Reduction of the Rationale in Tax Policy

[Xyleneb]

Ok here's the problem:

1. The "direct taxes" bit lists a bunch of taxes that lack justification - they're all taxes for the sake of being taxed. Originally I think they were used to fund some war with the French, but since then they've been operated as a "general taxation" and an excuse to take money without due cause. If you want to explain the way that you'll operate these taxes, you ought to come up with real reasons for them.

2. The "minimal indirect taxes to discourage certain activities" is equally unethical. Gentle nudging and hard shoving are the same thing by governments - they have no distinction. Taxes should be to pay one's due, not to be an experiment in social engineering or to encourage the poor to act differently.

3. "enabling local authorities to set tax rates according to local needs" will be an administrative burden and an excuse for them to fuck everyone over. I don't know about you being all politically involved and everything, but me, I've never elected a privy councillor before. It's the least exciting election along with the police commissioner and the mayoralship. Give them an inch, and they take a mile with new parking charges and bin collection taxes.

These justifications for operating these taxes the way that you do are really poor. Finally, I should say that they aren't actually policy. They're there to "inform policy". Which doesn't seem to have any use to me. Good policies will speak for themselves.

So I'm calling a vote to clear it out: yea or nae.

[openpolitics-bot]

This proposal is open for discussion and voting. If you are a contributor to this repository (and not the proposer), you may vote on whether or not it is accepted.

How to vote

Vote by entering one of the following symbols in a comment on this pull request. Only your last vote will be counted, and you may change your vote at any time until the change is accepted or closed.

vote	symbol	type this	points
Yes	:white_check_mark:	:white_check_mark:	1
No	:negative_squared_cross_mark:	:negative_squared_cross_mark:	-1
Abstain	:zipper_mouth_face:	:zipper_mouth_face:	0
Block	:no_entry_sign:	:no_entry_sign:	-1000

Proposals will be accepted and merged once they have a total of 2 points when all votes are counted. Votes will be open for a minimum of 7 days, but will be closed if the proposal is not accepted after 90.

Votes are counted automatically here, and results are set in the merge status checks below.

Changes

@Xyleneb, if you want to make further changes to this proposal, you can do so by clicking on the pencil icons here. If a change is made to the proposal, no votes cast before that change will be counted, and votes must be recast.

[ghost]

I'm gonna vote against and justify it later, I've not got time to just now but I'd rather this not pass in the meantime.

Vote: ❎

[geeksareforlife]

I understand the history, but nowadays "general taxation" pays for our national infrastructure (in whatever form you want to think of - roads, waterways, social care, etc). When taxes were first levelled to pay for wars, national infrastructure was non-existent.

I think having a rule of thumb about how we will simplify tax policy is good, and I'm afraid that I simply don't agree with your point (1). Point (2) I could possibly get behind, but I think that is a seperate proposal.

Vote: ❎

[Xyleneb]

I understand the history, but nowadays "general taxation" pays for our national infrastructure (in whatever form you want to think of - roads, waterways, social care, etc).

It claims to be simple and direct tax when it's not. If anything, your explanation is a better one. Sure it doesn't say "here's why we're taking money from you" but it does at least say "here is what we need to spend it on". That's better than what's written there. I might amend the policy with that.

I think having a rule of thumb about how we will simplify tax policy is good

I think it's a rule of thumb on how you will obfuscate tax policy, by calling it "general tax" to pay for "I don't know all the stuff". And that it's bad.

I think I'll amend it and see if I can generate the support for it then.

[philipjohn]

Vote: ❎

[openpolitics-bot]

Closed automatically: maximum age exceeded. Please feel free to resubmit this as a new proposal, but remember you will need to base any new proposal on the current policy text.