There is 'absolutely zero' in govt's kitty for bailouts, including at SAA - Mthembu

[Azure 12]

What are alternatives to tax?

There should be a 'discretionary tax'. People contribute what they feel the system is deserving of. In other words, "an optional tax". Sounds impractical? Sounds like "why would I pay if my neighbour doesn't?" It certainly could- and would work. There can be a public record of what each person or company chooses to contribute. If someone choose not to contribute then they must provide their reasons. If they are choosing not to contribute and their reasons are not, well, reasonable, then they can be called out publicly for it (and boycotted, etc.) If many people have valid reasons NOT to contribute and the government suffers from lack of funds then that government might very quickly address those shortcomings and then people would contribute. Very much a self-balancing system. The better the government, the more people of the country will support them (monetarily), and visa-versa. If "nobody" wants to pay for no good reason then, well, that would indicate a country consisting of people with a lack of integrity and it would reflect.

 

[ProfA]

There should be a 'discretionary tax'. People contribute what they feel the system is deserving of. In other words, "an optional tax". Sounds impractical? Sounds like "why would I pay if my neighbour doesn't?" It certainly could- and would work. There can be a public record of what each person or company chooses to contribute. If someone choose not to contribute then they must provide their reasons. If they are choosing not to contribute and their reasons are not, well, reasonable, then they can be called out publicly for it (and boycotted, etc.) If many people have valid reasons NOT to contribute and the government suffers from lack of funds then that government might very quickly address those shortcomings and then people would contribute. Very much a self-balancing system. The better the government, the more people of the country will support them (monetarily), and visa-versa. If "nobody" wants to pay for no good reason then, well, that would indicate a country consisting of people with a lack of integrity and it would reflect.

This is the dumbest most twaddle idea, in the history of dumb twaddle ideas.

 

[Azure 12]

This is the dumbest most twaddle idea, in the history of dumb twaddle ideas.

Only in a "dog-eat-dog" world.

 

[ForceFate]

Every culture had a form of tax. Most of major trade centres of Europe and southern Asia had agreed currency. The rest used grain, salt, animal hide, meat, livestock to pay taxes to authorities. Some cultures still pay these taxes to this day.

 

[ForceFate]

There should be a 'discretionary tax'. People contribute what they feel the system is deserving of. In other words, "an optional tax". Sounds impractical? Sounds like "why would I pay if my neighbour doesn't?" It certainly could- and would work. There can be a public record of what each person or company chooses to contribute. If someone choose not to contribute then they must provide their reasons. If they are choosing not to contribute and their reasons are not, well, reasonable, then they can be called out publicly for it (and boycotted, etc.) If many people have valid reasons NOT to contribute and the government suffers from lack of funds then that government might very quickly address those shortcomings and then people would contribute. Very much a self-balancing system. The better the government, the more people of the country will support them (monetarily), and visa-versa. If "nobody" wants to pay for no good reason then, well, that would indicate a country consisting of people with a lack of integrity and it would reflect.

Humans? Integrity?

 

[ToxicBunny]

There should be a 'discretionary tax'. People contribute what they feel the system is deserving of. In other words, "an optional tax". Sounds impractical? Sounds like "why would I pay if my neighbour doesn't?" It certainly could- and would work. There can be a public record of what each person or company chooses to contribute. If someone choose not to contribute then they must provide their reasons. If they are choosing not to contribute and their reasons are not, well, reasonable, then they can be called out publicly for it (and boycotted, etc.) If many people have valid reasons NOT to contribute and the government suffers from lack of funds then that government might very quickly address those shortcomings and then people would contribute. Very much a self-balancing system. The better the government, the more people of the country will support them (monetarily), and visa-versa. If "nobody" wants to pay for no good reason then, well, that would indicate a country consisting of people with a lack of integrity and it would reflect.

Yeah no, that would never ever work...

Nobody would ever pay, reasons or not, public humiliation or not.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Well as per the other thread...

Clearly the government were bluffing and the Unions called them on it and won ffs....

Or the government wasn't bluffing, but has caved to the unions anyway.

 

[Azure 12]

Humans? Integrity?

Yeah, I know, however, 'surprisingly' there are still some with integrity.

 

[Pitbull]

Hefty tax increases incoming in 3...2...1

As long as it's VAT, I'm 100% for it! However, not on my salary, I just can't any more...

 

[Azure 12]

Yeah no, that would never ever work...

Nobody would ever pay, reasons or not, public humiliation or not.

It would not work in S.A, at least not any time soon. Would not work in most other countries at present either, however there are bound to be exceptions. On the other hand, if people were brought up in better environments (as opposed to the mess that is "schooling" today) they would behave differently and such a system would work; so, yes, most of the people would first need to change.

 

[ToxicBunny]

It would not work in S.A, at least not any time soon. Would not work in most other countries at present either, however there are bound to be exceptions. On the other hand, if people were brought up in better environments (as opposed to the mess that is "schooling" today) they would behave differently and such a system would work; so, yes, most of the people would first need to change.

It would not work anywhere.... It might work for a few months at most before everyone would stop paying.

 

[Thor]

But they buckled to the unions and will know payout the increases.

So is there or is there not money?

 

[cheesus]

where's my nicolas cage you don't say meme at?

 

[D.B.Cooper]

So is there or is there not money?

There's plenty of money in the pension funds...

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

What are alternatives to tax?

Voluntary tax for only the very essential services, you don't pay? you don't get the service

 

[The_Librarian]

where's my nicolas cage you don't say meme at?

over there -------->

 

[cheesus]

What are alternatives to tax?

Curb government waste and reduce expenditure, but JESUS! who are we kidding, I have a bigger chance of getting molested by a purple unicorn then that ever happening.

 

[The_Librarian]

Things will be really interesting going forward.

 

[grok]

It would not work in S.A, at least not any time soon. Would not work in most other countries at present either, however there are bound to be exceptions. On the other hand, if people were brought up in better environments (as opposed to the mess that is "schooling" today) they would behave differently and such a system would work; so, yes, most of the people would first need to change.

My brother's local canton in Switzerland voted to voluntarily increase certain taxes, with the understanding that it'll buy them better services in return..

 

[Drifter]

There should be a 'discretionary tax'. People contribute what they feel the system is deserving of. In other words, "an optional tax". Sounds impractical? Sounds like "why would I pay if my neighbour doesn't?" It certainly could- and would work. There can be a public record of what each person or company chooses to contribute. If someone choose not to contribute then they must provide their reasons. If they are choosing not to contribute and their reasons are not, well, reasonable, then they can be called out publicly for it (and boycotted, etc.) If many people have valid reasons NOT to contribute and the government suffers from lack of funds then that government might very quickly address those shortcomings and then people would contribute. Very much a self-balancing system. The better the government, the more people of the country will support them (monetarily), and visa-versa. If "nobody" wants to pay for no good reason then, well, that would indicate a country consisting of people with a lack of integrity and it would reflect.

Shrooms? LSD? Tik? Tell us, what?