Progressive income tax is the main driver of socialism.

[Swordsmyth]

While I agree it would be more " fair " . I will always have to oppose it . For there to be a flat tax to replace the current revenue it would be a huge tax increase for me as I can currently avoid paying tax altogether now that I am retired .

There should be no income tax of any sort, there should only be taxes on consumption, preferably on non-necessities so you can choose to avoid them.

[Swordsmyth]

That sounds good. But the people who don't pay taxes are often the people who vote themselves free stuff. They don't have to experience the consequence of their actions.

They want their Obama money.

That's why those who receive ANY government money shouldn't get to vote.

[Madison320]

There should be no income tax of any sort, there should only be taxes on consumption, preferably on non-necessities so you can choose to avoid them.

The only problem I have with a sales tax is that is unfairly places the burden of collection on a small minority (retailers). I think if we switched to a sales tax we'd have to give existing business owners some sort of option to liquidate their business and be compensated by the taxpayers at the time of the switch.

[Madison320]

That's why those who receive ANY government money shouldn't get to vote.

As you probably know, I think that's the ultimate solution. A "non-welfare" type voting system would lead to a flatter tax. Actually if I had to pick between a flat tax and a non welfare voting system I'd choose the latter because it would last longer. A flat tax with unlimited democracy wouldn't last very long.

[Swordsmyth]

The only problem I have with a sales tax is that is unfairly places the burden of collection on a small minority (retailers). I think if we switched to a sales tax we'd have to give existing business owners some sort of option to liquidate their business and be compensated by the taxpayers at the time of the switch.

I prefer a tax collected from manufacturers of specified items when they first sell the item, that allows all other wholesalers and retailers to be free from having to collect taxes.

[Swordsmyth]

As you probably know, I think that's the ultimate solution. A "non-welfare" type voting system would lead to a flatter tax. Actually if I had to pick between a flat tax and a non welfare voting system I'd choose the latter because it would last longer. A flat tax with unlimited democracy wouldn't last very long.

You are absolutely correct.

[Madison320]

I prefer a tax collected from manufacturers of specified items when they first sell the item, that allows all other wholesalers and retailers to be free from having to collect taxes.

Doesn't that just move the burden of collection from the retailer to the manufacturer?

[Swordsmyth]

Doesn't that just move the burden of collection from the retailer to the manufacturer?

Yes, I don't think there is a perfect system but there would be less manufacturers than retailers so less people would have to be burdened with compliance costs.

[5Points]

I was arguing with my liberal coworker about how much I detest progressive taxation. I told him that it's immoral to tax people at different rates and he asked me "Why?". To me it just seems obvious...

Doesn't it seem obvious that all taxation is theft?

[Stratovarious]

Great topic, but it's not a 'Driver' it's a mechanism that facilitates / funds socialism, and it's not
really the 'progressive' aspect of taxes , its taxes period.
Progressive is worse, yes, but taxes in general are of course theft and redistribution of wealth,
if we were to agree to taxation, regarding income, flat would be the only fair tax.

We have had charities dating back centuries that took care of programs that the gobt' has since
decided to control and regulate, fk our Un Constitutional Federal govt, we need to shut down at least a dozen
agencies , today.

[Madison320]

Doesn't it seem obvious that all taxation is theft?

Of course but there are different levels of immorality. Armed bank robbery is worse than shoplifting for example.

And progressive taxation is much worse than flat taxation because the law is enforced unevenly.

[Madison320]

Yes, I don't think there is a perfect system but there would be less manufacturers than retailers so less people would have to be burdened with compliance costs.

My point is that "less" is not better. If you make the decision that some sacrifice is necessary for the good of the whole, the most moral way is to spread the burden to as many members as possible. Suppose there's a small island nation of 100 people that keeps pillaged by the neighboring islands. They take a vote and decided to form a military. Would it be more fair if everyone had to chip in a little for that military or if they just took it all from one guy?

[Swordsmyth]

My point is that "less" is not better. If you make the decision that some sacrifice is necessary for the good of the whole, the most moral way is to spread the burden to as many members as possible. Suppose there's a small island nation of 100 people that keeps pillaged by the neighboring islands. They take a vote and decided to form a military. Would it be more fair if everyone had to chip in a little for that military or if they just took it all from one guy?

Everybody would pay for it because the manufacturers would add the cost of compliance to their prices but the total compliance cost that everyone would pay for would be less because less people would be burdened with compliance.

