It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The British Government believes that addressing the root causes of conflict is a social, ethical and economic imperative for the 21 st century. Her Majesty’s Government also recognises previous legislation for individuals of conscience to opt out of military conscription; but these individuals do not have the same right to opt out of paying for, through the tax system, military activity that would also conflict with their conscience.
This Bill would give all taxpayers the opportunity to express on their tax return their conscientious objection to the expenditure of their taxes on war or the preparations for war. The would then have the appropriate percentage of their income taxes redirected away from military spending and towards conflict prevention programmes sponsored by the government
For those who object to war, there is little moral difference between actually firing lethal weapons and paying for someone else to do so.
This Bill simply extends the already legally recognised right of freedom of conscience in the modern world where military taxation is the new form of conscription.
If the right of conscientious objection is to have any real meaning today, it must be the right not to support state violence with our taxes. We must allow those who object to war the right to have their taxes used for the non-violent conflict resolution.
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
What about people who object to their taxes going towards welfare?
The NHS?
Education?
The disabled?
Pensioners?
Where is their Bill?
This sets a poor precedent.
And what if we're invaded?
Will the army still be have to defend these pacifists???
Terrible idea.
originally posted by: paraphi
This won't get far. Quite rightly so. People cannot pick and choose what taxes you pay, otherwise no one will pay taxes.
This bill does not extend the right of conscientious objection per se. Many conscientious objectors in previous conflicts worked in highly dangerous and / or military support services, but did not carry a gun.
This Bill is, er, bull.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
Individual people taxes do not get split amongst different parts of government expenditure. The whole concept shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxes work.
Also if individual tax payers could opt out of paying to certain areas it would be highly undemocratic as you would effectively be giving additional control over how the government spends to a minority view.
originally posted by: nonspecific
originally posted by: ScepticScot
Individual people taxes do not get split amongst different parts of government expenditure. The whole concept shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxes work.
Also if individual tax payers could opt out of paying to certain areas it would be highly undemocratic as you would effectively be giving additional control over how the government spends to a minority view.
But surely if enough people opted out then a lesser percentage would be available?
What if say 75% opted out? Would that mean they would just use a larger proportion of the remaining 25%'s taxes would go into bombing people?
I am a bit daft when it comes to how this stuff works.
originally posted by: paraphi
This won't get far. Quite rightly so. People cannot pick and choose what taxes you pay, otherwise no one will pay taxes.
This bill does not extend the right of conscientious objection per se. Many conscientious objectors in previous conflicts worked in highly dangerous and / or military support services, but did not carry a gun.
This Bill is, er, bull.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
What about people who object to their taxes going towards welfare?
The NHS?
Education?
The disabled?
Pensioners?
Where is their Bill?
This sets a poor precedent.
And what if we're invaded?
Will the army still be have to defend these pacifists???
Terrible idea.
Actually, wouldn't this set a precedent in favor of getting to opt out of the programs you mentioned? That's how "precedent" works. Something happened which becomes an example for future actions.
originally posted by: nonspecific
What if say 75% opted out? Would that mean they would just use a larger proportion of the remaining 25%'s taxes would go into bombing people?
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: nonspecific
What if say 75% opted out? Would that mean they would just use a larger proportion of the remaining 25%'s taxes would go into bombing people?
Oh, how simple. There's more to the UK military than dropping a few bombs in low intensity wars. Besides, bombs being dropped on ISIS have my support.
Most people want those elites who "opt out" of taxes to be hounded down. No difference here.
originally posted by: 83Liberty
a reply to: nonspecific
I want a strong military with the latest equipment.
The world is so unpredictable, we need to be able to defend ourselves.
If we lose our capabilities and experience, it's much harder for us to adapt to any future problems.
I am against probably all recent military invasions/bombings. I would like our military to control our borders (especially in light of recent events) and help around the globe with disaster relief from earthquakes and flooding etc.
We could make a real positive difference to the world and still be prepared as a country to defend ourselves when needed.