Voluntary tax

Yep, though I bet the Republicans will be quick to get hold of this idea.

I don't believe it would work: but even if it worked perfectly in terms of revenue raised and attitutude to the payments, I still don't think it is a good idea. Compare it to charity. That is entirely voluntary and it is generally seen as admirable. But we already know from the history of that what is wrong with it in practice, and the reasons we changed to taxation. The flaw arises precisely from what Mr Sloterdijk identifies: people who give to charity choose whom they will support. They wish to be sure that things they believe to be important get the money: and people they are sympathetic to get the support. The flip side is that they do not wish to give to things or people they do not approve.

It is true that there is resentment of taxation: but that was not always true, and it is not necessary. The resentment has been fostered quite deliberately, and at great cost in time, effort and money by those who have a particular agenda or outlook. Once again they have managed to persuade many to support a policy which is directly contrary to their own interests. The wealthy are good at that !

As it happens I do like paying tax: and many of the people I know don't exactly like it, but they do not resent it at all: they recognise that it is a benefit for all and they do not fit with the simmering cauldron of distrust of government which is claimed to be so universal. That is merely a necessary narrative to underpin this attack on taxation. More people than just me see the problem as failed democracy because of the hegemony of this mindset: and not as an inherent problem with the whole idea of government, as they would suggest is universal. Their story has purchase because propaganda works: it does not mean it is true

But let us imagine we implemented his scheme. Since it is voluntary it seems to me that it would immediately lead to hypothecation. So in my own case, watching where the money goes as an engaged citizen, I would insist that not one penny of my money goes to defence. Neither would any of my tax go to bailing out banks or any other private industry which causes great harm to the society I wish to see. Others would say that they have no children, and so refuse to contribute to education. Or they have no interest in the arts, or see it as a low priority, and so would not support those things. Some would just deduct the element which pays for those things and pay less tax. Some would probably pay the same amount but ensure it all goes to things they like.

The costs of administering such a system would be enormous: but how many would pay for the bureaucracy it entails? I dont think that will work.

Perhaps Mr Sloterdijk thinks that any tax you pay will go to government, as now, and they will still make the decisions as to how it is spent: but if that is the case then I do not see how it improves the situation, because the only say the "engaged citizen" will have is at the ballot: or in the decision not to pay in intervening years because that citizen does not like what the government chooses to do.

Many things the government does with our money require long term planning: but the income will not be predictable and so such projects will not be possible. Increased unemployment will mean no benefits, because there will not be money for rises which happen in year: and of course, as Vninect says, the rich have no incentive. We know the outcome: many of them refuse to pay tax by putting their money off shore: they pay enormous sums to accountants to minimise their liability. Mr Sloterdijk may think that is because they dislike the compulsory element of taxation: he may be right. But I think it is much simpler than that: I think they don't want to pay.

In short I think that we would see a return to whole groups of people denied any support, and you can bet they will not be the rich. "Sturdy beggars", "Single parents", "disabled scroungers"; any group which can be demonised will be left without means and we will see folk starving on the street in vast numbers. We know we can live with that: happens all over the world wherever there is no welfare state.

I think the gentleman is out of his tiny mind, in short

probably right.