Is There Such Thing As A Moral Tax?

[redbluepill]

Most libertarians will argue that taxes are morally reprehensible. As a result, many of them will argue that all taxes should be voluntary. I suppose its fair to assume most Paul supporters on this forum are not anarchists so how would you approach taxes if you had the power? Go with the 'least evil' tax(s)? Is there even a tax that is morally okay to enforce?

[Wesker1982]

As a result, many of them will argue that all taxes should be voluntary.

This is what most people here seem to advocate, but I don't know why they bother calling it a tax. What you pay for a voluntary service or product is called a price.

Is there even a tax that is morally okay to enforce?

Only voluntary exchanges are moral. Taxes are involuntary.

[josh b]

This is what most people here seem to advocate, but I don't know why they bother calling it a tax. What you pay for a voluntary service or product is called a price.

Yeah some people want to make a distinction between voluntary and involuntary taxation.

Force is implied in most definitions of the word tax. Otherwise what is the point in having it as a unique term?

[hazek]

I suppose its fair to assume most Paul supporters on this forum are not anarchists

No, not fair to assume. There's a pretty sizable chunk of us who subscribe to anarcho capitalism.

[redbluepill]

No, not fair to assume. There's a pretty sizable chunk of us who subscribe to anarcho capitalism.

A sizable chunk or most?

[Fermli]

No, not fair to assume. There's a pretty sizable chunk of us who subscribe to anarcho capitalism.

on RPForums possibly. No way this is true of RP supporters overall.

[jkr]

nope

[asurfaholic]

I really don't mind paying a little sales tax, and maybe there are even others that I just can't seem to think of.

The worst of all taxes to me are property taxes and income taxes. To be forced to give a percentage of what I earn off the top says something about who owns who.

[redbluepill]

I really don't mind paying a little sales tax, and maybe there are even others that I just can't seem to think of.

The worst of all taxes to me are property taxes and income taxes. To be forced to give a percentage of what I earn off the top says something about who owns who.

'

What are 'property' taxes to you? Is that capital or land or both? Is capital the same as land and how so?

I would agree that income taxes are amongst the worst of them. For the government to take directly from the fruit of one's labor is completely immoral.

[KingRobbStark]

'

What are 'property' taxes to you? Is that capital or land or both? Is capital the same as land and how so?

I would agree that income taxes are amongst the worst of them. For the government to take directly from the fruit of one's labor is completely immoral.

Technically every tax is taken directly from the fruits of our labor.

[Wesker1982]

It should be carefully noted that the general sales tax is a conspicuous example of failure to tax consumption. The sales tax is commonly supposed to penalize consumption, rather than income or capital. Yet we find that the sales tax reduces, not just consumption, but the incomes of original factors. The general sales tax is therefore an income tax, albeit a rather haphazard one. Many “right-wing” economists have advocated general sales taxation, as opposed to income taxation, on the grounds that the former taxes consumption but not savings-investment; many “left-wing” economists have opposed sales taxation for the same reason. Both are mistaken; the sales tax is an income tax, though of a more haphazard and uncertain incidence. The major effect of the general sales tax will be that of the income tax—to reduce the consumption and the saving-investment of the taxpayers. In fact, since, as we have seen, the income tax by its nature falls more heavily on savings-investment than on consumption, we reach the paradoxical and important conclusion that a tax on consumption will fall more heavily on savings-investment than on consumption in its ultimate incidence.

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap12...eral_Sales_Tax

[acptulsa]

All taxes are moral taxes. That's what loopholes are for--to allow the immoral to get out of paying tax. Not to mention settlement agencies and corporate tax attorneys. So, there is no tax that isn't a tax on only the moral any more.

[willwash]

I'm OK with sin taxes (on alcohol, tobacco, and the legalized MJ and hard drugs), sales tax on luxury items (we can quibble as to how to define those if you want, but I'm just speaking on general principle) as well as limited import tariffs. State-run gambling, a modest gasoline tax, and conservative market investments of the government's portfolio should round off a well-limited government that can still find the funds to function effectively.

EDIT: add to that voluntary contributions by the rich.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I'm OK with sin taxes (on alcohol, tobacco, and the legalized MJ and hard drugs), sales tax on luxury items (we can quibble as to how to define those if you want, but I'm just speaking on general principle) as well as limited import tariffs. State-run gambling, a modest gasoline tax, and conservative market investments of the government's portfolio should round off a well-limited government that can still find the funds to function effectively.

EDIT: add to that voluntary contributions by the rich.

So you want the government to STEAL from others for bahavior that you disapprove of? What if others want to put a tax on religious people? How can anyone justify THEFT?

I'm a minarchist but I still believe that there should NO TAXES (eventually), remember the Declaration of Independence had no taxes in it, that's TRUE FREEDOM, being free from being FORCED so if people want a government then they'd better donate for it & NOT hope to fund it by STEALING from others.

[willwash]

So you want the government to STEAL from others for bahavior that you disapprove of? What if others want to put a tax on religious people? How can anyone justify THEFT?

I'm a minarchist but I still believe that there should NO TAXES (eventually), remember the Declaration of Independence had no taxes in it, that's TRUE FREEDOM, being free from being FORCED so if people want a government then they'd better donate for it & NOT hope to fund it by STEALING from others.

Obviously I don't think the federal government should be involved in any of that (except import taxes). If another state wanted to try that approach, I'd love to see the result of the experiment. I just don't want to be in that state.

[jkr]

wOw!


nope?

[Legend1104]

I hold more of a position of John Locke. I am not a voluntarist completely.

I believe that, in an ideal world, a governmental system is set up with the strict purpose of protecting our life, liberty, and property. I believe that is a valid cause for existence and therefore it is acceptable to fund that system. Tax money should be received to provide this function. Every person that is in the system should provide money to support that system, but this has to be under a few stipulations. Whenever it exceeds these stipulations, then the taxation is theft and immoral.

1. It must be equally distributed among the citizens. It would be best if the government could say, "We spent x amount of dollars, we have y number of citizens, x/y=what each citizen owes for the year. (If people insisted on a more voluntarist system then they could make it a poll tax and if you don't pay then you dont get to vote or get services).

2. It must be for only those 3 services (protection of life, liberty, and property) and it must be for the general welfare. In otherwords, people should only have to pay tax money to support those three benefits and only when it directly benefits them. It should never be expanded to build roads, infrustructure, welfare, social security, and all of the other junk. If they want roads then they either need to start a business to do it, or have a local government provide for it (talking about roads, infrustructure, and schools, not the other stuff).

3. If people don't like that system then (like John Locke advocated) they have the right to move somewhere else. I know what many will say, but it is impractical to say that a person that doesn't want to be part of a system should not be required to move. Imagine if he lived in the center of the country. He would have to drive on their roads, interact with its citizens and probably work in its territory. He would be subject to its laws anyway because he would have to do daily business in it. As long as you are staying in that territory you will receive it's benefits such as protection of your life. You would then be stealing from the tax paying citizens of that country and would probably be required to get some type of green card and then would probably have to pay a fee and that would just defeat the point.

[hazek]

I believe that, in an ideal world, a governmental system is set up with the strict purpose of protecting our life, liberty, and property. I believe that is a valid cause for existence and therefore it is acceptable to fund that system.

IMO you should focus less on intent and more on the outcome which is what actually matters.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

a governmental system is set up with the strict purpose of protecting our life, liberty, and property.

Agreed.

It must be equally distributed among the citizens. It would be best if the government could say, "We spent x amount of dollars, we have y number of citizens, x/y=what each citizen owes for the year.

So government scum get to spend money & then they get to FORCE the people to pay for it? What if someone doesn't/can't pay? Put'em in prison? Kill him? That's hardly different from the current situation. If one objects FORCE & violation of property-rights in one instance then one must object to it in EVERY instance.

(If people insisted on a more voluntarist system then they could make it a poll tax and if you don't pay then you dont get to vote or get services).

Well, if you're going to go for something like that then anarcho-capitalism would be a better option because in that at least the people who CAN pay will get decent services from private companies than monopoly-government but I don't like anarcho-capitalism like that is because then poor are trampled on as there's no uniform protection so the whole purpose of having government would be to TRY & provide a more equitable protection to rights of people.

I'd say, let's have "voting-fees", if you want to vote then you should pay for it, if not then don't pay BUT whether you pay or not, government would be obliged to protect EVERY CITIZEN's (American or person with one American parent or naturalized citizen) rights to life, liberty & property. And it's completely voluntary so if you don't want to vote/pay then you can go for private security, private courts/arbitrators, etc but irrespective of that government still have an obligation to protect you as a citizen (of course, if private arbitrators are preferred then both parties could sign a binding agreement to accept the private court/arbitrator's wording on that particular matter)

The WHOLE PROCESS will be COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY.

[Wesker1982]

I believe that, in an ideal world, a governmental system is set up with the strict purpose of protecting our life, liberty, and property.

If people ever arrived at the point where this is achievable, you won't need to use violence to fund defense services.

Whenever it exceeds these stipulations, then the taxation is theft and immoral.

Taxation is always theft. This is proven by the simple fact that it is funded through force. If it was voluntary, force would not be required.

It is true that State apologists maintain that taxation is "really" voluntary; one simple but instructive refutation of this claim is to ponder what would happen if the government were to abolish taxation, and to confine itself to simple requests for voluntary contributions. Does anyone really believe that anything comparable to the current vast revenues of the State would continue to pour into its coffers?- Murray Rothbard

It should never be expanded to build roads, infrustructure, welfare, social security, and all of the other junk. If they want roads then they either need to start a business to do it, or have a local government provide for it (talking about roads, infrustructure, and schools, not the other stuff).

If you get enough people to accept this, then it would be proof that an overwhelming majority of people have had a profound revelation. What I mean is, if most people accept the pure minarchist position, then there need not be any fear of criminal voluntary defense agencies, etc. Any corrupt defense service could not last in a society full of minarchist libertarians.

To say that 95% of the population is liberty oriented enough to achieve the voluntarization of roads, schools, social security, etc., but then claim that these very same people are too evil or ignorant to produce voluntary defense services, is a contradiction.

Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What is striking is that almost every criticism of "impracticality" that minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply don't care much about.- Stephan Kinsella

If people don't like that system then (like John Locke advocated) they have the right to move somewhere else.

This neglects the question of who legitimately owns the property in the first place. If I homestead a piece of land, and then someone arbitrarily declares me under their jurisdiction, it would be absurd to call it justice that I move if I don't want to be apart of their system. Or if someone arbitrarily claims jurisdiction to land they have not legitimately acquired, then any use of violence to enforce this claim is nothing more than a criminal act.

I'd like to see voluntary taxes.

This is a contradiction.

And here is Ron Paul on taxes and private defense:

The government is incapable of doing what it's suppose to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions. - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined page 70

We might reflect on how we achieve security in our everyday lives. We have locks on our doors, provided by private manufacturers. We use privately provided alarm systems. We depend on the idea that others are going to drive safely, and the incentive to do so comes from a private system of insurance. Some people own and carry guns for security. Their efforts help everyone by deterring criminality. Commercial establishments such as banks and jewelry stores hire private security guards. Malls and subdivisions have their own security apparatus. - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined pages 254-255

If we reflect on how security works in the real world, we discover a huge and important role for private enterprise, and we find that the vast government apparatus of "national security" does not keep us safe so much as threaten our liberties by regarding the entire citizenry as a threat. Private security does not threaten our civil liberties, but government-provided security does. - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined pages 254-255

A free society, valued by the people, would be adequately defend by volunteers, without age, sex, or any other restrictions. - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined page 51

If we as a nation continue to believe that that paying for civilization through taxation is a wise purchase and the only way to achieve civilization, we are doomed.- Ron Paul, Liberty Defined, Page 284 (Ron Paul has also repeatedly said elsewhere that taxation is theft )

[Legend1104]

Taxation is always theft. This is proven by the simple fact that it is funded through force. If it was voluntary, force would not be required.

I disagree. I believe it is a service fee. Force should only be used if there is a refusal to pay after services have been rendered. It is the same with any business. If I get service in a resturant, and then I run out without paying, then I have just refused to pay after services have been rendered. The business now has the right to go to the government and have them use force to regain what has been stolen. That is one of the legitimate functions of government (protection of property). The only difference is that in the case with the government, it carries out it's own use of force to regain what has been stolen.

This neglects the question of who legitimately owns the property in the first place. If I homestead a piece of land, and then someone arbitrarily declares me under their jurisdiction, it would be absurd to call it justice that I move if I don't want to be apart of their system. Or if someone arbitrarily claims jurisdiction to land they have not legitimately acquired, then any use of violence to enforce this claim is nothing more than a criminal act.

I didn't neglect it, I just didn't address it. It is true that if you own land that is on the outskirts of a society, or land that is owned before the government is established, then it would be absurd to force them to move or to have arbitrary jurisdiction placed over them, but that is not what I am saying. If the land is on the outskirts, then it would not endanger the survival of the government or of the rights of others because you do not have to participate in their government. You can live outside of it. Furthermore, if you own land before the government is established, then they have no right to surround you with government that you don't accept. This is similar to what should have happened to Native Americans. although, if you gain or purchase land inside of an established system after the fact, then you must abide by the laws of that land, as long as they don't violate your basic rights. Except for inheritance of land, everyone living in a society chooses to gain land in that society. They must consciously choose to abid by those rules and laws. If they inherit land, then the only way they can choose to live inside of that land without abiding by the laws is if their ancestors had made that choice before the government was established. Once again the Native Americans make a good example.

[Wesker1982]

I disagree. I believe it is a service fee. Force should only be used if there is a refusal to pay after services have been rendered. It is the same with any business.

Except no one forces you in to the restaurant, uses force to prevent competition, or charges you for a meal you didn't ask for.

A service fee is voluntary. You are forced to pay taxes whether or not you use the services funded by them.

If I get service in a resturant, and then I run out without paying, then I have just refused to pay after services have been rendered.

I assume you are talking about voluntarily going in to a restaurant. But a more accurate example would be if I mowed your lawn without you asking and demanded (at gun point if necessary) that you pay me however much money I wanted. I would of course justify my demand because refusing to pay me would be refusing to pay after a service (mowing your lawn) has been rendered.

Also, I would use violence to prevent any voluntary agreements you might make to hire someone else to mow your lawn.

[heavenlyboy34]

Except no one forces you in to the restaurant, uses force to prevent competition, or charges you for a meal you didn't ask for.

A service fee is voluntary. You are forced to pay taxes whether or not you use the services funded by them.



I assume you are talking about voluntarily going in to a restaurant. But a more accurate example would be if I mowed your lawn without you asking and demanded (at gun point if necessary) that you pay me however much money I wanted. I would of course justify my demand because refusing to pay me would be refusing to pay after a service (mowing your lawn) has been rendered.

Also, I would use violence to prevent any voluntary agreements you might make to hire someone else to mow your lawn.

FTW.

[Legend1104]

Except no one forces you in to the restaurant, uses force to prevent competition, or charges you for a meal you didn't ask for.

A service fee is voluntary. You are forced to pay taxes whether or not you use the services funded by them.



I assume you are talking about voluntarily going in to a restaurant. But a more accurate example would be if I mowed your lawn without you asking and demanded (at gun point if necessary) that you pay me however much money I wanted. I would of course justify my demand because refusing to pay me would be refusing to pay after a service (mowing your lawn) has been rendered.

Also, I would use violence to prevent any voluntary agreements you might make to hire someone else to mow your lawn.

You completely ignored everything I said. I have already stated that it is not against your will. The entire last section of my post addressed the fact that by choicing to be in the system then you subject yourself to its laws. You left that section out and then proceeded to only address the beginning. That defeats the point of the entire post. You can't ignore my premise just because you disagree with it and act like it doesn't exist simply because it strenghtens your argument. Therefore, I will simply repost the entire last section of my original post:

I didn't neglect it, I just didn't address it. It is true that if you own land that is on the outskirts of a society, or land that is owned before the government is established, then it would be absurd to force them to move or to have arbitrary jurisdiction placed over them, but that is not what I am saying. If the land is on the outskirts, then it would not endanger the survival of the government or of the rights of others because you do not have to participate in their government. You can live outside of it. Furthermore, if you own land before the government is established, then they have no right to surround you with government that you don't accept. This is similar to what should have happened to Native Americans. although, if you gain or purchase land inside of an established system after the fact, then you must abide by the laws of that land, as long as they don't violate your basic rights. Except for inheritance of land, everyone living in a society chooses to gain land in that society. They must consciously choose to abid by those rules and laws. If they inherit land, then the only way they can choose to live inside of that land without abiding by the laws is if their ancestors had made that choice before the government was established. Once again the Native Americans make a good example.

FTW.

FTF (for the fail)

[Teaser Rate]

While it is an interesting question, it is a moral and philosophical one, not an economic one. As such it does not belong in this forum IMO.

[Kludge]

Any tax poorly enforced. Let those who believe in gov't (or those so simple to be ruled by negligible risk) pay taxes. Let those who oppose gov't get around it with extra effort.

[truelies]

Most libertarians will argue that taxes are morally reprehensible. As a result, many of them will argue that all taxes should be voluntary. I suppose its fair to assume most Paul supporters on this forum are not anarchists so how would you approach taxes if you had the power? Go with the 'least evil' tax(s)? Is there even a tax that is morally okay to enforce?

Personally, I would tax heavily Capital being used only for financial speculation, with a similar tax on holders of Land to the extent that increases in the Land's value come not from the labour of the owner but from the interactions of society as a whole. Perhaps a small tax on incomes and sales to build/maintain/operate facilities of value to the community as a whole- roads, schools and the like. Then too there is the sovereign power of the community to issue currency as required for the common good. A State stripped of the 'bread & circuses' and elective war functions is neither expensive nor immoral.

[Legend1104]

I'd say, let's have "voting-fees", if you want to vote then you should pay for it, if not then don't pay BUT whether you pay or not, government would be obliged to protect EVERY CITIZEN's (American or person with one American parent or naturalized citizen) rights to life, liberty & property. And it's completely voluntary so if you don't want to vote/pay then you can go for private security, private courts/arbitrators, etc but irrespective of that government still have an obligation to protect you as a citizen (of course, if private arbitrators are preferred then both parties could sign a binding agreement to accept the private court/arbitrator's wording on that particular matter)

The WHOLE PROCESS will be COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY.

The problem I have with that is that it could not work. If you give the people the option to not pay, but still force the government to protect them, then the system will soon break down. The point of government is, as mentioned before, to protect life, liberty, and property. That is it's only legitimate function. If you give people the option to pay, most won't. Well that is not so bad, but if you require the government to protect everyone, whether they pay taxes or not, then it will run out of money and collapse. Then no one gets service. In a way that is socialistic because you are forcing a few that pay taxes to support the protection of others that don't pay. That is not fair.

[redbluepill]

Personally, I would tax heavily Capital being used only for financial speculation, with a similar tax on holders of Land to the extent that increases in the Land's value come not from the labour of the owner but from the interactions of society as a whole. Perhaps a small tax on incomes and sales to build/maintain/operate facilities of value to the community as a whole- roads, schools and the like. Then too there is the sovereign power of the community to issue currency as required for the common good. A State stripped of the 'bread & circuses' and elective war functions is neither expensive nor immoral.

Looks like i have a fellow geoist on the boards. :-)

I'm sure you've heard the Milton Friedman quote: "In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago."

Wish he pushed this further in his career with his widespread influence. However, I disagree with him on land "tax" being evil at all. It is simply repaying the community what the landholder owes.

[Expatriate]

I don't think aggressive use of force is ever moral.

And although "sin taxes" and other such things wouldn't affect me much personally, I think any amount of aggression condoned by society will inevitably grow and lead to things that would affect me.

Because of this, I think the only society that could preserve liberty for long would be one where everything is voluntary and there is absolutely no place for aggressive government to take root and grow.