6 ms·

> Can they be otherwise somehow incentivized to invest in their Communities rather than evade? And how big is the contribution here? Is it worth pursuing I lik

> Can they be otherwise somehow incentivized to invest in their Communities rather than evade? And how big is the contribution here? Is it worth pursuing I like this question. It makes me wonder what society would look like if we had micro community councils that operated this way, where residents “donated” parts of their wealth and those donations gave them some sort of stake, naming right, or voting power in community projects. I wonder if we’d get the same sort of donations we get by wealthy families to get hospital wards named after them etc. I suppose it requires a shift in what we value as humans, perhaps we could work toward a society where the amount you’ve given away gives you the most social credit or prestige, rather than how much you’ve amassed. Is it too naive and childish to think this sort of society is possible and could be an improvement over the current one?

chii 6y ago
> or voting power in community projects. but then they get called lobbyists when this happens.
- trhway 6y ago
  the issue with lobbying is that too many and too large benefits is effectively sold for very cheap by the politicians selling stuff which aren't really theirs to start with. For example,a huge development should be permitted not in exchange for small political contribution. Instead the community should get something sizeable in return - new park, road, school, significant number of low income rentals, etc.
Erwin 6y ago
That society already exists in e.g. Nordic countries. If we look at Sweden, Finland etc, total tax revenues as percentage of GDP are 48-54%. In USA, they are 24.3%. So here's a smaller community where the majority is fine with high taxation in exchange for freely available health care, higher education etc. Family funds exist here (e.g. Novo Nordisk is 25% owned by a humanitarian fund, Mærsk) but are less important than US.
- T-A 6y ago
  That's just a higher level of taxation (i.e. mandatory), not the donations (i.e. voluntary) in exchange for naming rights or direct influence which parent is talking about.
  - hdjdbtbgwjsn 6y ago
    In practice people that object to the taxes just move away.
    - T-A 6y ago
      Some do, but changing countries is not that easy.
    - germinalphrase 6y ago
      They have the resources to do so, but How many low tax, high status countries are there to live in? How many people are free from all community, familial relationships that moving abroad had no social costs?
      - hdjdbtbgwjsn 6y ago
        For Scandinavians doing e.g. banking the UK has previously been a good option.
- ivanhoe 6y ago
  > So here's a smaller community where the majority is fine with high taxation Yes, but it's not the majority that runs offshore companies in Panama, but those rich enough that it makes sense for them to go through the trouble of setting offshore companies up. And IMHO the problem is in simple psychology of how humans compare between themselves. We don't compare in absolute means, but relative to people around us. If you're a middle class and you pay the same taxes as everyone else around you, you might grumble a bit, but in the end you'll except it as a part of life, because, well, everybody does it. If you make a lot more money than others and thus have to pay a lot more taxes, you'll perceive it as an injustice, being punished by mediocrity for your success. And you'll have a much less of morale dilemma should you try avoid paying it.
mikorym 6y ago
I think one answer is tax cuts for charity. If I can give my tax money to someone of my choosing, I think it may incentivise people to feel better about where the money is going. To be clear, not making your tax payments less, but rather choosing where it goes. Of course, if you have a network of nonprofits, this become a bit grey. In the USA I have gotten the impression that people do try to game the idea of nonprofits.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >I think one answer is tax cuts for charity. >To be clear, not making your tax payments less, but rather choosing where it goes. Giving to charities reduces your tax burden, at least in the US. In fact, you can generally deduct up to half your income[0] based on charitable contributions. Does that meet your desire to better direct your tax dollars? [0] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contribution-deductions https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
  - mikorym 6y ago
    This I think is pretty much exactly how I think it should be. Half sounds decent. But... I don't live in the US. We pay tax and received no services in return.
- Jenk 6y ago
  Taxes became a thing precisely because this model failed. The utopia of "common sense and decency" kicking in and ensuring public services are well funded is a false hope and does not work. Simply put, there is always a significant element in the populace that won't pay if they can get away with it, and making taxes optional just gives them an easy way to avoid contributing at all.
frabbit 6y ago
those donations gave them some sort of stake, naming right, or voting power in community projects. You cannot forsee the possibility that the ability to purchase voting rights might result in another "natural" problem?
adamsea 6y ago
> what society would look like if we had micro community councils that operated this way, where residents “donated” parts of their wealth and those donations gave them some sort of stake, naming right, or voting power in community projects. ... I think the challenge is if concrete power such as votes, etc, is given based on financial contribution, then, it's not a democratic process.

