What is the best argument against income tax?

[Publicani]

I will be interviewed on TV this Tuesday about my new book, Publicani (http://www.amazon.com/Publicani-Zak-Maymin/dp/1419683497). The major topic will be the Income Tax, which I passionately hate. Help me to make an argument against it. What do you think is the most convincing reason for abolishing the income tax?

[Danke]

I will be interviewed on TV this Tuesday about my new book, Publicani (http://www.amazon.com/Publicani-Zak-Maymin/dp/1419683497). The major topic will be the Income Tax, which I passionately hate. Help me to make an argument against it. What do you think is the most convincing reason for abolishing the income tax?

Because it is enforced against those generally not liable. Mainly due to the convoluted way the IRC is written.

[Truth Warrior]

It's theft AKA robbery by and under threat of force and violence for non obedience and non compliance.

[torchbearer]

Here is one for you.
It centers around the idea of us having "rights"

In a monarchy, the Kind had the Divine right. And he had the Right to tax his SUBJECTS.
The subjects had no rights.

Now ask the question.
What happens if I don't pay the income tax?
You will be imprisoned.
How does the government get that right? Well, the government must have Right over your labor.
Thus, you don't own your labor, the King, I mean, the government owns your labor. Thus have RIGHT over it.

That is why the income tax is immoral.

Same with property taxes. Property Taxes makes you a serf of the King, i mean, government. Who has the RIGHT to take your property if you don't pay the Kings taxes, i mean, the government property tax.

Its about Rights and privileges.
Income Tax, and Property Tax assume the government has the divine right, and not the individual.

[Publicani]

I believe it is a theft. It's not hard to make this argument. It's immoral. It's invasion of privacy. But why the income tax is the greatest evil?
And why if we abolish income tax, things will be good?

[Truth Warrior]

Was the USA a better place to live, in many many respects, before 1913?

[Publicani]

Was the USA a better place to live, in many many respects, before 1913?
OK, in what respect?
There are also countries without income tax, such as Bahamas, Bermuda, Kuwait, Somalia. Are people there better off than here? More freedom?

[Danke]

I believe it is a theft. It's not hard to make this argument. It's immoral. It's invasion of privacy. But why the income tax is the greatest evil?
And why if we abolish income tax, things will be good?

I'd say one big reason is it is a form of control. I don't think judges for one should be liable for the income tax. Opens them up to control by the executive branch (IRS).

Ever wonder why so many of them side with the government's positions, especially in tax cases?

From the Constituiton (in there for a reason, no?):

"The Judges...[shall] receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

[Truth Warrior]

OK, in what respect?
There are also countries without income tax, such as Bahamas, Bermuda, Kuwait, Somalia. Are people there better off than here? More freedom?
What was the budget of the Federal government in 1913?
What is the budget of the Federal government in 2008?

[Zolah]

OK, in what respect?
There are also countries without income tax, such as Bahamas, Bermuda, Kuwait, Somalia. Are people there better off than here? More freedom?

There is no income tax for individuals in Monaco, I'd say that is a much better example in relevance to the United State's income tax, look into Monaco's history for more info.

[Cleaner44]

I would argue that the Federal Income Tax is not nessesary.

The revenues gained are not used for any of the services that most Americans feel they need from the government. Without the Federal Income Tax we would still have our roads maintained by the taxes on gasoline, we would still have 911 service from the taxes on our phone service, we would still have all of the essential services as provided by the many other taxes we pay.

The Federal Income Tax is simply not needed and robs money from our economy that Americans would otherwise spend on products and services that they find valuable.

Since most people would rather not have the Federal Income Tax and we the people govern ourselves, why do we continue to have the Federal Income Tax?

[ClayTrainor]

I would argue that the Federal Income Tax is not nessesary.

The revenues gained are not used for any of the services that most Americans feel they need from the government. Without the Federal Income Tax we would still have our roads maintained by the taxes on gasoline, we would still have 911 service from the taxes on our phone service, we would still have all of the essential services as provided by the many other taxes we pay.

The Federal Income Tax is simply not needed and robs money from our economy that Americans would otherwise spend on products and services that they find valuable.

Since most people would rather not have the Federal Income Tax and we the people govern ourselves, why do we continue to have the Federal Income Tax?

what tax funds the military? actually a better question would be...

What exactly does the income tax pay for?

my point being, having a strong military is necessary...

[weslinder]

I understand the philosophical arguments, but there's also the practical ones. There is a general rule of thumb for public policy that when you tax something, you get less of it. A tax of income suppresses income. The more progressive that income tax is, the greater the effect.

