EU Axis of big spenders - how democratic is that?

All very well to see two leaders with threadbare democratic legitimacy agreeing on another plot to spend other people's money. And the other EU members just watch on the sidelines? not even mentioning the 'citizens' that nobody asks in this undemocratic construct. No wonder Merkel and Macron can have a good laugh if they can get away with this.

angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-bridge-differences-on-eu-reform-france-germany/ (Politico)

Take spending power away from Politicians

"It's becoming more and more clear to that disapproving public that members of Congress from both parties see holding office as a means to control the power of the purse to reward friends and attack enemies. Cutting spending means cutting what they see as their rightful power. So they'll never really do it. Our money and wealth is theirs to use as they please, even against us. This is one very ugly definition of tyranny"

Only a hefty dose of Direct Democracy can insure that taxpayers are not fleeced!

On tax reform, Democrats have already won the battle—Commentary

$450 Mio Leonardo Painting - who pays any tax?

Let people believe what they want, I would always be very suspicious of paintings that do not have an iron-clad 'provenence'. But given the (rising) outrage over inequality one wonders what the tax implications of such a wondrous rise in value are. Surely the painting has been 'domiciled' in some tax haven, but in a better regulated world the seller would be charged capital gains tax. So why are our (idiot) politicians not able to close the loopholes and allow the footloose rich to run rings around our tax laws?
Marketwatch

Tax Havens: Drain the Swamp!

Given that politicians try to suck the last bit of blood out of taxpayer's working income it is repellent that the rich who can afford to relocate to tax havens get treated so leniently. It is high time that all payments to tax havens are charged a substantial (30%?) withholding tax that these tax tourists can then apply against any tax charge in their domicile.
Sunday Times (Paywall)

Top Philanthropists Wield Power Through Their Donations

While the abuse of tax subsidies for "charitable" donations is most extreme in the USA this pernicious favoring of the wealthy is slowly finding its way into other 'Pseudo' Democracies. Let the 0.1% be charitable, by all means, but do not give them favorable tax treatment in return. And posing as benefactors also gives them special access to politicians and allows them undue influence on political decisions.
Wealth Matters: How Top Philanthropists Wield Power Through Their Donations

Arbitrary Budget decisions have no place in a Democracy

Irrelevant comment, real problem is the arbitrary fashion traditional Politocracy sets tax rates, chops and changes at will. Less legislation is better, change should only happen when a clear majority is in favour.
The real reason the press are so annoyed about Hammond's self-employed National Insurance hike

Olympic Games - beyond control of Citizens?

As another (expensive) Sportsfest starts in Rio de Janeiro the question of who benefits from this taxpayer funded largesse comes to the fore again. Taxpayers may think that their money is well spent but the Olympic 'Movement' (if you can call it that as it is dominated by a clique of insiders beyond democratic control, i.e. there is no influence from the wider public or at least those citizens involved in sports as amateurs or professionals) is resisting all efforts to be fully responsible for money spent to host the event. 
Rio 2016: Economists question wisdom of hosting Olympics
Opinion: Olympic denial: The benefits to hosting the Games are just hype 

10 outrageously pricey tax breaks 'gifted' by Congress (The Fiscal Times)
 Dysfunctional Parliaments in grip of Lobbies, Special Interests

Cancer of Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is growing like a cancer in most 'democracies'. Not only is the number of bureaucrats rising inexorably, it is also their pay and the powers they can use without being properly held to account. Laws (if you want to call most of the edicts issued by the Establishment Nomenklatura as such) and 'regulations' become so complicated that proper supervision is near impossible. The attention span of Media, Opposition politicians and the general public is just too short to get their teeth into any problems while the taxpayer-funded bureaucracy is able to sit out any protest in their gilded office palaces while clipping a mostly guaranteed pay coupon.
The only solution that would at least ameliorate - if not solve - this problem is the introduction of Direct Democracy. This would make any law - new or old - including associated 'directives' and 'regulations' subject to scrutiny by all the citizens. In the same vein all salaries of public functionaries should be in the public domain, including the responsibilities of each individual bureaucrat. So any citizen could actually monitor what each official is supposed to be employed for. Just the fact that this information needs to be published would put a stop to the most egregious abuses.

