“My guess is that a fair number of voters would accept this offer even on terms which are quite favourable for the government.” I doubt that. Republicans are opposed to anything that even resembles a tax increase. Democrats support tax increases, but the tax increases are almost always on “someone else”.
Thanks for the links—that’s interesting. I think the government is quite different from charities, though. It would have the capacity to be more transparent, and would also be under stronger pressure to be so.
Regarding left vs right, a libertarian site in Sweden shared my post, and the reactions from that camp is generally positive. Social democrats (who are suspicious of tax-deductions to charity as well) are generally more suspicious.
Regarding “tax”, you need not necessarily see it as a higher tax. Indeed, a law ph.d. student friend of mine tells me that these sorts of ear-marked contributions would be seen as “fees” under Swedish law. Also, like I said above it is a generalization of tax-deductible donations to charity (with the exception that the criteria for what you could donate to is more strict), which means that you could also see this as a sort of donations.
GiveWell opposes earmarking funds for charities, because the charities end up spending money how they want to anyway. http://blog.givewell.org/2009/12/16/room-for-more-funding-continued-why-donation-restricting-isnt-the-easy-answer/
In fact, they believe that it’s deceptive for charities to advertise donations as “buying” a particular item or service. http://blog.givewell.org/2009/11/05/donor-illusions/
“My guess is that a fair number of voters would accept this offer even on terms which are quite favourable for the government.” I doubt that. Republicans are opposed to anything that even resembles a tax increase. Democrats support tax increases, but the tax increases are almost always on “someone else”.
Thanks for the links—that’s interesting. I think the government is quite different from charities, though. It would have the capacity to be more transparent, and would also be under stronger pressure to be so.
Regarding left vs right, a libertarian site in Sweden shared my post, and the reactions from that camp is generally positive. Social democrats (who are suspicious of tax-deductions to charity as well) are generally more suspicious.
Regarding “tax”, you need not necessarily see it as a higher tax. Indeed, a law ph.d. student friend of mine tells me that these sorts of ear-marked contributions would be seen as “fees” under Swedish law. Also, like I said above it is a generalization of tax-deductible donations to charity (with the exception that the criteria for what you could donate to is more strict), which means that you could also see this as a sort of donations.