How is it possible 305 Members of Parliament are seen as smarter than 36 million individuals making independent decisions every day? It’s not possible. The Members of Parliament have to be managed by some majority. In our town hall perception of democracy; any decision made by the attendees is expected to be funded, equally, by the attendees (or by the bulk of the broader community). This expectation has been abandoned by democracies around the world. What we see, instead, is a majority of voters electing representatives who are immune from obligations to the funders of the government; they are even immune from trust conditions. It gets worse. The Members of Parliament are allowed to assemble teams to confiscate money from vulnerable minorities. If the thieves don’t collect enough money, fast enough, the Members of Parliament borrow funds and effectively forge the signatures of future guarantors.
I believe representative government needs a three-strand fence around it.
My philosophy includes individual responsibility, independent enterprise, and little state interference. I don’t seek to impose my bias on you. I illustrate how the majority can manage the state’s involvement. There’s ample room for all philosophies and political views to be expressed and merchandised, but less room for groups to impose government intervention on a reluctant majority.
The British democratic model has been influential. I embrace the promise but reject the results. Representative democracy breaks down when elected representatives venture beyond intended territory. Their authorized territory should be a point of debate. Some believe this is for the electorate to decide, but periodic elections do not chunk the policies of each Party to allow voters to provide effective guidance once the ruling Party (or coalition) is decided. Let’s circumscribe representative government territory with three fence strands. Each strand has a binding purpose.
Strand 1: Each level of government shall not spend more than it receives. Tax revenues are trust funds which must not be overspent.
Strand 2: The majority, who fund programs, shall have the say on which programs will be maintained.
Strand 3: No individual shall be forced to pay more tax than the majority of individuals in the jurisdiction pay.
Strand 1 stipulates no government ever budgets a deficit. One rebuttal is deficits are good in a recession. Who is gullible enough to believe governments are smarter in a downturn than in any other segment of the business cycle? Once a deficit of any amount is tolerated, Strand 1 is not just stretched, it’s broken. We must not let our fence fall into disrepair. It needs all three strands.
Strand 2 requires majority approval (by those who pay) on a program-by-program basis. This begs the questions: How do we get majority feedback on a program-by-program basis? How do we know the individuals in the majority understand what each program accomplishes? Majority support is captured as the individuals file their annual forms which include the municipal, provincial, and federal forms showing approved per capita costs up to the limit of the funds remitted. The filers will be informed by the results of prior reported approvals. As individual programs reach the fading category; politicians and media will focus commentary on the category and magnify the wanted and unwanted elements of the category. The affected government will then rework the category to get feedback on the elements of the category seen to have majority support. This focusing of attention on specific categories results in healthy public awareness.
Strand 3: stipulates no individual shall be forced to pay more tax than the majority of individuals in the jurisdiction pay.
Every resident could indicate the government spending programs the resident both supports in principle and is able, and willing, to pay in fact. This does not eliminate the role of the elected representatives, but it does put a fence around the programs governments can sustain.
As you study this blog, consider how well the plan responds to many of our complaints about the existing system. The system doesn’t work! We don’t have a say! Get the government out of the economy! Lobby groups have too much influence! Government expenditures occur with little public support! The quiet majority has no mechanism to effect change! The individual can’t do anything! We have four-year dictatorships! There are too many hidden taxes! There are too many hidden expenditures! In these complaints, we see the decisions of a few overpowering the wishes of many individuals. My plan corrects the flaws in the present system. It obligates every resident to complete an annual return on or before his or her birthdate, and shifts the power to the wishes of the majority on a line-by-line basis. This is an improvement over periodic referenda because it’s cost efficient, makes the task of various lobby groups formidable, and it’s automatic. It puts decision-making in the hands of the quiet majority, who will, for the first time, have an effective voice.
All levels of government should be precluded from budgeting peace-time deficits. All governments should be required to retire all existing debt over a twenty-five year period. All residents should be allowed to indicate their approval of generic groups of government spending programs on their annual returns, and such majority indications should be binding on the governments. All mandatory government programs should be funded from personal taxes.
Most rhetoric, directed at government inadequacies, lacks viable alternatives to the existing system. Tax and expenditure limitations are too cumbersome, confrontational, and ad hoc to achieve the steady control required. My plan is viable.
