These are my thoughts on why abolishing taxes could be an effective and possibly moral action in society. This is not a finite conclusion but some ideas yet to be concluded.
-Taxes go against property rights. I make a deal with another to trade my labor for their money. The labor is done and the money is given. Then a stranger comes and takes some of that money under threat of force. This is theft but when the government does it it is called taxes. Apart from the word the two actions are the same.
-The governments’ motivation, it is said, is for the common good, but is this always what happens? Nay. Furthermore if an armed robber demanded your property for the common good, are you obliged to give your property to him? Nay.
-The government is chosen by the people, it is said, so they have a right to take your property. Nay: The armed robber, even if many people agreed that he can take your property, would make him entitled? Nay. It is still a robber.
-The majority of the world lives in taxes, so there is no option of which the author is aware that you can go where their is not either taxes, poverty, or simply wilderness. This does not necessarily attest to the superiority of taxes, as I am not aware of a society which has made an attemtp to live without taxes.
-We wouldn’t last without forced taxation, people say.The people would not contribute and the country would collapse as its courts, police, and other government functions would break down. To this as of yet I have no adequate reply, so please write your thoughts.
Not really. A thief will take that money and you’ll never benefit from that. The government will take your money and spend it on public safety, resources and common defence. It is also done with consent through the legislature, which everyone is bound to obey.
Well no, but then the government has to demonstrate what that common good is, and the audience is the legislature. This is an ancient principle going back to feudal England; the King could claim necessity but it was the realm that determined what that necessity constituted. Once necessity was recognised, the realm was duty-bound to contribute to it.
As above, this actually happens. Fines for trespasses, and so on.
Because a society which has no taxes is not a society at all.
With respect, that fact that you cannot answer this one, which, arguably, is the most fundamental of all, is telling.
Bahrain, Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, Dubai, Andorra, British Virgin Islands…the list goes on. There are plenty of countries with real live people in them - not exotic resorts - where there is no tax.
All of which being micronations under the protection of other states, that also happen to generate massive income via tourism, being accessories to foreign banking and tax fraud, or both. Or oil money, I suppose, which happens to generate its own protection (also from large states featuring lotsa taxes) so that’s cool.
Oh good, another believer has discovered the miracle of libertarianism.
In the past, I might have attempted to explain why libertarianism can’t function in the real world. But this usually doesn’t impress libertarians because of their noted disdain for the real world.
So I’ll make a more direct point. You have to pay taxes because we force you to. If you don’t pay your taxes we’ll send the police to arrest you and put you in prison. If you resist the police will kill you.
Complain all you want that this isn’t fair. We don’t care. We’re bigger than you and we can do what we want to you.
And I lied. The fact that libertarianism doesn’t have a response to what I just wrote explains why libertarianism can’t function in the real world.
The Bahamas has a social security tax, an, annual property tax, a stamp tax, import tariffs, and a bunch of taxes that mostly hit tourists and the resort industry. They’re also going to be introducing a VAT.
Bahrain has a 46% corporate income tax on oil companies, a social security tax, and a stamp act, and a tax on rental property imposed by municipalities.
The Cayman Island has fairly high import duties.
Dubai has a 50% corporate income tax on the oil industry, as well as a real property tax, and a social security tax on native workers.
Andorra has a VAT and a corporate income tax and social security tax.
So, none of those places are tax free, although none of them have individual income taxes.
What property “rights”? You have “property rights” for the same reason you are taxed - because the government says so. No government, no property rights. “You get what you can keep” would be the entirety of your “rights” - good luck with that!
I encourage Will Eradicating Smallpox was irrelevant' Farnaby** and **Jrod The Rothschilds stole 11 quadrillion dollars … or was it 11 quintillion (who can count that high?)’ Efeld to start a thread where you and them can discuss this question. Meanwhile I content myself with a single observation:
I propose to you, as** Malden Capell** did before, that until you figure out this one, your other points are unpersuasive.
Yes, really. If your polity’s treasury has revenues from which to pay the public budget, it has taxation. Person X may not be taxed, but someone else will be.
Without taxes how will we pay police, jail guards, judges? Who is going to enforce your ‘right’ to anything, including your property, without such infrastructure? Or are we wishing for a return to simpler times? Y’know, when the guy with the most thugs/weapons rules your town/city? Could take from you anything he wished?
Here is the crazy thing about that, in such a situation, some level of thuggery is a* necessity* simply to ensure that your group keeps the resources it needs to survive. An individual can struggle against nature or their fellow humans, but not simultaneously. So that means you need at least a partner to watch and guard your resources. They have to be fed, clothed, housed, etc, so you now need twice as much as you did before simply because there will always be those who won’t play by the rules. Society deals with this problem by paying people to enforce the peace. Since those people have to spend their time doing that, they cannot also be securing their survival. So the community levees a tax to pay for their keep. The alternative is roving tribes, constantly struggling against one another, which does not provide for a peaceful, intelligent, or educated society.
The rule of law (in the early days: the rule of “custom”) has been around as long as we’ve had written records. I’d guess, without much evidence, that at least custom dictated how interpersonal relationships worked for as long as we’ve been a species.
Why do you think that is? Because it’s the best way to handle a society of any size. You need to pay for those things that make everyone’s life better, whether or not you feel like giving the money up in the first place. The government can’t function without it, and we aren’t a society without a centralizing authority.
That’s not true. Without government, you *have *a right to property. However, everyone also has the right to take the property from you.
Not so. If the polity owns property it may enjoy revenue from that property which is not taxation.
Indeed, an absolute monarchy with all the subjects slaves would appear to be the ideal libertarian paradise. Everyone free to exercise their property rights, and no taxation!
Libertarians are rather fond of political freedom as well as economic freedom. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of libertarianism without the slander that they’d support autocracy or slavery.
