Taxpayers choose where 2% of their income goes.

Taxpayers choose where 2% of their income goes.

The concept is there is a small amount of the income tax a taxpayer pays, the taxpayer chooses what that money gets spent on. - A certain percentage of a tax payers income is earmarked for this purpose. - The taxpayer can log in to an IRD provided dashboard - where they are provided a list of projects or charities that they wish their earmarked money to go towards. - Anyone can create a project or charity to be considered for funding. - Projects and charities must adhere to certain requirements to be eligible. A good starting point for these requirements would be to look at existing rules around charitable status. - If people don't vote where their money goes - that earmarked money is distributed proportionally by those who have. The idea is this is more democratic as it gives people direct control of some amount of their tax money. It provides a good mechanism for 'nice to have' projects. Various idea for projects that might be funded though this mechanism: - Building cycle lanes - Food in schools - Community beautification projects - Building tramping tracks. - Business innovation projects.

Showing 15 reactions

  • David Johnston
    commented 2016-11-28 12:30:46 +1300
    @tim O’Donnell – That’s precisely the point of this proposal – it gives people control of what they want that money spend on. If they want to spend it on a ‘Beautify Remuera’ project – all the power to them. You might find they spend it on a scenic cycleway instead. It’s democratic.
  • Tim O’Donnell
    commented 2016-11-27 20:26:16 +1300
    High earners would create a charity to help their own causes (which may not be community based)
  • David Johnston
    commented 2016-11-25 16:38:28 +1300
    Duncan Stuart – good point. Though – I don’t mean 2% of total tax take – I mean 2% of personal income. The way I ballpark calculated it was ‘Why don’t more people give to charity? What if you made people give to charity?‘. 2% of a $50,000 income would be $1000. I think that’s too high. 1% would suffice.
  • Tim O’Donnell
    tagged this with dislike 2016-11-25 16:14:07 +1300
  • Tim O’Donnell
    commented 2016-11-25 16:13:56 +1300
    Sounds like it would be too hard to manage. This is why we vote in a government to do this on our behalf
  • Philip Wilkinson
    tagged this with interesting 2016-11-25 14:43:10 +1300
  • Bart Brichau
    tagged this with low priority 2016-11-25 14:41:00 +1300
  • Duncan Stuart
    commented 2016-11-25 14:21:29 +1300
    I like the idea in principle but Crown revenue collected by IRD was $70b. 2% of this would be $1.4b which is a sizeable amount and could potentially create all sorts of game-playing for the funding.
  • Duncan Stuart
    commented 2016-11-25 14:21:28 +1300
    I like the idea in principle but Crown revenue collected by IRD was $70b. 2% of this would be $1.4b which is a sizeable amount and could potentially create all sorts of game-playing for the funding.
  • Duncan Stuart
    tagged this with low priority 2016-11-25 14:21:28 +1300
  • Nathan Rattray
    tagged this with dislike 2016-11-25 14:20:29 +1300
  • Nathan Rattray
    tagged this with low priority 2016-11-25 14:20:29 +1300
  • Nathan Rattray
    tagged this with interesting 2016-11-25 14:20:28 +1300
  • David Johnston
    commented 2016-11-25 13:38:48 +1300
    Well, apparently this site doesn’t support markdown.
  • David Johnston
    published this page in Suggestions 2016-11-25 13:31:09 +1300