It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK: proposed bill will allow pacifists to opt out of taxes which fund military intervention

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
This was reported in the Guardian tonight with a link to the proposed bill so I will quote the source.




The British Government believes that addressing the root causes of conflict is a social, ethical and economic imperative for the 21 st century. Her Majesty’s Government also recognises previous legislation for individuals of conscience to opt out of military conscription; but these individuals do not have the same right to opt out of paying for, through the tax system, military activity that would also conflict with their conscience.

This Bill would give all taxpayers the opportunity to express on their tax return their conscientious objection to the expenditure of their taxes on war or the preparations for war. The would then have the appropriate percentage of their income taxes redirected away from military spending and towards conflict prevention programmes sponsored by the government




For those who object to war, there is little moral difference between actually firing lethal weapons and paying for someone else to do so.

This Bill simply extends the already legally recognised right of freedom of conscience in the modern world where military taxation is the new form of conscription.

If the right of conscientious objection is to have any real meaning today, it must be the right not to support state violence with our taxes. We must allow those who object to war the right to have their taxes used for the non-violent conflict resolution.



I like this. I like this a lot. Obviously there is the deterrent issue to consider. It is getting late here so not had a chance to research further.

Paying Taxes With a Clear Conscience : Securing Peace - Preventing Conflict Taxes for Peace Bill

Guardian Link

edit on 9-6-2016 by Morrad because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
What about people who object to their taxes going towards welfare?
The NHS?
Education?
The disabled?
Pensioners?

Where is their Bill?


This sets a poor precedent.


And what if we're invaded?

Will the army still be have to defend these pacifists???


Terrible idea.
edit on 9-6-2016 by Hazardous1408 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
What about people who object to their taxes going towards welfare?
The NHS?
Education?
The disabled?
Pensioners?

Where is their Bill?

This sets a poor precedent.

And what if we're invaded?

Will the army still be have to defend these pacifists???

Terrible idea.

Actually, wouldn't this set a precedent in favor of getting to opt out of the programs you mentioned? That's how "precedent" works. Something happened which becomes an example for future actions.
edit on 9-6-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
This won't get far. Quite rightly so. People cannot pick and choose what taxes you pay, otherwise no one will pay taxes.

This bill does not extend the right of conscientious objection per se. Many conscientious objectors in previous conflicts worked in highly dangerous and / or military support services, but did not carry a gun.

This Bill is, er, bull.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Being able to opt out of funding Corporate Welfare would be great.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
This won't get far. Quite rightly so. People cannot pick and choose what taxes you pay, otherwise no one will pay taxes.

This bill does not extend the right of conscientious objection per se. Many conscientious objectors in previous conflicts worked in highly dangerous and / or military support services, but did not carry a gun.

This Bill is, er, bull.


It would be interesting if enough people opted in and they had to pull out of pointless money making wars though.

I am sure that most people I know would rather spend the money on other things unless there was a real threat to the UK.

Although maybe that is the idea?



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Individual people taxes do not get split amongst different parts of government expenditure. The whole concept shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxes work.

Also if individual tax payers could opt out of paying to certain areas it would be highly undemocratic as you would effectively be giving additional control over how the government spends to a minority view.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Individual people taxes do not get split amongst different parts of government expenditure. The whole concept shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxes work.

Also if individual tax payers could opt out of paying to certain areas it would be highly undemocratic as you would effectively be giving additional control over how the government spends to a minority view.


But surely if enough people opted out then a lesser percentage would be available?

What if say 75% opted out? Would that mean they would just use a larger proportion of the remaining 25%'s taxes would go into bombing people?

I am a bit daft when it comes to how this stuff works.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Individual people taxes do not get split amongst different parts of government expenditure. The whole concept shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxes work.

Also if individual tax payers could opt out of paying to certain areas it would be highly undemocratic as you would effectively be giving additional control over how the government spends to a minority view.


But surely if enough people opted out then a lesser percentage would be available?

What if say 75% opted out? Would that mean they would just use a larger proportion of the remaining 25%'s taxes would go into bombing people?

I am a bit daft when it comes to how this stuff works.


At high levels of opt it might make a difference but if we have 75% of people against aggressive military spending then why are we electing governments that like to bomb people so much in the first place.