[Danke]

what tax funds the military? actually a better question would be...

What exactly does the income tax pay for?

According to RP, if we went back to the year 2000 budget, we wouldn't need the revenue from the income tax.

So I guess, cut spending is the answer.

[Cleaner44]

I would also mention that nine states currently do not collect income tax and they are perfectly able to provide the required services.

Seven states that have no state income tax:
Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.

Two states that tax only dividend and interest income:
New Hampshire and Tennessee.

[RideTheDirt]

"An item that cost $100 in 1913(when the federal reserve act was passed) would cost $2014.81 in 2006.An item that cost $100 in 2006 would have cost $4.96 in 1913."
Read what Ron Paul has to say in The Revolution, chapter 6 about money.You can probably get some good facts and arguements from there.

[Cleaner44]

what tax funds the military? actually a better question would be...

What exactly does the income tax pay for?

my point being, having a strong military is necessary...

The Grace Commision found in 1984 that the Federal Income Tax pays for one thing, the interest on our national debt.

We do need to have national security as provided by our military and that can be paid for without a Federal Income Tax. Certainly we were not weak and unable to defend our nation before 1913, right?

[Cleaner44]

According to RP, if we went back to the year 2000 budget, we wouldn't need the revenue form the income tax.

So I guess, cut spending is the answer.

I agree. The problem is not that we do not have enough tax revenues, it is that we spend too much.

[Publicani]

My point is that even if the income tax is used for good purpose, whatever it is, defense or something, and is not wasteful, income tax is still evil, immoral, and should be abandoned. Would not you agree? How do I convince others?

[Cleaner44]

My point is that even if the income tax is used for good purpose, whatever it is, defense or something, and is not wasteful, income tax is still evil, immoral, and should be abandoned. Would not you agree? How do I convince others?

The list of good causes could be long enough to tax 100% of our income, so where do we draw the line? The government must operate within a budget just like the citizens.

In my opinion, 6% of our income should be the limit. These days we pay in the neighborhood of 30%. Even at that rate our government is still spending more than they take in and that is quite immoral. Spending too much, creating a debt, interest payments for our children that will consume their income, all quite immoral.

I don't know that you can convince others but you can ask questions.

Do you feel you pay too much in taxes?
Do you believe our government is wasteful?
Do you believe in borrowing money to give military dictators?
Do you believe in wealth redistribution?

[Danke]

... income tax is still evil, immoral, and should be abandoned. Would not you agree?

NO. Not inherently, no.

Care to comment on what I have already posted in the thread?

[Publicani]

According to RP, if we went back to the year 2000 budget, we wouldn't need the revenue from the income tax.

So I guess, cut spending is the answer.
Suppose we cut spending and have, as somebody suggested here, only 6% income tax. I don't see a big difference.
It's still a theft of my property. It's still a violation of my rights. It's still somebody deciding how much pain could be inflicted on me for the good of others.

[BillyDkid]

Do you mean legal argument or practical argument? There are all sorts of practical reasons why taxing income is very bad. I am less clear on the legal part. I have heard it said that it is unconstitutional, but I don't know enough to say. It is horrible the way we get taxed on the same money over and over again. I would be curious to know just how much of our money actually goes to taxes. I know we have that "tax freedom" day thing, but that only takes into account income taxes. There is a boat load of other moneys we pay out of that same money to various levels of government, sales tax, registrations fees, import taxes and on and on and much of it is hidden from us so never really get a good feel for just how much of our incomes goes to the government.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Because it is enforced against those generally not liable. Mainly due to the convoluted way the IRC is written.

So reform the tax code. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Danke]

Suppose we cut spending and have, as somebody suggested here, only 6% income tax. I don't see a big difference.
It's still a theft of my property. It's still a violation of my rights. It's still somebody deciding how much pain could be inflicted on me for the good of others.

Well, I just throw that RP example out there as its futility. We need to cut spending.

But, I don't agree with "it's still a violation of my rights."

It's not. Learn why they came up with the income tax and to whom it applies. I might surprise you.

[JenHarris]

There are a lot of reasons why Income tax is bad but for me the biggest reason is that you are penalizing the productive people of society for doing their best to earn a living and at the same time you are positively reinforcing negative behavior from all the people who get stuff for free from the taxes we pay. Why would someone go out and get a job when they can take advantage of all the programs out there and be better off? It's just one more way that the government is stripping the people of this country of their personal responsibility.

[Publicani]

Do you mean legal argument or practical argument?
Neither. A moral argument.
I think the income tax is bad. I am not sure it's illegal. I don't care if it's practical or not. At least for the purpose of this discussion.
The book I wrote, Publicani, is based on the assumption that somebody can come and take a part of your intellect. Whether it's legal, or practical, I think it's immoral.
The same way it's with the income tax. That's why I fully expect the interview will discuss the income tax and I want to use the opportunity to change people's opinion. What do you think is the best argument? Is there a single argument that would convince any reasonable person that the income tax should be abolished?
What would convince you?

[Danke]

So reform the tax code. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

No problem with that, other than when a politician talks about reform, it is time to bend over.

[hypnagogue]

I agree that I see no inherent wrong, and certainly not evil, in income taxes. Obviously service related taxes are superior, ie gas tax for roads, but what then should be taxed to cover those things which all citizens utilize? Things like the military, the courts, etc.

Obviously it must be a tax which applies to everyone, and the more equally it applies the better. Honestly, I can think of nothing more indispensable and universal than income. If anyone has a superior suggestion, I'd be very eager to hear it, since I've actually thought on the alternatives fairly heavily.

I will say though that a sales tax seems to me to be inferior to an income tax, as it would more heavily affect the poor than the rich, since the rich have the option of saving much more of their wealth than the poor. Additionally, a sales tax would artificially encourage savings over spending, which ideally should be left to the market. An income tax by contrast is neutral to the issue of spending vs. saving, and in my opinion, less likely to alter the actions of those subject to it. It's easier to influence someone to buy less, than it is to encourage them to make less money.

To those who suggest we reform the tax code, as opposed to rewriting it, I seriously disagree. I spent some time reading through the actual codes doing research on that eternal rumor that individuals don't have to pay income tax. Let me tell you that frankentseinian leviathan of law is so utterly convoluted and bloated as to be almost totally unintelligible. It absolutely is not accessible to your average individual, hence all of the mythology surrounding it. It ought to be pushed over-board and a replacement built from scratch. One without a progressive tax and without volumes upon volumes of manipulative exemptions and penalties.

[Publicani]

Well, I just throw that RP example out there as its futility. We need to cut spending.

But, I don't agree with "it's still a violation of my rights."

It's not. Learn why they came up with the income tax and to whom it applies. I might surprise you.

My income is my property. Why should I care about their reasons to take it from me?

[Danke]

My income is my property. Why should I care about their reasons to take it from me?

You wrote a book!?!?!

Yet you can't investigate what I have just given you, and you come up with, "Why should I care about their reasons to take it from me?"

F#ck, I feel like I'm talking to Minestra di pomodoro.

[Publicani]

You said, "Learn why they came up with the income tax and to whom it applies." But that is irrelevant. Suppose they came up with it to punish criminals and it *should* only apply to truly evil people. Yet in practice I still pay it every year, or else I go to jail. So the original reasoning is irrelevant. Indeed, I was able to write a book by avoiding irrelevant research (not entirely, mind you... I did learn some things that didn't make it into the book).

PS I am assuming you are referring to one of a variety of income tax theories involving "income," "natural person," etc.

[Danke]

What do you think is the most convincing reason for abolishing the income tax?"


You said, "Learn why they came up with the income tax and to whom it applies." But that is irrelevant. Suppose they came up with it to punish criminals and it *should* only apply to truly evil people. Yet in practice I still pay it every year, or else I go to jail. So the original reasoning is irrelevant. Indeed, I was able to write a book by avoiding irrelevant research (not entirely, mind you... I did learn some things that didn't make it into the book).

PS I am assuming you are referring to one of a variety of income tax theories involving "income," "natural person," etc.

"irrelevant"?!?!

You are making no sense.

"tax theories"?

It sounds like you wrote a book on a subject you know little about.


I said Judges are subject to the income tax. But that clearly is in contradiction to the Constitution. And for good reasons. Big reasons!

"Yet in practice I still pay it every year, or else I go to jail." Oh yeah, "irrelevant"!!

Let's not understand the history and reasonings why we have the taxation system we have (or at least supposed to Constitutionally have). No let's just focus on you ignorantly paying under fear of going to jail.

[Cleaner44]

Suppose we cut spending and have, as somebody suggested here, only 6% income tax. I don't see a big difference.
It's still a theft of my property. It's still a violation of my rights. It's still somebody deciding how much pain could be inflicted on me for the good of others.

Let me make myself clear, I am 100% against any Federal Income Tax. The number I used of 6% was meant to illistrate the point that I believe our government does need money to operate, but much less than what they currently take from us. I think that an income tax is the worst possible way to collect the needed revenues.

Collecting taxes to send to Saddam Hussien, Osama bin Laden, Israel, Pakistan, Peru, South Korea, or any other bullshit, I am completely against. I am also against redistribution of wealth in any way and believe our taxes should be very low and are only needed to fund very limited things, such as police departments, fire departments, small military, roads, etc.

Collecting taxes to pay for these services is not theft in my opinion. I would gladly pay taxes to have a fire department and most Americans probably would too. Having a 6% national sales tax to pay for all services would work for me. Then it would be up to our representatives to budget accordingly.

[BillyDkid]

Neither. A moral argument.
I think the income tax is bad. I am not sure it's illegal. I don't care if it's practical or not. At least for the purpose of this discussion.
The book I wrote, Publicani, is based on the assumption that somebody can come and take a part of your intellect. Whether it's legal, or practical, I think it's immoral.
The same way it's with the income tax. That's why I fully expect the interview will discuss the income tax and I want to use the opportunity to change people's opinion. What do you think is the best argument? Is there a single argument that would convince any reasonable person that the income tax should be abolished?
What would convince you?Well, for one, and doctor paul is explicit about this, it amounts to slavery. You legally obligated through the threat of force to work for half the year and give your earnings to the government. It is forced labor and not different that the way serfs were required to give half of their crop to the nobles. I would say that is immoral. But even if it were not immoral, it punishes productivity and hard work.

[micahnelson]

1) We are a government of the people.
2) An overwhelming majority of people do not want to pay an income tax.


There. Thats a pretty simple thought process.

Elaborating slightly- we are convinced by politicians that they need all this money. No one with national influence ever considers getting rid of the income tax. The arguments that the government would shut down, or we wouldn't have roads, police, firefighters, or a military are silly. Lets look at it this way...

We are going to a movie theater with our friends. We decide we want some popcorn, a soda, and our favorite candy. 10.00 total. We go to the counter and they inform us that if we register our credit card with them, they can process the order faster. it sounds like a bunch of crap, but under the circumstances of our tardiness we accept to get into the movie faster. We get our food , watch the movie and go home. Next weekend we go back to the theater, this time for Indiana Jones. We get in line to pick up our treats, only to find all the sizes are larger- and we have been charged for the upgrade. We would complain, but again we are running late, so we don't think much of it. Time goes by. More things are automatically billed to our account, but by now everyone is on auto billing so its hard to tell how much things should cost.

As we wait in line for our small popcorn, bite size candy, can of soda- as well as beef jerky, tofu, yogurt, and a coupon for a free car wash- we ask if anyone else is sick of the automatic billing. Shocked, they exclaim, "Look mate, how are we going to get popcorn and soda if we don't have automatic billing! Sure, we are paying for things we don't want- but most of the money goes towards good food. Imagine how long we would have to wait in line if it wasn't for prepay!" Wanting to avoid the pillory, you take your snack box (along with coloring book, condoms, and Al Roker Lithograph poster) and watch the movie.

All sorts of schemes are created to assure the people they are working to streamline the prepay process. Some want to add the cost of the snacks into the movie ticket. Others want people who can already pay for nighttime movies to pay a higher price for snacks to subsidize the matinee watchers.

By this time our snack box is a protean bar and a bottle of water, a scratch and sniff picture of popcorn, and one hershey's kiss. We cancel our credit card and do the unthinkable- we sneak food into the theater.

Of course, someone in line notices the smell of real popcorn and tips off the manager to this prepay cheater. We are brought up on charges, banned from watching movies, and forced to do cleanup duty in the theaters to repay our debt to society. Thankfully, it isn't difficult to clean the theaters anymore, without all that messy popcorn, candy, and soda.

[Publicani]

1) We are a government of the people.
2) An overwhelming majority of people do not want to pay an income tax.


I am not sure about 2). 50% of the income earners don't pay any tax - why should they be against it? And even if 99% are for it - does it make it right? Moral? What if we all vote to force Bill Gates to pay all his income in taxes? We have the majority, does it make it right?

And I am not sure whether "practicality" is a factor in deciding whether income tax should be abolished. What if for some reason it does not punish productivity?

[Publicani]

No let's just focus on you ignorantly paying under fear of going to jail.

"ignorantly"? Do you not pay taxes on your income? If so please
explain how -- that would be the single most useful forum post on this
entire site, if not the entire internet. And if you need to explain
the history and reasonings of the law as part of your explanation, by
all means, go ahead.

Thanks in advance.

[Danke]

"ignorantly"? Do you not pay taxes on your income? If so please
explain how -- that would be the single most useful forum post on this
entire site, if not the entire internet. And if you need to explain
the history and reasonings of the law as part of your explanation, by
all means, go ahead.

Thanks in advance.

Where to begin. You wrote a book. But you want simple answers to a complex issue for your upcoming interview. You have not addressed my previous posts, but now bring up another type of challenge to something I have not said. By your own admission you supposedly already investigated tax "theories." But in fact your answer lies in what our founders' ideas and reservations about taxation. It can also be further brought to light in the current scheme as I said in a prior post. This is not a theory. It is a written law backed up with congressional records and supreme court cases.



What do you want?

[Cleaner44]

I am not sure about 2). 50% of the income earners don't pay any tax - why should they be against it? And even if 99% are for it - does it make it right? Moral? What if we all vote to force Bill Gates to pay all his income in taxes? We have the majority, does it make it right?

And I am not sure whether "practicality" is a factor in deciding whether income tax should be abolished. What if for some reason it does not punish productivity?

I have never in my life met someone that wants the Federal Income Tax.

I have to question your 50% figure, that does not sound at all acurate to me. Did you make this up or do you have some evidence?

No need to worry about 99% of the people unless you live in a Democracy. Democracies are bad which is why our founding fathers setup a Republic.

[Publicani]

I have to question your 50% figure, that does not sound at all acurate to me. Did you make this up or do you have some evidence?



The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html)

[Publicani]

Another reference - According to the National Taxpayers Union
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

For the year 2005
Top 1% pays 40% of all taxes
Top 5% pays 60%
Top 10% pays 70%
Top 25% pays 86%
Top 50% pays 97%

[spudea]

What exactly does the income tax pay for?

it pays for big, bloated, inefficient, morally evil, unconstitutional GOVERNMENT! It is the antithesis to economic freedom and prosperity.

[Cleaner44]

The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html)

Yes, but you said:

50% of the income earners don't pay any tax

This is quite different.

It is not true that 50% of income earners do not pay any (income) tax.

[RSLudlum]

I will be interviewed on TV this Tuesday about my new book, Publicani (http://www.amazon.com/Publicani-Zak-Maymin/dp/1419683497). The major topic will be the Income Tax, which I passionately hate. Help me to make an argument against it. What do you think is the most convincing reason for abolishing the income tax?

Don't know if it's already been mentioned but it wouldn't hurt to read Bastiat's "The Law" ;)

READ here (http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf)

LISTEN to audiobook here (http://www.freeaudio.org/fbastiat/thelaw.html)

[hypnagogue]

This all just seems to me to be anti-tax sentiment rather than anti-income-tax. It would be useful if those who declare income tax 'evil' to give an example of a just tax and to demonstrate the material difference between that and the income tax.

[micahnelson]

The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html)

This evidence shows that there is a major divide between the rich and the poor in this country. If, as Rush Limbaugh uses it for, is supposed to make me feel guilty that the rich pay more in taxes, it fails.

I don't want a government this large, no matter what percentage of it I personally may be paying.

[micahnelson]

This all just seems to me to be anti-tax sentiment rather than anti-income-tax. It would be useful if those who declare income tax 'evil' to give an example of a just tax and to demonstrate the material difference between that and the income tax.


Arguements against any tax are all philosophical. We are made to pay because they have the monopoly on force. It is like telling the mob how unethical it is for them to collect dues.

You do raise a valid point, however. Taxes are needed to carry some legitimate functions of government.

As far as I am concerned, taxes should raised specifically from people who make use of the service funded. For instances, gas taxes which pay for roads make sense to me. If you are buying gasoline, you are making use of the roadways and therefore should contribute. Building roads is a legitimate government function. (not trying to anger the libertarians here, i realize you dont NEED government for roads, but its part of how we do things here.)

Low taxation in general, apportioned specifically to those who will benefit from the program. Some form of broader taxation would be needed to fund the military, but certainly not an income tax.

States have a broader brush with which to paint to cover whatever civic programs the state determines to be of value. I personally would want to be in a state with low low taxes and little government expansion, but certainly places like California would want to extend the arm of government. Thats up to the Californians.

[hypnagogue]

taxes should [be] raised specifically from people who make use of the service funded. For instances, gas taxes which pay for roads make sense to me. If you are buying gasoline, you are making use of the roadways and therefore should contribute. Agreed this is optimal, but that's not the whole story as you yourself recognize.


Some form of broader taxation would be needed to fund the military, but certainly not an income tax. Here's the heart of the issue. To be thorough, it's not just the military though. It's also the courts, the expenses of the legislature, foreign relations, etc. We all utilize and benefit from these functions, so clearly it is only just that all must pay equally. So, what form of taxation can be applied to everyone, which causes the least harm to all? You say, "certainly not an income tax," but what then?

[TheEvilDetector]

I will be interviewed on TV this Tuesday about my new book, Publicani (http://www.amazon.com/Publicani-Zak-Maymin/dp/1419683497). The major topic will be the Income Tax, which I passionately hate. Help me to make an argument against it. What do you think is the most convincing reason for abolishing the income tax?

I dont like the involuntary nature of the income tax.

Given that we are not going to see it disappear anytime soon, I think at the very least people should be treated the same way businesses are treated
when it comes to profit calculation and taxation.

In a business all expenses are deductible when it comes to selling items or services.

Why not the same when it comes to the exchange of your labour for example?

How about the cost of food/clothing/rent/electricity supply etc that you pay (basically living expenses) pro-rated for when you are at work?

After all, to provide the labour you need to provide yourself with shelter and food amongst other things, those are costs applicable to maintaining a human being alive so he can work.

If those factors are not taken into account, then individual humans are being discriminated in the terms of their treatment compared to businesses who are allowed to deduct their expenses before tax is applied.

Only with all these expenses applied against earnings can we honestly arrive at some semblance of real profit calculations, rather than taxing the entire income of an individual, which is partially an exchange (from employer's view) and partially profit (from employee's view who makes more than basic living expenses).

To me income is profit, at least in the way that I feel income tax should be applied.

Having said that, IMO the best possible taxation regime is a flat goods and services tax applied uniformly without any other taxes.

Those that have more money to spend, pay more tax, which resembles a progressive tax system and yet it is semi-voluntary,
because you have control over what you buy and how much you pay.

Keep in mind that the gst would only be levied at business to business or business to consumer transactions.

Consumer to consumer private sales would be tax free, so if you want to sell your fridge to your neigbour, it would be tax free.

Basically:
1% GST, 0% income tax.

Joe earns $100,000 a year.

Joe purchases $50,000 a year from businesses

Joe purchases $5,000 a year from consumers like himself.

Joe saves $45,000 a year by depositing in a bank for a term deposit
(if ordinary deposit banks must not lend<covered in another post of mine about what an honest banking system would look like>)

Joe pays $0 tax on earnings.

Joe pays $500 taxation for purchases from businesses.

Joe pays $0 taxation on purchases from other consumers

Borrowers of $45,000 pay $450 taxation.

So with a trillion dollars of goods and services produced, one would expect a maximum of 10 billion dollars tax revenue at 1% rate.

USA GDP 13 trillion, so at 1% GST that points to roughly 130 billion of taxation revenue. If it is too low, you would need to raise GST.
10% GST, would be 1.3 trillion, which is a sizeable amount of revenue and yet is quite manageable for consumers to handle.

So I do not see why a country could not be organised around 10%GST without any other tax, especially a country with 2nd leading GDP (for now. EU 1st).

Less revenue, would teach them (the feds) to be efficient with other people's money and to stop wasting it.

[DriftWood]

I believe it is a theft. It's not hard to make this argument. It's immoral. It's invasion of privacy. But why the income tax is the greatest evil?
And why if we abolish income tax, things will be good?

Appart from the moral argument taxes are bad because of its consequences.

Tax is bad because it diverts capital from where it is most needed, to where it will be wasted. If people where allowed to keep all their money they would use it for whatever thing they needed the most. When govt takes money from people only to give it back by charity, some is lost to corruption and other is wasted on things that each person does not need the most. Say if the money goes to public schools, some of the people in the school would rather have used the money to buy food, medicals, clothes or something else instead they get something that is not as urgently needed. Taxes translate into central spending plans, one size fits all. One size does not fit all, everyones needs and priorities are different. This is why taxes are bad. It destroys wealth.

Also when the govt take money from productive people and give it to unproductive people, they are encouraging unproductivess. You get more of it. The problem gets worse the more govt tries to fix it.


Cheers

[Joe3113]

Well the best argument for me is the base philosophical argument. Income tax is stealing. The government claims it requires the tax to fund government programs that help poor people, however it is not justified to steal people's money just because you want to help others.

People need to make an individual decision to help poor people. If they are forced to pay the government then they start becoming dependent on government and start to see government as all-knowing. This actually compounds problems because people have no sense of self-responsibility when it comes to the proportion of their income they get to keep. This further compounds government intervention. This is why socialism is self-perpetuating. It's like Heroin. You start needing more and more, even though it is killing you. You become dependent.

Then you can argue the practicalities. it is inefficient etc etc. but to me, this is secondary to the basic immorality of stealing property.

