The Forum > Article Comments > Web 2.0: citizens choose how to spend public money > Comments
Web 2.0: citizens choose how to spend public money : Comments
By Paul McLeay and Cassandra Wilkinson, published 23/9/2009The Community Building Partnership fund is trialing participatory democracy: does your netball team need a new change room? You vote!
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
-
- All
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 28 September 2009 8:39:33 PM
|
"There is plenty of unpaid, and therefore untaxed, labour that makes it possible for the rest of the economy to function."
The fact that people engage in consent-based relationships is not any kind of justification for people to engage in coercion-based relationships. The fact that the consent-based relationships are productive, and enable people to be productive, still supplies no justification whatsoever for coercion-based relationships.
"At the same time, there are tax breaks for many businesses and high earners."
That is an argument against tax breaks for many businesses and high earners, not an argument in favour of taxing productive people to bribe political pets for votes. Many of these tax break themselves come from the tax deductibility of expenses. In other words, they are not because politicians are trying to favour businesses, they are because, if the state tries to take any more, the entire economy will collapse, so they are forced to make expenses tax deductible.
That is an argument in favour of reducing taxes, not increasing them.
"There are also banking and investment benefits for people with high incomes and cash and stock credits (like no bank fees and interest credits); while people with meagre incomes pay transaction fees."
These are not the result of public policy but of private property. If what you are saying were justified, then the abolition of private property would be justified.
"Lastly, every individual pays taxes - goods and services; VAT, for example. As long as a citizen is purchasing groceries, clothes and paying rent they are also paying tax."
That is a description, not a justification of paying tax.
"As to how taxes are spent; or only *direct payers benefiting - which taxpayer/s paid for national highways and roads ? Should the use be restricted to only people who paid for them? How about schools ? Hospitals ? Footpaths and piped water ?"
That only begs the question whether, and which services should be paid for by taxation. It is not a justification of existing taxation, let alone of extending it.