At lower levels, say 10%, the the government which believes it needs to spend x amount would relocate finds from other areas. As 10% of the reallocated funds would also have to be reallocated the government would have to try and spend X+10% just to achieve the X amount.

Basically what ever the government wants to spend on the military it will spend on the military regardless.
edit on 10-6-2016 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Maybe nobody considers conscience objection is valid when it goes to helping people like with welfare, disabled people, education, etc.

It's only allowed when it goes against killing people. Which actually makes sense. Because not wanting to pay for killing people is a good thing. Not wanting to help others just makes you a selfish A-hole.

Why would anyone want to object to stuff that just makes them an A-hole as a result??



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I had not thought about it in this way.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
This won't get far. Quite rightly so. People cannot pick and choose what taxes you pay, otherwise no one will pay taxes.

This bill does not extend the right of conscientious objection per se. Many conscientious objectors in previous conflicts worked in highly dangerous and / or military support services, but did not carry a gun.

This Bill is, er, bull.


Seeing as not all tax payers in the UK complete a tax return (the majority of us are on a PAYE scheme), the article itself appears to be bull. The OP makes this sound as though there is even a hint of this likely to be passed - scary.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
What about people who object to their taxes going towards welfare?
The NHS?
Education?
The disabled?
Pensioners?

Where is their Bill?

This sets a poor precedent.

And what if we're invaded?

Will the army still be have to defend these pacifists???

Terrible idea.

Actually, wouldn't this set a precedent in favor of getting to opt out of the programs you mentioned? That's how "precedent" works. Something happened which becomes an example for future actions.


Exactly my point mate, and I think that's a terrible idea because it could one day effect the disabled, the NHS or education.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I can feel it....I'm becoming a pacifist




no taxes for me right?



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
What if say 75% opted out? Would that mean they would just use a larger proportion of the remaining 25%'s taxes would go into bombing people?


Oh, how simple. There's more to the UK military than dropping a few bombs in low intensity wars. Besides, bombs being dropped on ISIS have my support.

Most people want those elites who "opt out" of taxes to be hounded down. No difference here.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: nonspecific
What if say 75% opted out? Would that mean they would just use a larger proportion of the remaining 25%'s taxes would go into bombing people?


Oh, how simple. There's more to the UK military than dropping a few bombs in low intensity wars. Besides, bombs being dropped on ISIS have my support.

Most people want those elites who "opt out" of taxes to be hounded down. No difference here.



I would be more happy if they would just call it an attack budget instead of a defense one to be honest.

I think spending 45 billion a year defending against a non existent army that is not attacking us a bit much given that we only spend 43 billion on education.

I am all for defense but lets not pretend that cash is making us 45 billion a year safer.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Just seems another devious way for our government to reduce our Armed Forces and hand over control to the EU in the distant future, if we remain of course.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

I want a strong military with the latest equipment.
The world is so unpredictable, we need to be able to defend ourselves.
If we lose our capabilities and experience, it's much harder for us to adapt to any future problems.

I am against probably all recent military invasions/bombings. I would like our military to control our borders (especially in light of recent events) and help around the globe with disaster relief from earthquakes and flooding etc.

We could make a real positive difference to the world and still be prepared as a country to defend ourselves when needed.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: 83Liberty
a reply to: nonspecific

I want a strong military with the latest equipment.
The world is so unpredictable, we need to be able to defend ourselves.
If we lose our capabilities and experience, it's much harder for us to adapt to any future problems.

I am against probably all recent military invasions/bombings. I would like our military to control our borders (especially in light of recent events) and help around the globe with disaster relief from earthquakes and flooding etc.

We could make a real positive difference to the world and still be prepared as a country to defend ourselves when needed.

In a fantasy government truly for the people, I'd like to see taxation still done as per normal, but allocation done a la carte. YOU pick where you want your tax money spent, period. Don't support the military? Don't send taxes to it. Want better services for the needy? Spend taxes there. Don't want to spend on anything beyond basic infrastructure? Spend it there. That would be ideal tax money allocation from a taxpayer's POV -- contribute to what's important to you for the country to have.
edit on 6/10/2016 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Honestly, I wish they would exempt certain people from being taxed for having to contribute .00005 cents to feed the starving and sickly because I am SICK and TIRED of hearing them bitch about it!


edit on 6/10/2016 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join