UK: proposed bill will allow pacifists to opt out of taxes which fund military intervention

a reply to: Nyiah

In a fantasy government truly for the people, I'd like to see taxation still done as per normal, but allocation done a la carte. YOU pick where you want your tax money spent, period. Don't support the military? Don't send taxes to it. Want better services for the needy? Spend taxes there. Don't want to spend on anything beyond basic infrastructure? Spend it there. That would be ideal tax money allocation from a taxpayer's POV -- contribute to what's important to you for the country to have.

I would actually support this idea, but as you say, it would happen only in a 'fantasy government'.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

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.

Exactly my point mate, and I think that's a terrible idea because it could one day effect the disabled, the NHS or education.

Oh. The "Where is their bill?" and "And what if we're invaded? Will the army still be have to defend these pacifists???" parts made me think you were saying the opposite.

Though here in the US, I'm actually in favor of being able to opt out of many programs. I absolutely hate the "winner takes all" system. It would create a lot of follow up problems though, depending on how it's implemented.

originally posted by: Nyiah

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.

In a fantasy government truly for the people, I'd like to see taxation still done as per normal, but allocation done a la carte. YOU pick where you want your tax money spent, period. Don't support the military? Don't send taxes to it. Want better services for the needy? Spend taxes there. Don't want to spend on anything beyond basic infrastructure? Spend it there. That would be ideal tax money allocation from a taxpayer's POV -- contribute to what's important to you for the country to have.

Hmm, that may actually work. I'd support that even more than my idea.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Hmm, that may actually work. I'd support that even more than my idea.

No, it would be divisive and destructive. What would happen is that things that helped others would wither. Not a chance in hell that would pensioners (not tax payers) get anything near what they need (£160bil), or those on social security (welfare), an who pay very little tax, if any, but currently get £10bil.

Defence may actually get more.

In the great scheme of things - in the UK - defence spending is firmly modest as a proportion of total spend. It is less than a third of what is paid on pensions.

The idea of tax is that it is spent in ways the electorate generally want, and in ways that is equitable in the context of a cohesive society where pensions must be paid.

Just to clarify (especially for Americans who may not know the system), this is not a government sponsored bill.
It is an individual M.P's fantasy about a bill which she would like to be enacted. As such, it has no chance of being passed, because the government would be able to ensure that it got voted down.

The whole concept misses one very important point; there is no such thing as taxation "dedicated to military spending". That isn't how our taxation works. Taxes are set up to raise a total amount of money, and that total is then divided between various objects of expenditure. ANY money we pay in taxes is potentially going to the military. As an M.P., she must know that already, so the suggestion is nothing more than a publicity gesture.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Very well put, it ain't gonna happen, ever.

It's a ridiculous idea anyway, the whole essence of tax is compulsion for everyone to contribute to the pot. We have a vote every 5 years to decide the elected representatives who decide how it is spent.
If people don't want an armed force funded as it is then they can always vote for the greens next time around.

I don't like paying tax but it is a necessary evil.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: DISRAELI

Very well put, it ain't gonna happen, ever.

It's a ridiculous idea anyway, the whole essence of tax is compulsion for everyone to contribute to the pot. We have a vote every 5 years to decide the elected representatives who decide how it is spent.
If people don't want an armed force funded as it is then they can always vote for the greens next time around.

I don't like paying tax but it is a necessary evil.

I was thinking that the only way they would put something out there would be to stop anti war protests.

Anyone that "chose"(lol) not to contribute to tax would not need to protest as they had already made their voice heard by opting out.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Of course you are correct. My disdain for certain political agendas colours my logic at times when it comes to our armed forces.