · 0 0

by voting, you do say where it goes.

Your vote for congressman Joe, or Senator Jane, allows them to speak in proxy for you, and make those decisions...

If you dont vote, then you done have a say at all, do ya?

Unfortunately, that is how a democracy works.

2006-08-05 10:17:30 · answer #8 · answered by ? 2 · 0 0

Lobbies make it their job to make democracy succumb to marginal interests.

Voting for a representative is not enough. You need to petition, protest, and demonstrate solidarity behind a position if you want change to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmarking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

2006-08-05 10:20:52 · answer #9 · answered by -.- 6 · 0 0

Yes definately. Its not going to happen, but I agree with you.
Is that a pretend picture of you or real ??

2006-08-05 13:56:32 · answer #10 · answered by smiley face 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers