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:
I can tax you, and you can tax me, because we both get the same vote in a democratic government.
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.
Is taxation of top income earners a violation of the equal protection under the law principle?
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.