Canada has evolved as a peace-loving, compassionate, generous, cooperative country. This reputation appeals to us. The mindset permitting the evolution has eroded self-reliance and individual responsibility. This cannot be democratically controlled unless a majority in the population is willing, and able, to pay an equal price for government programs.
The spending policy provides a method of controlling government which preserves the role of the elected representatives (and Senators) and imposes a workable fence around the fields within which governments operate.
The essential ingredients of the fence are: democratically elected representatives can establish policy, provide leadership, provide a forum for debate, and provide education about issues, but they must include a stewardship function; no government shall spend what it doesn’t have; there shall be no peacetime deficit; government sources of revenue shall be limited to a combination of voluntary participation in programs and revenues generated by the plan.
Government revenue for a given year will include: estimated program revenues (from voluntary programs); plus estimated corporate income tax; plus estimated non-resident income tax; plus estimated personal tax revenues. Municipal and provincial governments will not have access to any portion of corporate nor non-resident taxes;
Revenue will be sufficient to cover the estimated costs of all active programs. It will also be sufficient to amortize the historical, cumulative debt over twenty-five years with blended principal and interest payments, plus the last year’s actual deficit, plus a cushion equal to last year’s deficit.
Every individual is equal under the law. Therefore, every resident should pay an equal tax under the law. This is impossible since a portion of the residents cannot pay an equal amount. However, there is a base point which is universally accepted as a democratic principle; majority rules. If a majority aren’t willing, and able, to pay an equal per capita amount for a program, then the majority rules the program won’t continue.
Where governments provide services to the less fortunate, it is out of compassion and fair play, not out of an inherent right of the less fortunate.
A spending system should: provide a stable, predictable environment for the population; expect individual responsibility and initiative; recognize all citizens are equal before the law, recognize democracy will only work where the net per capita costs of programs are supported equally by more than fifty percent of the residents; and minimize the structure required to achieve appropriate government funding.
Every resident could submit an annual tax return on or before the anniversary of his or her birthdate. The annual return will be limited to the digital equivalent of one side of four 8.5″ x 11″ pages. The first page will be the Individual Obligations Return; the second page will be the Municipal Approval Form; the third page will be the Provincial Approval Form; the fourth page will be the Federal Approval Form.
In addition to showing the amount of personal tax being remitted, each individual shall enter the per capita cost of every generic program category (approved by him or her) on the three approval forms. Approvals of programs shall not be honoured if the cumulative budgeted equal costs of the approved programs exceeds the amount remitted. This precludes any individual from indicating approval of programs for which the full per capita budgeted cost of the approved programs is not remitted by that individual.
Where individuals have not yet demonstrated voting awareness, or otherwise require the services of a parent or guardian, the parent or guardian is responsible for completing the personal tax return and remitting the appropriate tax.
There are four categories of government programs.
Basic national services are those services which provide the stable, predictable environment which is critical to freedom in a democratic society. They could include: parliament, justice, defense, monetary system, immigration, air and water, communicable disease, taxation, annual reporting. These basic services will be provided without reference to resident approval because they represent the essential ingredients of a stable, democratic environment and the legitimate focus of representation by population government.
Federal non-basic services include those services which the elected representatives have passed, and where more than 50% of the residents in Canada have indicated, within the last year, they both approve of the program and have paid a budgeted equal amount necessary to fund the program.
Fading programs include those services which the elected representatives have passed, and the program has previously been a non-basic commitment (recurring program), and where at least 50% of the residents have indicated within the last year they don’t approve of the program. Fading programs could occur at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels.
Emerging programs include those programs which the elected representatives have passed, but at least 50% of the residents have not yet indicated they approve of the program. Emerging programs could occur at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels.
Every informed citizen has a vote which carries with it a responsibility to share equally in the obligations inherent in the items voted upon.
We must align government expenditures with democratic responsibility and ability to pay.
The democratic responsibility to pay can be established by the approval of the majority of residents who pay an equal per capita amount required to balance the estimated budget.
The ability of the majority to pay an equal amount must be established by a rational formula. Every resident individual should have individual obligations for life security and government funding commensurate with ability to pay.