The broad method of taxation is not the problem

[furface]

Modern governments don't have revenue problems. They have spending problems. They spend too much money and offer way too little for the money they spend.

It boils down to competition. Governments violently enforce monopolies that are inefficient & predatory towards the liberty of private citizens.

All forms of taxation can be made just if you work on limiting the power and scope of government. Our current income tax system is fiercely corrupt, no sane person would argue with that. Current property tax systems are absurd because they tap the livelihood of private individuals for the main purpose of enriching useless government bureaucrats. Sales tax systems are similar and they have the added problem of suppressing economic activity.

As much as it is depressing, these tax structures will remain as long as spending goes unchecked. And the most problematic form of spending is spending on government workers. Handing money out in the form of social security & medicare isn't a big problem. The problem of government arises when you empower government unions that become inefficient & hungry for tax dollars & predatory towards free individuals.

A single government bureaucrat costs as much as 40 families on food stamps. I'm using $10k per month for the lackocrat and $250 per month for the family. Giving money to the family solves a problem. It feeds people. Giving money to the lackocrat creates a problem. He will look for ways to solidify his position & that invariably means attacking the private sector. Whether it's pushing drug laws, creating more forms & greater ways to invade privacy, demanding more money for government schools, picking fights with foreign countries, or whatever. They will create problems.

[Travlyr]

I do not see how the inflation tax can be justified. The inflation tax is straight-up theft. It is no different than the banker, each night, pilfering everybody's bank account. Your money is worth less today than yesterday because the bankers inflate the value away.

The income tax discourages rising incomes and encourages free money welfare programs. Property tax discourages property improvement and encourages mediocracy. The capital gains tax discourages savings and investment and is simply a transfer of wealth. Sales tax... I can justify the sales tax as a way to fund government if necessities are not taxed.

But the inflation tax? Justify that.

[furface]

But the inflation tax? Justify that.

As long as wages & social security keep up with inflation, it's irrelevant, and in a lot of senses desirable. It doesn't require invasive form filing and policing. US corporations now hold trillions of dollars in stagnant cash. That's a big problem for society. There should be a penalty for that, and it's called inflation.

[Travlyr]

As long as wages & social security keep up with inflation, it's irrelevant, and in a lot of senses desirable.

And that is the caveat. Wages and social security don't keep up with inflation.

It doesn't require invasive form filing and policing.

True enough but it is still theft of the most sophisticated order. If it wasn't then they would let everyone have their own money printing machine.

US corporations now hold trillions of dollars in stagnant cash. That's a big problem for society. There should be a penalty for that, and it's called inflation.

Where did they get trillions to hold and why do they hold it rather than invest it?

[Paul Or Nothing II]

All forms of taxation can be made just if you work on limiting the power and scope of government.

No form of taxation can be justified irrespective of the kind of government!

Look, it's not so much about the power & scope, I'm not saying it's totally irrelevant but the REAL issue is of incentives.
Those who believe in free market understand that private businesses have more incentives to provide a good service because if they do that then they make profits otherwise they make losses & in the long-run, go out of business. The same should be true for governance, if you want a good governance then it can only be gotten through aligning incentives in a way that ensures that rewards good people in the government while bad ones are eliminated through a market-process, just like inefficient businesses are eliminated elsewhere in the economy; governance is probably the most important aspect of the economy since the cost of bad governance is very big.
So like Friedman (I think ) had said that central-banking is too important to be left to the government, I'll say governance is too important to be left to the government

Now, I've always been a minarchist & I find that a lot of minarchists are simply unwilling to look beyond some kind of taxation (theft) to fund a minarchist government; & I'd really find it very hypocritical if I said, I'm for free market everywhere else except governance, I mean if it's good & we understand why a free market works elsewhere then why not with governance? There's often some cognitive dissonance there.

Now, I understand that it can't be done overnight but then we can't eliminate Fed overnight either but that doesn't mean we don't discuss it & competing currencies, etc & the same holds true for discussing a governance that is NOT based on violence & theft.

I'd proposed a basic idea about 3-tiered government, first tier being city/district-representatives elected by people & then they select 2nd (state) & 3rd (national) level administrations.
If you want good governance then it HAS TO BE LOCAL, & the local representatives should've the most power while the state & national ones with least power in order to avoid centralization.
People could just donate directly at their district elections & then they run the thing with the collected money, I mean it won't take that much money, in a free & prosperous market to just run the police & courts at the least. They'd pass on some of that to the state & national administrations.
Further, lotteries can also be arranged to raise revenue; roads will be leased to private companies so that could potentially bring in some revenue & improve quality at the same time.
State & National administrations would NOT be elected by the people but by the district-representatives. This is because if they're unelected then they won't command that much power nor will they be able to take over & bully like elected-representatives often do because they are seen to be having "people's mandate", they just should be seen as co-ordinators, more than anything else.
Most power to the local-representatives because it's possible for someone at the city/district-level to be PERSONALLY involved with the people & as many here know Ron Paul has been, I'm sure many in his district completely disagree with him on some issues but they support him because he can reach out to them & make them understand his positions one-on-one but such personal-relationship with the constituents isn't possible with larger represenation-zone so that automatically eliminates the good people because then you need big money to advertise & everything & that breeds corporatism & inefficiencies, etc

Anyways, this is just my preliminary thoughts on the issue of a "how to have a free market in governance", I'm sure others can come up with better ideas but I think people must learn to accept that if we believe in free market & incentives then we must understand that if we want good governance then we must first address the incentives; because people who have a "right to steal" never have & never will provide good governance & in the long-run, any such system will devolve into the current monster we're seeing!

