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.

[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.

[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]

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

A sizable chunk or most?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[jkr]

wOw!


nope?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

It is a bit different from the current system. First, the current system is not set up equally. So people pay more while others don't pay anything. We all receive the same protection in those 3 key areas, so therefore, we all should be paying the same. Plus in our case today the government takes your income and basically says that you are allowed to keep some of it. The government is generious enough to give you your rights and some protection. Under what I suggested, the idea is a service fee. You are receiving a service and are charged for that service. Since everyone receives the same service, everyone should be charged the same. Under a very limited system where only those three basic things (life, liberty, and property) are protected and nothing else, the taxes would be so relatively small, and the economy so successful that virtually no one would be unable to pay. As for people that don't want to pay, they should not be jailed. I wouldn't have any problem with fining them. If they live here and receive the same benefits as others, but don't pay then that is theft. If they don't want to live in that system then they should move.

[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.

[showpan]

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?

Originally Posted by Jace
How about funding the government the way the Constitution says we should?

Of course, after repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Original Constitution says: (Article I Section8/ first enumerated power)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises , to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Excises: an internal tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity
Imposts: imported goods/ tariffs

16th amendment says:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Woodrow Wilson's doings

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...und-government

[RCA]

Why is this even up for debate? All taxes are theft. If it's not theft, it's charity.

[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.

[Imaginos]

Tax as its very nature is immoral.
The very idea of tax is 'THEFT'.

[dean.engelhardt]

Is There Such Thing As A Moral Tax?

I have not seen it yet, but I would be suprised to get a bill from the IRS for being moral.

[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.

[DamianTV]

Shhh! You'll give them ideas!

[Krugerrand]

I'd like to see voluntary taxes. That said, I see degrees of evil in different forms of taxes. (Much like I see theft of food by a starving person less reprehensible than some other forms of theft.)

Evil #1 - Inheritance tax. The state has no business taking anything from somebody's estate. Let's say my Great Uncle Ned had a fabulously valuable painting worth millions of dollars. Because I was always his favorite, he willed it to me. Now, I have no money to pay the taxes on it and must sell it - because the state believes it should own a part of it.

Evil #2 - Property tax. If it's mine, you can't charge me for it anymore. Now let's say a beautiful piece of land has been in the family for 15 generations. We've grown apples there and make a few dollars selling (FDA approved pasteurized) apple cider. (sorry I wouldn't want to upset the FDA) As the years have gone by, the new shopping districts and town houses have made the neighborhood especially popular. The value of the land has increased so much, that the taxes on the property are such that I can't afford to own it anymore. I must sell my land to pay the property tax.

Evil #3 - Capital Gains tax (when not factored to inflation), I buy 10 Shares of Company ABC at a total value of $2,000.00. I turned down an opportunity to buy a basket of useful goods for that same price. The years go by. The value of the dollar drops because of the FED printing new money. Over the years, I've paid income tax on the dividends paid out by Company ABC. I sell my stock for a total value of $2,800.00. As I am about to pat myself on the back for being such a great investor, I go to buy the same basket of goods that I didn't buy years ago. That basked of goods now sells for $3,000.00. I had to pay Capital Gains tax on $800.00 when in reality I should be allowed to declare a capital loss of $200.00, since that is what I am now short to buy my basket of goods.