The tax is on everyone and I agree that it should be.

[r3volution 3.0]

Progressive income tax is the main driver of socialism.

The progressive income tax is no doubt a major driver of socialism, but I'd put monetary inflation in first place.

It's a form of tax that faces less political resistance and it creates periodic crises which motivate further expansion of government.

Both are certainly things to be avoided.

I think some libertarians have this idea that as long as the "net" amount of government force goes down it's an improvement.

As Occam said, that's because it is an improvement.

Less aggression is better than more aggression.

I find it difficult to understand how this could be a controversial proposition among libertarians.

Equal protection is the principle I was trying to explain.

That should be a secondary to reducing the incidence of aggression.

Taxing $1M is always better than taxing $2M.

Given we're going to tax $1M, then sure, distribute the burden as fairly as possible.

[Swordsmyth]

The progressive income tax is no doubt a major driver of socialism, but I'd put monetary inflation in first place.

It's a form of tax that faces less political resistance and it creates periodic crises which motivate further expansion of government.

Both are certainly things to be avoided.



As Occam said, that's because it is an improvement.

Less aggression is better than more aggression.

I find it difficult to understand how this could be a controversial proposition among libertarians.



That should be a secondary to reducing the incidence of aggression.

Taxing $1M is always better than taxing $2M.

Given we're going to tax $1M, then sure, distribute the burden as fairly as possible.

Unequal distribution of the burden is a driver of tyranny, it creates people with an incentive to increase the burden on others.

[r3volution 3.0]

Unequal distribution of the burden is a driver of tyranny, it creates people with an incentive to increase the burden on others.

You're confusing two issues:

(a) whether it is unjust to distribute burdens unequally,

and (b) what causal effects unequal burden distribution might have.

As to the former, no, it isn't unjust; the first concern for any libertarian must be minimizing aggression, not distributing it equally.

As to the latter, you're confusing cause and effect. The progressive income tax doesn't suddenly appear one day from the sky and cause a society to move toward socialism; it's an effect of a society having already moved toward socialism. Why do societies move toward socialism? Various reasons, but the primary one is that they become democratic.

[Swordsmyth]

You're confusing two issues:

(a) whether it is unjust to distribute burdens unequally,

and (b) what causal effects unequal burden distribution might have.

As to the former, no, it isn't unjust; the first concern for any libertarian must be minimizing aggression, not distributing it equally.

As to the latter, you're confusing cause and effect. The progressive income tax doesn't suddenly appear one day from the sky and cause a society to move toward socialism; it's an effect of a society having already moved toward socialism. Why do societies move toward socialism? Various reasons, but the primary one is that they become democratic.

An effect and cycle back in as a cause.
It is called a positive feedback loop.
It also can start with unequal distribution and turn to socialism from there, that is often the case in undemocratic societies.

[r3volution 3.0]

An effect and cycle back in as a cause.
It is called a positive feedback loop.

I don't know what you're talking about.

It also can start with unequal distribution and turn to socialism from there, that is often the case in undemocratic societies.

How so?

[Origanalist]

I prefer a tax collected from manufacturers of specified items when they first sell the item, that allows all other wholesalers and retailers to be free from having to collect taxes.

Unequal distribution of the burden is a driver of tyranny, it creates people with an incentive to increase the burden on others.

Those two statements would seem to be at odds with each other.

[Swordsmyth]

Those two statements would seem to be at odds with each other.

No:

Everybody would pay for it because the manufacturers would add the cost of compliance to their prices but the total compliance cost that everyone would pay for would be less because less people would be burdened with compliance.

The tax is on everyone and I agree that it should be.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't know what you're talking about.

If you are a little socialist and then that leads to a little unequal distribution of the tax burden which leads to more socialism and that is followed by more unequal distribution of the burden etc. then you are in a positive feedback loop.

How so?

The royalty that doesn't bear any of the burden personally is incentivized to increase the burden on those who do bear it in order to buy the loyalties of others.

[Zippyjuan]

Those two statements would seem to be at odds with each other.

He seems to prefer hidden taxes. But hidden taxes are easier to raise since people are not aware that they are paying them. Things like tariffs or a tax on a producer. Those taxes are hidden in prices people pay. If you want to tax consumption, add the tax on at the point of purchase so people see how much it is. Or if you do a tax on incomes, have them pay it themselves instead of taking it out of paychecks before they see the final amount.

Hiding taxes makes tyranny easier to fund.