[furface]

Travlyr, I think you make some good points. I don't like to engage in sort of "list wars" going back and forth point by point. All I will say is that I've come to the conclusion that it's wrong to be monolithic in approaching monetary and economic policy. For instance it's wrong to say inflation is always wrong. When inflation erodes buying power for the middle class it's wrong. When it erodes financial power of billionaires who are hoarding money, it's good.

Paul Or Nothing II, I'm curious about your seeming thesis that the free market will automatically create a just economic system. Is this what you're saying? That the result will be more just for all people than what we have now? I'm not disagreeing with the idea. I'm wondering whether or not economic justice is an issue for you.

The problem with saying ALL taxation is theft is that it equates the rights of a middle class person trying to support his family and not be threatened by government intrusion with those of the extremely wealthy who can much better afford to deal with taxation and government tax filing requirements. Intruding on a middle class person can be lethal to that person while telling Warren Buffet he has to pay some taxes is no big deal. He can afford it both financially and logistically.

[CaptUSA]

As long as wages & social security keep up with inflation, it's irrelevant, and in a lot of senses desirable. It doesn't require invasive form filing and policing. US corporations now hold trillions of dollars in stagnant cash. That's a big problem for society. There should be a penalty for that, and it's called inflation.

Whoa?! Did you really mean that?

Remember that the inflation tax is not just a tax on the money you're going to earn, it's a tax on all the money you have EVER earned! It's pure theft. Wages and social security can never make up for that theft! It is never desirable to steal people's wealth!

[furface]

it's a tax on all the money you have EVER earned!

No it's not. It's a tax on your current monetary holdings and your future earnings to the extent that they don't appreciate along with inflation. If you own lots of real estate for instance that's appreciating because of inflation, it's doing you some good.

It's also a very crude term because prices never go up in unison, and the people who are confronted with the increases are always very distinct groups. The claim is that we currently have low inflation, but medical expenses for those who actually pay them are going up 20% a year. Government bureaucrats and the elderly aren't confronted with those expenses, so they're completely oblivious to them.

[CaptUSA]

No it's not. It's a tax on your current monetary holdings. If you own lots of real estate for instance that's appreciating because of inflation, it's doing you some good. It's also a very crude term because prices never go up in unison, and the people who are confronted with the increases are always very distinct groups. The claim is that we currently have low inflation, but medical expenses for those who actually pay them are going up 20% a year. Government bureaucrats and the elderly aren't confronted with those expenses, so they're completely oblivious to them.

Ok... real estate is one example. Gold is another. But the value of these is not really going up! Don't be fooled.

Besides, most of your wealth depreciates over time. The only reason gold and real estate appreciate is because of inflation! So it's not really doing you any good... You're not really getting more! It's just doing you good compared to the other items you have or will buy. So if you have lots of holdings, you're not getting hit as hard as those with fewer holdings. Without this inflation tax, the price of the other goods would remain relatively constant as would your other holdings.

And claims of low inflation are bogus. And medical expenses are infalting even faster because the government is directly inflating that industry - above and beyond what they're doing to the dollar.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Travlyr, I think you make some good points. I don't like to engage in sort of "list wars" going back and forth point by point. All I will say is that I've come to the conclusion that it's wrong to be monolithic in approaching monetary and economic policy. For instance it's wrong to say inflation is always wrong. When inflation erodes buying power for the middle class it's wrong. When it erodes financial power of billionaires who are hoarding money, it's good.

Apparently, you don't believe all theft if wrong, you just believe that when stealing SEEMS to help you then it's ok to steal

If you think being rich is bad then I wonder what kind of centrally-planned misery you have envisioned for the mankind!

Where did you come from, pal? OWS???

Paul Or Nothing II, I'm curious about your seeming thesis that the free market will automatically create a just economic system. Is this what you're saying? That the result will be more just for all people than what we have now? I'm not disagreeing with the idea. I'm wondering whether or not economic justice is an issue for you.

I'm not saying free market will create a "just economic system" (whatever that is), I just believe that free market will lead to a better system than one where a gang of thieves steal & suppress other people at the behest of the majority of deluded socialists

And yes, economic justice (as I see it) matters to me that's why I'm against theft at every instance, not just when it suits me!

By the way, I'm curious to know where do you find these honest, angelic politicians & bureaucrats that will run the government in a way that will tax in a way that benefits middleclass at the expense of the rich? Not saying I'd support such a government but a mere glance at past & present clearly illustrates that governments with coercive powers have always sided with the rich, that's just how it is & that's why no government should have the power to coerce anyone, otherwise it's going to be used by the rich to coerce the rest anyway

The problem with saying ALL taxation is theft is that it equates the rights of a middle class person trying to support his family and not be threatened by government intrusion with those of the extremely wealthy who can much better afford to deal with taxation and government tax filing requirements. Intruding on a middle class person can be lethal to that person while telling Warren Buffet he has to pay some taxes is no big deal. He can afford it both financially and logistically.

There's no "problem" in saying all taxation is theft because it IS, when people FORCE others to pay up with the threat of violence it's theft, burglary, robbery or whatever you want to call it! Just because you THINK it will benefit you, doesn't make it any different! Many thieves justify their actiions too but that doesn't change the bottomline!

The real question is if someone has become a billionaire or whatever WITHOUT using violence, theft or coercion then what right do you or anyone else have to rob them???

It is never desirable to steal people's wealth!

^^^