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.
David Johnston Thu 24 Jul 2014 1:59AM
@rionroben There would be nothing against that kind of proposal. The idea is, it's your tax money that you're spending, you get to choose to what it goes on.
Remember that when you pick a proposal, it's only your own tax money* that is going to that option.
*And a share of people who didn't choose's.
fuck you assholes Thu 24 Jul 2014 4:43AM
Meh. I don't think so. Everybody would pick the same stuff, leaving other causes in the dust.
Rion Roben Thu 24 Jul 2014 8:04AM
Just becasue i make a choice, doesn't automatically make it the right one.
I like this idea as its a kin to crowd funding. But i don't like the idea of silly popular wants out shining actual needs.
If you can define this more, id be up to supporting it, just from my view needs more work.
David Johnston Thu 24 Jul 2014 12:11PM
@rionroben Certainly some silly ideas would be propogated and funded.
But in the bigger picture, I don't think this is a problem. Yes some silly schemes will get funded, but plenty of good schemes will too. And it was people's own income that was funding the silly schemes, I don't think you can resent people for choosing how they spend their own money.
The main rationale for this scheme, is that these are the kinds of problems that could be solved by charity, but people simply don't give their money to charity. By making it a tax, you push people to be charitable, but they get to choose how they want to be charitable.
Guntram Shatterhand Fri 25 Jul 2014 11:41PM
Would this be on top of existing tax? If so, you're raising taxes - not popular, especially among families on the edge of poverty who would probably vote to spend that extra 1% on feeding the kids if than on some charity, no matter how worthy it is.
If it's not on top of existing taxes, then you're cutting government spending by 1% (or whatever). Again, problematic, because the question becomes what you're going to cut in order to fund whatever charity is fashionable right now.
David Johnston Sat 26 Jul 2014 1:01AM
@hugheldredgrigg Yes - it would be on top. Increasing tax, decreasing tax, cutting spending is always controversial, but it's not impossible. Parties do it all the time, without the world coming to an end.
Guntram Shatterhand Sat 26 Jul 2014 7:40AM
@davidjohnston And this tax increase would apply across the board to everybody, regardless of income?
David Johnston Sun 27 Jul 2014 1:19AM
@hugheldredgrigg Yes, at 1% of your income. So someone who earns $25k a year would pay $250 a year to the charity/project of their choice, someone who earns $100k a year, would contribute $1000 a year, to the charity of their choice.
Guntram Shatterhand Sun 27 Jul 2014 8:21AM
@davidjohnston Well in that case, I'm afraid I can't support it.
Rion Roben · Thu 24 Jul 2014 1:35AM
how do you control the "want" vs "need" aspect of this. for example what if everyone wanted to pick "giant flat screen tvs in every home option"