# Libertarian Topic of the Week 2: Taxes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065 "2014-04-26T17:53:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/21 "2014-04-27T14:57:34Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Do you care to respond to my demolition of your idea of “equality under the law”? That way I can respond in full when I have time. That was a demolition? You said that equality under the law could not be attained as long as there was a state. I rebut that equality under the law can _only_ be attained with a state, because without a state there is no law. Equality under the law means that the laws are applied equally to each person, not that each person gets to make and obey their own laws. Otherwise, how about I make my law be that I should possess what’s yours, and I’ll kill you if you try and stop me? As for this: > [@](#): > > Put simply, equality under the law would mean that if i could not tax you, you could not tax me. Nor could you assemble a group of other individuals and hire someone to tax me. I _can_ tax you, and you _can_ tax me, because we both get the same vote in a democratic government. ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/22 "2014-04-27T15:56:31Z")
> [@](#): > > I can tax you, and you can tax me, because we both get the same vote in a democratic government. That’s interesting. So what is wrong with two people getting together and taxing a third (with their vote)? Isn’t that collectivism? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/23 "2014-04-27T16:03:33Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > That’s interesting. So what is wrong with two people getting together and taxing a third (with their vote)? Isn’t that collectivism? Taxing just the third guy? That goes against the principle of equality before the law. Imposing a tax regime on all three? There’s nothing at all wrong with that, that is democratic government, albeit on a tiny scale. How else should decisions be made? Some degree of collectivism is inevitable, so long as human beings are interdependent, live together, work together, and have interests that are mutually exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/24 "2014-04-27T16:37:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Taxing just the third guy? That goes against the principle of equality before the law. So, if the majority votes to tax top income earners that’s against this principle also? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/25 "2014-04-27T16:53:10Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > So, if the majority votes to tax top income earners that’s against this principle also? No, as long as the rate sheet applies to everybody. Unlike a person’s identity, their income isn’t a fixed attribute. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/26 "2014-04-27T17:05:36Z")
Libertarians aren’t the only ones that hate paying taxes, but they _are_ the ones that claim society could still work without them. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/27 "2014-04-27T17:06:43Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Libertarians aren’t the only ones that hate paying taxes, but they _are_ the ones that claim society could still work without them. Only a small sub-set do. ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/28 "2014-04-27T17:28:03Z")
Is taxation of top income earners a violation of the equal protection under the law principle? > [@](#): > > No, as long as the rate sheet applies to everybody. I’m not sure whether you are saying there has to be a flat tax or not. Let’s say we voted to only tax people that made over 100K/yr. Would that be a violation of the principle? If not, then I’m not sure what libertarians are complaining about when it comes to taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/29 "2014-04-27T18:59:47Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > Is taxation of top income earners a violation of the equal protection under the law principle? To me, no. Others may and do disagree. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure whether you are saying there has to be a flat tax or not. Let’s say we voted to only tax people that made over 100K/yr. Would that be a violation of the principle? If not, then I’m not sure what libertarians are complaining about when it comes to taxes. It wouldn’t, no. By “rate sheet”, I mean whatever rate scheme that is put into effect, be it progressive, regressive, or flat. As long as there are no carve-outs exceptions for favored people, groups, religions, and such, then I don’t see a problem. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/30 "2014-04-27T19:05:57Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > But those incentives are not the _purpose_ of those taxes, which is the distinction I made. Mr. Farnaby is more-or-less correct that _any_ tax will serve a role as incentive or disincentive. Since this is so, why not use taxes as deliberate incentives? Tax on tobacco is an obvious example that comes to mind, and there are many more. Surely all but the most YouTube-level economist understands that there are external costs which are not factored in by “free market” pricing. To disdain from reflecting such costs (or similar incentivising taxes) because of inchoate hatred of governance is to miss opportunity. Or do libertarians, even in the small-l sense, assume that the free human spirit has some “moral superiority”, while government will inevitably be corrupt? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/31 "2014-04-27T19:15:15Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Mr. Farnaby is more-or-less correct that _any_ tax will serve a role as incentive or disincentive. So, you agree when people say that if we increase the tax on income above $1M, that will serve as a disincentive for people to work enough to become millionaires? I’m surprised. I think the issue is better understood in the sense that I stated it earlier-- if we tax income, we should tax all income the same; if we tax consumption, we should tax all consumption the same. The purpose of the tax is first and last to raise revenue, not to direct behavior in one direction rather than another. Or, we could just institute an across the board tax that is paid irrespective of income or consumption. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/32 "2014-04-27T19:22:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, you agree when people say that if we increase the tax on income above $1M, that will serve as a disincentive for people to work enough to become millionaires? I’m surprised. Please take semantic games and caricatures to the Pit. 100% tax is less incentive than 0% tax, OK? To get a rational view on irrational right-wing thought, Search for “Voyager Escher Curve.” ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/33 "2014-04-27T19:23:43Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Mr. Farnaby is more-or-less correct that _any_ tax will serve a role as incentive or disincentive. Agreed. > [@septimus](#): > > Since this is so, why not use taxes as deliberate incentives? Tax on tobacco is an obvious example that comes to mind, and there are many more. > > Surely all but the most YouTube-level economist understands that there are external costs which are not factored in by “free market” pricing. To disdain from reflecting such costs (or similar incentivising taxes) because of inchoate hatred of governance is to miss opportunity. Those external costs are emergent. If corn costs more one year because of a drought, it can’t be helped, such is the nature of the physical world. Someone conspiring to raise the price of corn is something else entirely. Government putting their thumb on the scale is firmly in the latter camp. > [@septimus](#): > > Or do libertarians, even in the small-l sense, assume that the free human spirit has some “moral superiority”, while government will inevitably be corrupt? I assign moral value to people making their own free choices, yes. Government is prone to corruption in the same way that all human institutions are, but that has little to do with my stance on individual freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/34 "2014-04-27T23:01:38Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Mr. Farnaby is more-or-less correct that _any_ tax will serve a role as incentive or disincentive. Since this is so, why not use taxes as deliberate incentives? Tax on tobacco is an obvious example that comes to mind, and there are many more. Because it’s not the proper role of government to encourage or discourage legal activity. Doing so is antiethical to the libertarian ideal. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/35 "2014-04-27T23:14:08Z")
No, but when choosing taxes, it is better to tax things we can live with less of, while avoiding taxation of things we want more of. For example, taxing consumption is better than taxing work. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/36 "2014-04-27T23:25:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, but when choosing taxes, it is better to tax things we can live with less of, while avoiding taxation of things we want more of. > > For example, taxing consumption is better than taxing work. But that’s not a Libertarian stance. A Libertarian would say that only the individual can decide which things he can live with less or more of. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/37 "2014-04-27T23:39:20Z")
But if you have to have taxes, you want to avoid creating bad incentives when choosing WHAT to tax. ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/38 "2014-04-27T23:44:48Z")
What I’m gathering from this is that Libertarians are against taxes on victimless crimes and taxes on classes of individuals; like no taxes on booze or Jewish filthy gold hoards. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/39 "2014-04-27T23:51:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think the issue is better understood in the sense that I stated it earlier-- if we tax income, we should tax all income the same; if we tax consumption, we should tax all consumption the same. Why behave as if we are unable to make distinctions? > [@](#): > > The purpose of the tax is first and last to raise revenue, not to direct behavior in one direction rather than another. Or, we could just institute an across the board tax that is paid irrespective of income or consumption. Let’s review the meaning of the word [govern](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/govern). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065/40 "2014-04-27T23:58:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But if you have to have taxes, you want to avoid creating bad incentives when choosing WHAT to tax. Who decides what are bad incentives and what are good ones? > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Why behave as if we are unable to make distinctions? > Let’s review the meaning of the word [govern](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/govern). I have no idea what you are talking about. You’ll need to be more explicit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-2-taxes/687065.md?page=3)