[Swordsmyth]

He seems to prefer hidden taxes. But hidden taxes are easier to raise since people are not aware that they are paying them. Things like tariffs or a tax on a producer. Those taxes are hidden in prices people pay. If you want to tax consumption, add the tax on at the point of purchase so people see how much it is. Or if you do a tax on incomes, have them pay it themselves instead of taking it out of paychecks before they see the final amount.

Hiding taxes makes tyranny easier to fund.

LOL
Tyranny has no trouble funding itself.

The best taxes are those with the least compliance costs and those that are easiest to avoid if you choose to do so, it is also beneficial if they don't discourage production.

[Zippyjuan]

LOL
Tyranny has no trouble funding itself.

The best taxes are those with the least compliance costs and those that are easiest to avoid if you choose to do so, it is also beneficial if they don't discourage production.

If the taxes are hidden, you cannot avoid them. And if they are avoidable by some, it places an unfair burden on those who cannot avoid them- something else you said you wanted. Tariffs discourage production by making costs higher. Things like sales taxes discourage consumption (which also hurts business by lowering demand for their goods).

Unequal distribution of the burden is a driver of tyranny, it creates people with an incentive to increase the burden on others.

Ability of some to avoid taxes makes then unequal in distribution and according to you, drives tyranny. That means that taxes should be unavoidable. Unless you would like to continue to contradict yourself.

[r3volution 3.0]

If you are a little socialist and then that leads to a little unequal distribution of the tax burden which leads to more socialism and that is followed by more unequal distribution of the burden etc. then you are in a positive feedback loop.

Let's say you and I are voters.

I pay 100 in taxes and you pay 50.

How does that create an incentive for socialism?

The royalty that doesn't bear any of the burden personally is incentivized to increase the burden on those who do bear it in order to buy the loyalties of others.

That's entirely wrong (it's a better description of an elected politician), but I'm not going to bother discussing this with you again.

[Swordsmyth]

If the taxes are hidden, you cannot avoid them.

Yes you can, they aren't top secret, everybody knows there is a tax on liquor and cigarettes for example.

And if they are avoidable by some, it places an unfair burden on those who cannot avoid them- something else you said you wanted.

They should be on things that anyone can avoid, that way the burden is equal.

Tariffs discourage production by making costs higher.

Wrong, they encourage domestic production.

Things like sales taxes discourage consumption (which also hurts business by lowering demand for their goods).

You finally realize that there are only "less bad" taxes?
Taxes should be as low as possible because there is no such thing as a good tax, we are discussing which taxes are the least bad for the minimum legitimate purposes of government.

[Swordsmyth]

Let's say you and I are voters.

I pay 100 in taxes and you pay 50.

How does that create an incentive for socialism?

Because if the person paying half as much believes that they will get more out of the taxes and spending than it costs them because the other person is paying more than them they will be encouraged to vote for more taxes and spending and the greater the disparity gets the larger the incentive becomes.

That's entirely wrong (it's a better description of an elected politician), but I'm not going to bother discussing this with you again.

I'm right but I agree we don't need to debate that again because neither of us will change our minds.

[r3volution 3.0]

No:

The burden wouldn't be equal (mind you, I don't care, but you apparently do).

Short of a straight capitation tax (which may not be feasible even for a minarchist state), there's no way to equally distributes the burden.

...and then of course benefits aren't equally distributed (even for a minarchist state).

This kind of equality is impossible: reminds me of Fourier designing exactly identical houses for the residents of his commune.

[Swordsmyth]

The burden wouldn't be equal (mind you, I don't care, but you apparently do).

Short of a straight capitation tax (which may not be feasible even for a minarchist state), there's no way to equally distributes the burden.

It would be equal but if you want to quibble then we cn just say it is as equal as possible.

[r3volution 3.0]

Because if the person paying half as much believes that they will get more out of the taxes and spending than it costs them because the other person is paying more than them they will be encouraged to vote for more taxes and spending and the greater the disparity gets the larger the incentive becomes.

If that person is in a position to vote himself the wealth of others, he's going to do so, regardless of the current distribution of burdens.

...which is the point: unequal burdens are an effect, not a cause, of socialism.

It would be equal

No, it very obviously wouldn't.

An excise tax doesn't magically cause all prices to increase equally.

The prices of certain goods (preferred by certain people) will increase more than the prices of other goods (preferred by other people).

It's also up in the air as to how the burden will be divided between firms, or between firms and consumers.