A percentage of tax that you choose where it goes.
The concept is quite straight simple:
A percentage of your income (say 1%), is a compulsory tax, but you get to choose what this tax money is spent on.
To choose what this money is spent on, you would log in to the IRD website, with your IRD number, and select from the list of projects what your tax is spent on.
Charities and organisations can put themselves forward, to create projects, and receive this tax money.
For example, a cycling advocate group might propose to build a scenic cycling track. A poverty group might propose a food in schools in South Auckland program. A group of rich people might propose a beautifying Remuera program.
The tax money then funds these programs. So for example if if I have an income of $50k, and I log in and vote for the cycling program, then the 1% of my income ($500) that has been taken as tax, goes toward that cycling program.
The tax from people who don't choose a program, will be distributed according to the proportions that do.
The programs/charities/organisations putting forward proposals will be subject to scrutiny/legislation, perhaps something similar to existing charity legislation.
This will provide a significant source of funding for projects that New Zealanders actually want to see.
If the program was successful, the percentage of your income could be increased.
There are some details might need to be ironed out. For example, if the cycling group worked out that they needed $10m to build the track, but only attracted $2m, what should happen to that money? What if they raised $50m? Perhaps a goal should be specified, and if it isn't reached, then they money goes elsewhere. If it's in excess, it also goes elsewhere. Perhaps people vote with a STV vote, or perhaps the charities nominate where the money should be transferred.
Guntram Shatterhand Sun 27 Jul 2014 8:41AM
I'm opposed to increasing taxes on the poor. If your extra 1% had a minimum income threshhold I would be much more positive towards this proposal.
David Johnston Sun 27 Jul 2014 8:45AM
@hugheldredgrigg I've updated my above comment.
David Johnston Sun 27 Jul 2014 9:04AM
@hugheldredgrigg
As far as I see there are 3 ways you could implement such a tax in terms of the tax burden:
- Increase it across the board.
- Don't increase it for lower income earners, still direct 1% of their income to this scheme. Increase tax on higher income earners to make up for this redirection.
- Cut services to make up for the redirection.
So that's an implementation specific detail, for now I think it would be good to talk about the core idea itself.
Guntram Shatterhand Sun 27 Jul 2014 9:14PM
@davidjohnston I don't really think talking about how this would affect the massive number of families on low incomes is a detail.
Even with an exemption for poor families, I don't really see what problem this policy is intended to address.
David Johnston Tue 29 Jul 2014 12:07AM
@hugheldredgrigg Right - but what if it were in conjunction with different tax framework? (eg first 20k tax free, or a universal allowance).
David Johnston Tue 29 Jul 2014 12:10AM
@hugheldredgrigg
I don’t really see what problem this policy is intended to address.
I like this way of framing it.
The problem: Charity is a good way addressing various problems facing the world today, but people simply don't get around to donating a significant amount to charity.
Solution: Incorporate that into the tax system, while still giving people the freedom of choice about where that money goes to.
An alternative way to see it, is that government funding is determined by the government that is in power at the time, which doesn't reflect the desires of the minority. This would democratically assign some government funding.
Bob Young Wed 30 Jul 2014 6:52AM
This is an idea I've been thinking about for a while, and I think 1% of the tax I'm paying is too low. Yes, we elect politicians to do the thinking for us, but I didn't vote for National. I used my one token right to democracy to vote and my team in, so I just have to trust that they will act in my interests and support causes that I believe are just.
Broadly speaking you could divide it up into areas, such as: Education, Military, Technology Development, International Aid, Health, Conservation, Infrastructure etc. You could break it down further into specific organisations as well, but you run the risk of getting into areas that the government wouldn't usually fund. I could then say that out of the tax that I pay, I want 25% to go to Education, 0.01% to go to the military, 0.7% to go to International Aid, etc etc.
I want the chance to put my money where my mouth is, and I consider democracy to be more than just a choice between the lesser of two evils every three years. This addresses both of those things.
fuck you assholes Wed 30 Jul 2014 10:45AM
@jamesjisaka I think maybe we need to start an educational charity. I'd give to that.
Bob Young Wed 30 Jul 2014 10:48AM
Problem with going into areas that government wouldn't usually fund is that you'd have to raise taxes, and then you might as well just give straight to a charity, rather than go through the government. If the people paying the taxes were allocate a portion of their tax, even if it were only 1% to the broader areas they deem important, it would give a pretty good idea of how the public perceived the importance of military funding vs education, or what have you.
Blair Robson Wed 30 Jul 2014 7:52PM
What your proposing is 'forced' charity - which automatically makes it NOT charity. o_O
Just give 1% of your income to charity. your choice.
David Johnston Wed 30 Jul 2014 10:15PM
@blairrobson1 That's right, it's not charity. It's a tax. That you get to funnel where it goes.
The Working Poor Class Fri 22 Aug 2014 5:04AM
Charities within/near your suburb I could see. Its a good concept, needs more structure.
Virginia Toy Fri 22 Aug 2014 8:04PM
Let those who want to spend it on themselves do so if they can live with the guilt. I think this idea is absolutely fantastic!
Colin England Fri 22 Aug 2014 9:41PM
What I'd rather see is a democratic way of determining how NZ resources rather than leaving those decisions to unelected and unaccountable private enterprise.
Virginia Toy Sat 23 Aug 2014 11:32PM
The elected representatives are just the people willing to spend their time dealing with managing our social, political etc etc structure. This (internet party) approach shows clearly that others would contribute if it was not a full time commitment. Thus, I suggest that allowing some small proportion of control of the way the system works by the members of the system (such as this tax proposal) would work well.
David Johnston · Sun 27 Jul 2014 8:26AM
@hugheldredgrigg I wouldn't get too bogged down by the proportions of tax burden. I think a flat rate for every tax payer works, because it keeps everybody invested. If you made low income earners exempt, then they wouldn't be engaged with it.
Even if you support a tax system like the first $20k tax free, a 1% tax that applies, is tiny, and affordable.