chii 6y ago

> or voting power in community projects. but then they get called lobbyists when this happens.

trhway 6y ago
the issue with lobbying is that too many and too large benefits is effectively sold for very cheap by the politicians selling stuff which aren't really theirs to start with. For example,a huge development should be permitted not in exchange for small political contribution. Instead the community should get something sizeable in return - new park, road, school, significant number of low income rentals, etc.

Erwin 6y ago

That society already exists in e.g. Nordic countries. If we look at Sweden, Finland etc, total tax revenues as percentage of GDP are 48-54%. In USA, they are 24.3%. So here's a smaller community where the majority is fine with high taxation in exchange for freely available health care, higher education etc. Family funds exist here (e.g. Novo Nordisk is 25% owned by a humanitarian fund, Mærsk) but are less important than US.

T-A 6y ago
That's just a higher level of taxation (i.e. mandatory), not the donations (i.e. voluntary) in exchange for naming rights or direct influence which parent is talking about.
- hdjdbtbgwjsn 6y ago
  In practice people that object to the taxes just move away.
  - T-A 6y ago
    Some do, but changing countries is not that easy.
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    They have the resources to do so, but How many low tax, high status countries are there to live in? How many people are free from all community, familial relationships that moving abroad had no social costs?
    - hdjdbtbgwjsn 6y ago
      For Scandinavians doing e.g. banking the UK has previously been a good option.
ivanhoe 6y ago
> So here's a smaller community where the majority is fine with high taxation Yes, but it's not the majority that runs offshore companies in Panama, but those rich enough that it makes sense for them to go through the trouble of setting offshore companies up. And IMHO the problem is in simple psychology of how humans compare between themselves. We don't compare in absolute means, but relative to people around us. If you're a middle class and you pay the same taxes as everyone else around you, you might grumble a bit, but in the end you'll except it as a part of life, because, well, everybody does it. If you make a lot more money than others and thus have to pay a lot more taxes, you'll perceive it as an injustice, being punished by mediocrity for your success. And you'll have a much less of morale dilemma should you try avoid paying it.

mikorym 6y ago

I think one answer is tax cuts for charity. If I can give my tax money to someone of my choosing, I think it may incentivise people to feel better about where the money is going. To be clear, not making your tax payments less, but rather choosing where it goes. Of course, if you have a network of nonprofits, this become a bit grey. In the USA I have gotten the impression that people do try to game the idea of nonprofits.

nobody9999 6y ago
>I think one answer is tax cuts for charity. >To be clear, not making your tax payments less, but rather choosing where it goes. Giving to charities reduces your tax burden, at least in the US. In fact, you can generally deduct up to half your income[0] based on charitable contributions. Does that meet your desire to better direct your tax dollars? [0] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contribution-deductions https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
- mikorym 6y ago
  This I think is pretty much exactly how I think it should be. Half sounds decent. But... I don't live in the US. We pay tax and received no services in return.
Jenk 6y ago
Taxes became a thing precisely because this model failed. The utopia of "common sense and decency" kicking in and ensuring public services are well funded is a false hope and does not work. Simply put, there is always a significant element in the populace that won't pay if they can get away with it, and making taxes optional just gives them an easy way to avoid contributing at all.

frabbit 6y ago

those donations gave them some sort of stake, naming right, or voting power in community projects. You cannot forsee the possibility that the ability to purchase voting rights might result in another "natural" problem?

adamsea 6y ago

> what society would look like if we had micro community councils that operated this way, where residents “donated” parts of their wealth and those donations gave them some sort of stake, naming right, or voting power in community projects. ... I think the challenge is if concrete power such as votes, etc, is given based on financial contribution, then, it's not a democratic process.