Moral Tax Payments ?
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 08 October 2012
One of my neighbours has given up his car, in favour of a bike plus public transport. He felt it was the environmentally moral thing to do. His words ! (I think he's mad !!)
However, he is also making enquiries of the Inland Revenue to see how he can continue to pay into the government coffers the revenue they would otherwise loose due to Road Fund Licence and fuel taxes etc that he will no longer be liable to pay - My words, not his.. He considers it is morally right (and economically sound) that government revenue levels be maintained during changing life-styles. He feels morally obliged to play his part. (I am convinced he is mad !!)
So far, he syas his enquiries have been met with mild amusement or simple disbelief. I have told him he could simply make gratuitous payments, but he want's to make a "Statement" and set some sort of precedence.
I recon he would be paying about £3k pa quite un-necessisarily, but it made me think that we might be able to pull ourselves out of national debt, if we all did this for a couple of years, but I'm not entirely convinced.
Any thoughts?
Cheers
Don
Makes sense. I do feel a bit of a prat positively comming to a full stop at a "T" junction in the middle of nowhere, with nobody else in sight and clearly no risk to anyone.
Cheers
Don
Makes sense. I do feel a bit of a prat positively comming to a full stop at a "T" junction in the middle of nowhere, with nobody else in sight and clearly no risk to anyone.
Cheers
Don
I agree. The 4-way stops are best negotiated as a yield sign, for both cars and bikes. Keeping a small velocity helps drivers and riders to better judge whose turn it is to proceed. I'm not sure of the psychology of it, but as soon as more than one car is fully stopped, people instantly forget who got there first, and it becomes a stand-off. People do slow right down and everyone is courteous and co-operative. The rolling stop (sushi stop or "california roll") works much better than full stops.
As I said before though, the ONLY time anyone stops anyway is if there is an immediate danger of collision, so it works well just the way it is. It just isn't in accordance with the law.
"I am sorry that your life-experiences have led you to the conclusion that taxes only fund parasitic politicians. Over here its not quite so bad."
Sure it is Don - you guys are as broke as we are. Almost all of western civilization is...just wait until they start rolling out capital controls both here and in the UK & EU member nations. That's when we will find out they never thought of it as "our" money anyway; they print it, so they see it as theirs. They're just "nice" enough to loan some to we the plebeians.
Desperate politicians never own up to their economic failings, they look for a bogeyman to blame, and then fiscally strangle the populace. It's a repeating cycle in history, and we are not going to be exempt from it. Then the system(s) will implode, and the cycle will refresh and start again. It's not good, it's not bad...it's just how things work, and we are no more enlightened than our human forebears were.
Some strongly held views here about politicians. Can I venture to suggest that taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society? I'll duck behind the sofa now.
.... I seem to remember that Obama promised that voting for him would, among other things, stem the rising of the waters .....
Are you sure you are not confusing him with King Canute.
Don, if you neighbour has problems realising his ambitions and simply wants to send me the money then I'll see it gets to the right people ... honest g'vnor.
I know I'm out on the limb with this one, but I don't always think the powers that be spend our money on the rights things ... though I'm sure our council really needed the new £35m state-of-the-art building as their old one was nearly 10 years old.
Guy: Absolutely. He actually said that! Is it OK to post links here? If so, I could probably find it on Youtube.
Russ
Some strongly held views here about politicians. Can I venture to suggest that taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society? I'll duck behind the sofa now.
I am not at all suggesting that there should be no taxes; there are a number of worthwhile infrastructure and services that can be best handled in that manner. But the bloated governments western societies have become a self feeding, inefficient, value destroying, nanny state. This piece I copied from a web site says it well:
To start off, it's an absolutely giant company. The biggest in the world, in fact. Maybe the biggest in the history of the world. And year after year, it gets even bigger. They hire more employees and embark on larger, more ambitious investment projects.
Now, in all candor, most of those investment projects don't really work out very well for the company's bottom line. In fact, the company has actually lost money nearly every single year for the past five decades.
I should also point out, in fairness, that the company's balance sheet is pretty dismal. Its net book value is negative. Big time. The company's debt load is worth far more than all of its assets put together, and then some.
They also have a small problem with future pension liabilities (which could actually dwarf the existing debt burden). It's difficult to ascertain the true nature of this pension issue, though, because I believe management is using a few accounting tricks to cover up the problem.
Oh, and speaking of management team, the company has a real cracker jack squad running the show.
They've got an enormous board of directors to oversee things on behalf of shareholders. Most of the directors are trained attorneys, so they really know their stuff when it comes to managing finance.
Curiously, many have been on the board for decades, so as individuals they are not necessarily held accountable for corporate performance. It seems, however, that the shareholders really prefer this system and find it to be the best form of corporate governance in the world.
On that note, shareholders also directly choose the company CEO. This is typically a very charismatic fellow with great hair and a winning smile who excels at giving speeches. They even bought him an expensive jet to fly around the world and represent the company.
CEOs are changed out every few years. Before the transition, the new guy usually talks a lot about all the positive changes he wants to make... though over the next few years he usually comes up short. Shareholders don't seem to mind very much, though, because this cycle seems to repeat itself endlessly every few years.
Anyhow, let me tell you about the three key assets that make this as worthwhile investment:
The first is goodwill. The company's brand and trademark are loved around the world, even more than Coca Cola. There's barely a soul alive that hasn't heard of the company. OK, in truth, popular opinion may be waning in recent years... but most people still seem to view the company as it was 50+ years ago. This is a major benefit and will obviously last forever.
The second is its vast debt facility. Despite already being in so much debt, the company has access to nearly infinite lines of credit... so it can continue to further indebt itself in order to finance operations. Clearly this will continue forever, unabated, so no reason to worry.
The last key asset is the company's share structure. While every shareholder has a single share, large consortiums often band together to influence management in their own favor at the expense of other shareholders.
Moreover, management has the authority to issue a mandatory rights offering... essentially compelling shareholders to pay up more money into the company. As a matter of fact, if the shareholders don't pay, they can go to jail and the company can seize their assets. It's a beautiful system.
(curiously, shareholders never actually signed up for this obligation... but somehow it's still enforceable...)
Anyhow, here's the investment I want to tell you about-- the company wants to borrow a bit more money, structured as a 10-year note. They're offering an interest rate of 1.62% for that ten-year period. I don't know about you, but this seems like a no brainer to me. Even the rating agencies agree, it's practically risk free!
If you want to do your own research, check out the company yourself. It's called the United States of America.
Guy,
We can debate endlessly what our taxes should be spent on and whether we should borrow money in the short/long term to fund project today that we will pay for tomorrow.
My friend's concern was that the government has this cash-cow called mororists who contribute a net c.£30bn pa to the general fund and unwittingly we keep trying to outmanouver the tax collector by buying more fuel-efficient cars or (as in his case) eliminating the car and the associated tax burden completely. He feels that we need to be honest with ourselves and willingly and enthusiastically play our part in achieving national enterprises and infrastructure projects.
I Certainly an unusual outlook.
Cheers
Don
DrMark
Nice abstact. My friend is clearly a willing shareholder in a smaller, but similar company (we have an unelected Chairwoman to do the meeting & greeting and we allow the elected Board members to select the CEO)
Cheers
Don
I worked for the United States government for 43 years. It is perhaps self-serving to say that I was dedicated and hard working. I knew many, many others who were as well. And I know there are some real duds out there in the private sector--especially in union shops. (sorry, if that's offensive, but in recent decades there has been nothing less conducive to productivity than the sympiosis between the Democratic Party and its union supporters--kind of like those aliens who eat their way out of the host's chest! Surely I know that the Republicans have their own payoffs to constituent supporters, but in the meantime, they are building jobs--not going to sleep on the job.
Most don't realize that, while there are many, many agencies in the Federal government, each agency has its own payroll system, computers, employees, etc, its own personnel system, etc. etc. Duplications out the ass in spite of the fact that almost all government workers are in the same pay structure and grade system.
That alone says enough--but it is not nearly all. Government pretends to give people something for free. But the truth is that NOTHING is free. Someone has to pay for it. And when you force wealthy people to pay more, that is fine, but you are cutting the golden eggs out of the goose which will die soon thereafter.
Russ
Please don't anyone take anything I say to be in favor of one party or the other - to my way of thinking, the biggest difference between Democrats & Republicans is the spelling.
That's why music is so great - it provides an escape from the fetid prevarications that these people put out on a daily basis...and Naim gear helps make it that much sweeter!
Perhaps Don's friend could do something actually useful and donate his "extra tax" to purchase Naim gear for some poor music lover who can't afford it!
DrMark,
I agree that both parties are part of the problem. I just view the Dems as throwing it all away a lot faster--so fast we may not be able to recover. President Bush spent too much. But Obama doubled down.
Best Regards,
Russ