Expensive Politicians

Given the dysfunctional state of democracy all politicans have too much discretion about how to spend (waste) taxpayer's money.
Meet the most expensive woman in Britain's history (Daily Telegraph)

Only Direct Democracy can reduce fraud and waste

A mandatory or facultative referendum on individual spending decisions would allow the majority to neutralise vociferous lobbies and special interests. Politicians would no longer be able - or have an incentive - to cater to every minority and special interest group that is trying the feather its nest at the expense of the broader public.

Cry me a River Madame Trierweiler!

News that the French President may two-time his partner and so-called 'First Lady' throws light on a small detail in the way public money is wasted in our democracies. Apart from the fact that the role of the 'First Lady' is not written into any constitution it is a minor scandal that Madame Trierweiler is given an office and a staff of five in the Elysee Palace.

How not to run a referendum - Londoners support Crossrail 2

It may not be a referendum but this public 'consultation' is the closest that the citizens of London get to be able to have a say in this significant infrastructure project that may cost £ 12 billion (probably much more when the final sum is calculated). The problem is that this is the wrong kind of populist politics as the citizens will always be 'for' some initiative that looks to make their life easier - as long as they are not also asked to sign for higher taxes.

How to manage the State's Finances

The farce surrounding the Federal Government Shutdown in the United States has been a lesson in how not to manage the State's finances. Optional and mandatory voting in a referendum about all tax and spending legislation would make any decision regarding fiscal measures more rational. Politicians would still be in charge of most law drafting but they would be more careful with their actions - and often unkept promises - if they knew that they would have to defend their measures in a detailed debate that would precede any referendum.

Rich let the 'Civil Society' pick up the tab

Nothing is more infuriating than reading another homily from an extremely well (overpaid?) executive who sails effortlessly from job to job, starting in public 'service' and then moving into the private sector. So Peter Sutherland's sermon about the need for 'Civil Society' (he does not say you and me as ordinary taxpayer) to pick up the tab for any and all migrants misses out one big point: who has ever asked the citizens of the recipient/paying countries about their willingness to finance his largess? So far as I know only Switzerland has ever held a referendum that specifically addresses the question of immigration.

Direct Democracy helps to keep taxation low

A new study supports the thesis that direct democracy helps to maintain a low level of government spending. Free-spending politicians in the cartel of high-tax countries dominating the EU membership would be reigned in if the citizens would have a direct say on tax and spending measures.

How to control Public Sector Pay?

Pay in the Public Sector and for civil servants in general seems to be difficult to control. The reasons are that the people who set pay are often in the same boat as those on the receiving end of pay awards. Therefore the news that Councillors in English Local Government Authorities will be given the veto over the salaries of top civil servants promises not much of an improvement. Only when citizens have a direct say in setting local taxes and spending priorities as well as the setting of pay will the inexorable rise in the number and costs of bureaucrats be checked.

Middle Class: the milk cow of dysfunctional democracies

In typically insensitive fashion a British politician has warned the Middle Classes in the UK that they "do not know what is about to hit them." Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary made it clear that the 'Poor' and the 'Rich' are not willing and or able to make a proportional contribution to put the country's finances in order. It is particularly galling the the Super-rich paymasters of the Conservative Party - many of whom make little or no contribution to the common good as they are adept at evading taxes - are treated so leniently while the rest of the population has to tighten the belt. Ironically the financial games where these donors played a significant role are to a large extent the reason for the precarious state of Britain's finances.

IMF agrees $ 30 Billion loan for Poland

How much longer can international organisations distribute helicopter money to countries that are perfectly capable to keep their own financial affairs in order? And where is this supposedly 'free' money coming from? How are the citizens of the states that guarantee this largess able to supervise this spending?

How to reign in government spending, control the burden of taxation

An interactive budget-balancing tool (for example the one published by the New York Times) illustrates that with good will and common sense any state's budget problems could be solved quite easily and the tax burden reduced considerably. Usually spending is a one-way street were politicians buy votes with money that is ultimately raised from their constituents and we all love to spend other people's money. Letting citizens vote on each individual spending item will make it much more difficult for politicians to continue playing this game. Naturally, each group of citizens will still fight to gain as much from the government spending as possible but in each case there will be a larger group of citizens that does not participate in the benefits from this particular spending measure and will oppose it. The usual backroom deals between representatives of different interest groups will be impossible as they lack the final say on any spending.