This is a question for all those minarchists out there. If there were to be an overhaul of the tax system in your country, what would be the least harmful/ridiculous/evil form of taxation? Income tax? Sales tax? Property tax? An altered form of one or more? A mixed system? Please explain your answers. I know a voluntary system of taxation is more popular here, but that's not really taxation, so that's not an answer to the question.
A dual tax system- user fees combined with a modified poll tax where the number of votes you can have in all elections is equal to the amount you choose to pay in to the system. Say, a $1000-per-vote rate, for the US.
Lets split the US into hundreds, thousands of counties and the competition between them will yield the best tax system. One cannot know a priori.
Land value tax.
+1. Basically, that's an extension of how the lowest (municipality) taxation tier works in Switzerland - towns compete by their tax rate, but they are allowed also to negotiate special arrangements on a case by case basis (e.g., a flat rate for millioners).
If we have to have the Federal government, then I agree with the State rate tax. However, if it has to exist at the Federal level, then I guess it should be non-protectionist tariffs or a low sales tax on everything.
Yeah... Nothing the size of the continental United States can possibly be "minarchist". :p
Universal Exchange Taxation - http://universalexchangetax.com/
Eugene: Universal Exchange Taxation - http://universalexchangetax.com/ So, a universal 0,1% VAT. Cool, I like VAT. The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms. | Post Points: 5
So, a universal 0,1% VAT. Cool, I like VAT.
A tax on patriotic paraphenalia?
Critique of the Fair Tax:
http://mises.org/daily/1975/There-Is-No-Such-Thing-as-a-Fair-Tax
All taxation is evil and ridiculous. Some forms of taxation are more destructive than others. My proposal for a least-destructive tax is for a government to draw names in a lottery and then raid the properties of the unfortunates whose names have been drawn. The government seizes 50% of all property which it can locate belonging to the victim. Tax "evasion" is not a crime, so people are free to utilize any privacy measure to protect themselves from government seizure. The purpose of this scheme would be to reduce the systematic distortion of the market by government taxation, though it would not reduce systematic distortion due to subsidy. Also, taxpayers would be able to insure themselves against taxation since it would be like a natural disaster. Insurers would develop counter-measures against taxation in proportion to the costs of insuring taxpayers. A wise government that understands that all government is, ultimately, competitive in nature would adopt such a policy. A Singapore or Switzerland, for example, may be well advised to consider this form of taxation.
Clayton -
Least destructive form has been mentioned, Land Tax.
Condillac said so, becuase every other tax is tax against working (income) or tax against entrepreneurship (profit) or tax against society existing (exchange).
That said, there is no 'good' tax, because even land tax, for purposes of and only of defending property, increasing with growth of land to defend, implies monopoly of government in defense, so people who want their private defense are still forced to pay for what they don't want.
"Lets split the US into hundreds, thousands of counties and the competition between them will yield the best tax system. One cannot know a priori. "
+2
"All taxation is evil and ridiculous" +1
"FAIR TAX CRITIQUE" +1
A Singapore or Switzerland, for example, may be well advised to consider this form of taxation.
I like the idea as a joke (of haha only being serious kind), but the wise governments will recognise that allowing to insure against (random) taxation will grow the infrastructure needed for full-fledged PDAs. So no way this will be allowed.
Asked this question because I was internally debating whether it is worse to tax social interaction (sales tax, income tax) or tax non-social interaction (land tax). The question arose when I was thinking how it would be possible to cut yourself free from the system by raising all your essential goods on your own land. However, without some small trickle of income your homestead/ranch would run low on money to pay the land tax. Eventually, if you didn't participate in social commerce you would lose your land or part of your land. This doesns't seem right, I think you should be able to squat on your own property and live from the land if you choose to. Another thing that bugs me is that property tax can be used to shrink large land holdings, as only the very large agri-businesses will eventually be able to afford the larger land areas.
I suppose there is a debate about whether you should tax action or inaction, I'd be interested to hear the discourse.
The worst tax is a high tax. So the best tax is whichever kind encourages government and voters to keep taxes low. With this in mind I would opt for excise taxes only, and on things people really want and need. Sales taxes on gas, movies, concerts, food, housing, etc would represent 100% of government income. People and politicians would really question that new $100 billion program or war if they knew it would raise gas ten cents or movie tickets a dollar.