[Truth Warrior]

The income tax is a plank in the "Communist Manifesto", as are central banks, BTW.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Here is one for you.
It centers around the idea of us having "rights"

In a monarchy, the Kind had the Divine right. And he had the Right to tax his SUBJECTS.
The subjects had no rights.

Now ask the question.
What happens if I don't pay the income tax?
You will be imprisoned.
How does the government get that right? Well, the government must have Right over your labor.
Thus, you don't own your labor, the King, I mean, the government owns your labor. Thus have RIGHT over it.

That is why the income tax is immoral.

Same with property taxes. Property Taxes makes you a serf of the King, i mean, government. Who has the RIGHT to take your property if you don't pay the Kings taxes, i mean, the government property tax.

Its about Rights and privileges.
Income Tax, and Property Tax assume the government has the divine right, and not the individual.

The first born generally went into services with the king's monarchy while the second born went into services for the Church. This left the rest of the children taking care of the business of their own survival. The problem? Well, the king owned every inch of land even to the extent that he was considered public property. In order to penalize people for doing illegal business on his property, the king divided his property into counties and deployed Barons to take the illegal business to court to tax it.
This primitive system sat a master class at a dinner table seperate from a slave class.
Our tax system today takes from the middle of our economy to redistribute it to the top and the bottom of our nation's economy. This policy in turn sits a new developing master class at a seperate dinner table from a new developing slave class.

[Publicani]

Thanks, everybody. Interesting arguments, stimulating discussion. Helpful. Sorry if I misunderstood or misquoted anybody.
This post does not mean to end the discussion, please keep your comments coming.
The book, by the way, is a fiction. It never mentions income tax even though the plot is driven by a similar concept. It is available free online at
http://www.publicani.com/book/
if you like it, please comment on
http://www.amazon.com/Publicani-Zak-Maymin/dp/1419683497
- maybe somebody else will read it and start thinking about the issue.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The income tax is a plank in the "Communist Manifesto", as are central banks, BTW.

The purpose of having a tax is to set up an inequitible system because the government could just choose to spend as it needs without the bringing in of any revenue while the nation's productivity would keep inflation at bay.
To confront a persecuting robber baron master class who were persecuting a new slave class during the Great Depression, it was necessary for FDR to redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom. This redistribution was necessary to keep every American ideally sitting at the same dinner table. The American system creates a positive, constitutional government with the intent of keeping the master class sitting with the slave class at the same dinner table. The idea isn't to create a classless society as in a socialist system.
When tyranny is present in the system, the master class is not sitting at the same dinner table as the slave class. Erosions of a middle class is a sign of tyranny. Another sign of a tyranny of seperate tables would be a master class who aren't concerned with the thirst of its slave class.

[ams5995]

Theft is aggression. Taxes are theft. Taxes are aggression. We could run this whole mother country without one single tax. YES WE CAN!!!! CHANGE!!!!!!!

[CuriousOnlooker]

Theft is aggression. Taxes are theft. Taxes are aggression. We could run this whole mother country without one single tax. YES WE CAN!!!! CHANGE!!!!!!!

Where would the funds be raised to pay for a strong national defense? (NOT offense.)

[torchbearer]

Where would the funds be raised to pay for a strong national defense? (NOT offense.)

the states would be responsible for their own territories.
The federal government was never ment to have a standing army. Only the states.

[hypnagogue]

the states would be responsible for their own territories.
The federal government was never ment to have a standing army. Only the states. You need only contrast the requirements for a modern effective armed forces to recognize how totally impracticable that would be. Could you imagine getting 50 independent armies to function as a single responsive unit. The logistics and POLITICS should run a man's blood cold.

I know this is a reviled argument sometimes around here, but it's undeniable that times have changed. The science of modern warfare nowhere near resembles what the founders had to provision for, and no doubt would have been unimaginable even in their wildest nightmares.

[torchbearer]

You need only contrast the requirements for a modern effective armed forces to recognize how totally impracticable that would be. Could you imagine getting 50 independent armies to function as a single responsive unit. The logistics and POLITICS should run a man's blood cold.

I know this is a reviled argument sometimes around here, but it's undeniable that times have changed. The science of modern warfare nowhere near resembles what the founders had to provision for, and no doubt would have been unimaginable even in their wildest nightmares.

It would be easier for states to organize searches of all incoming containers on cargo ships than it would be for one giant monolithic structure to coordinate such exercises.
You are wrong. A monolithic army only has its advantages when you are focus all the force on particular area, like need in invasion strategies and attack others.
Like in WW2.
Having many commands has its advantages too.

[Dr.3D]

It would be easier for states to organize searches of all incoming containers on cargo ships than it would be for one giant monolithic structure to coordinate such exercises.
You are wrong. A monolithic army only has its advantages when you are focus all the force on particular area, like need in invasion strategies and attack others.
Like in WW2.
Having many commands has its advantages too.

That and it is constitutional.

[hypnagogue]

It would be easier for states to organize searches of all incoming containers on cargo ships than it would be for one giant monolithic structure to coordinate such exercises.
You are wrong. A monolithic army only has its advantages when you are focus all the force on particular area, like need in invasion strategies and attack others.
Like in WW2.
Having many commands has its advantages too. A couple things - Who was talking about customs?

Also, having a distributed command chain is excellent for responsiveness and survivability, but having multiple command chains just leads to redundancy and conflict.

Another key concern is interoperability. Who would decide what ammo these state armies would use? What tactics would be utilized? Do we want to focus on precision bombing or cruise missiles? Unless the Federal government mandated the shape and function of these State Armies, you would end up with an uncoordinated hodge-podge of units. If the Federal government is coordinating all this, in what way are these State Armies? You would lose all the benefits of competing doctrines while maintaining most of the difficulties with competing egos and various disagreements.

I could write more but we're way off topic now. The topic was the income tax.

Even if you want to argue that we don't need a maintained National Army, there are still plenty of expenses which the federal government must meet. The original question raised was, how should they best be paid for. The only income a government has is tax, so what tax should be used?

[TheEvilDetector]

A couple things - Who was talking about customs?

Also, having a distributed command chain is excellent for responsiveness and survivability, but having multiple command chains just leads to redundancy and conflict.

Another key concern is interoperability. Who would decide what ammo these state armies would use? What tactics would be utilized? Do we want to focus on precision bombing or cruise missiles? Unless the Federal government mandated the shape and function of these State Armies, you would end up with an uncoordinated hodge-podge of units. If the Federal government is coordinating all this, in what way are these State Armies? You would lose all the benefits of competing doctrines while maintaining most of the difficulties with competing egos and various disagreements.

I could write more but we're way off topic now. The topic was the income tax.

Even if you want to argue that we don't need a maintained National Army, there are still plenty of expenses which the federal government must meet. The original question raised was, how should they best be paid for. The only income a government has is tax, so what tax should be used?

Tax on Consumption.

eg. flat goods and services tax at X%.

[torchbearer]

A couple things - Who was talking about customs?

Also, having a distributed command chain is excellent for responsiveness and survivability, but having multiple command chains just leads to redundancy and conflict.

Another key concern is interoperability. Who would decide what ammo these state armies would use? What tactics would be utilized? Do we want to focus on precision bombing or cruise missiles? Unless the Federal government mandated the shape and function of these State Armies, you would end up with an uncoordinated hodge-podge of units. If the Federal government is coordinating all this, in what way are these State Armies? You would lose all the benefits of competing doctrines while maintaining most of the difficulties with competing egos and various disagreements.

I could write more but we're way off topic now. The topic was the income tax.

Even if you want to argue that we don't need a maintained National Army, there are still plenty of expenses which the federal government must meet. The original question raised was, how should they best be paid for. The only income a government has is tax, so what tax should be used?

By the way, the civil war wouldn't have gone down like it did if the federal government didn't have a standing army.
That power was given to the states for a reason. And the Fed ignore that power for a reason.
You see the end result today.
You only have the rights you have the power to defend.
The Fed has neutered the states. There are no more states rights. No more sovereignty of person.

You fail to see the unintended consequences of the policy you condone in the name of "national security". Your name might as well be Cheney or Bush.
And to deny this fact, is just straight denial.

[hypnagogue]

By the way, the civil war wouldn't have gone down like it did if the federal government didn't have a standing army.
That power was given to the states for a reason. And the Fed ignore that power for a reason.
You see the end result today.
You only have the rights you have the power to defend.
The Fed has neutered the states. There are no more states rights. No more sovereignty of person.

You fail to see the unintended consequences of the policy you condone in the name of "national security". Your name might as well be Cheney or Bush.
And to deny this fact, is just straight denial. Wow. Well, I think your name might as well be Cockface or Shitstain. Seriously, you call that discussion? I could demonstrate the hollow nature of your assertions, but it's scarcely worth the effort. Rather than explain your "unintended consequences," you toss about filthy names.

[Publicani]

I put a shorter version of this discussion on
http://www.publicani.com
You are welcome to comment there.
If you think the issue is important for others to think about, please vote it up on reddit. Thanks, everybody.