Andris Birkmanis: A Singapore or Switzerland, for example, may be well advised to consider this form of taxation. I like the idea as a joke (of haha only being serious kind), but the wise governments will recognise that allowing to insure against (random) taxation will grow the infrastructure needed for full-fledged PDAs. So no way this will be allowed. No, I really am serious. Sure, it would grow said infrastructure but that's my point... if you're enlightened enough to understand that governments are ultimately in competition with one another for capital, land, human and natural resources, then you should also understand that you have to be the most competitive such government if you intend to survive in the long run. Since you're already in the "defense" business, you have a head start on PDAs so you have nothing to fear there as long as you remain competitive. And since you're one of the most efficient governments in the world already, you have nothing to fear from the global Establishment as you remain tough and competitive with your local PDAs. Eventually, government qua government would be completely eradicated, at least in that area, but it would only be an improvement to the fortunes of those currently in power. In other words, I believe it's a rational choice from the point of view of the establishment of one of these city-states like Singapore or even a small nation like Switzerland. Clayton - http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com | Post Points: 35
No, I really am serious. Sure, it would grow said infrastructure but that's my point... if you're enlightened enough to understand that governments are ultimately in competition with one another for capital, land, human and natural resources, then you should also understand that you have to be the most competitive such government if you intend to survive in the long run. Since you're already in the "defense" business, you have a head start on PDAs so you have nothing to fear there as long as you remain competitive. And since you're one of the most efficient governments in the world already, you have nothing to fear from the global Establishment as you remain tough and competitive with your local PDAs. Eventually, government qua government would be completely eradicated, at least in that area, but it would only be an improvement to the fortunes of those currently in power. In other words, I believe it's a rational choice from the point of view of the establishment of one of these city-states like Singapore or even a small nation like Switzerland.
Greendogo: Asked this question because I was internally debating whether it is worse to tax social interaction (sales tax, income tax) or tax non-social interaction (land tax). The question arose when I was thinking how it would be possible to cut yourself free from the system by raising all your essential goods on your own land. However, without some small trickle of income your homestead/ranch would run low on money to pay the land tax. Eventually, if you didn't participate in social commerce you would lose your land or part of your land. This doesns't seem right, I think you should be able to squat on your own property and live from the land if you choose to. Another thing that bugs me is that property tax can be used to shrink large land holdings, as only the very large agri-businesses will eventually be able to afford the larger land areas. I suppose there is a debate about whether you should tax action or inaction, I'd be interested to hear the discourse. Governments tax transactions because it's easier to enforce and they can grab a bigger economic bite overall this way. The old-fashioned method was simple, direct seizure of property (not necessarily money). This gets costly as people get better and better at hiding their stuff. But that's why I think we should just return to the old-fashioned method with the slight twist that only a fraction of the populace is subjected to taxation each time. This way, it's possible to insure against it and the random distribution of taxation would erase any systematic effects on the market beyond the reduction in private wealth held. Clayton - http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com | Post Points: 5
Clayton, I like the idea in general.
you have to be the most competitive such government if you intend to survive in the long run.
So you do not buy Hoppe's arguments about democratic governments mostly caring about short-term gains? Instead, the same establishment rules no matter who is elected? But in Switzerland every man and his dog compete for municipal power (which gets roughly one third of all taxes), so I fail to see the establishment in the usual sense. Another issue might be the tradition of direct democracy - how do you imagine pulling a tax like that through a referendum?
Clayton: No, I really am serious. Sure, it would grow said infrastructure but that's my point... if you're enlightened enough to understand that governments are ultimately in competition with one another for capital, land, human and natural resources, then you should also understand that you have to be the most competitive such government if you intend to survive in the long run. Since you're already in the "defense" business, you have a head start on PDAs so you have nothing to fear there as long as you remain competitive. And since you're one of the most efficient governments in the world already, you have nothing to fear from the global Establishment as you remain tough and competitive with your local PDAs. Eventually, government qua government would be completely eradicated, at least in that area, but it would only be an improvement to the fortunes of those currently in power. In other words, I believe it's a rational choice from the point of view of the establishment of one of these city-states like Singapore or even a small nation like Switzerland. Clayton -
Unpredictable income, I’m afraid.
Not necessarily, just adjust the scheme a bit - instead of drawing names of the losers, sort all the names in random order, and loot them in this order until the planned income is achieved. In fact, this is the most predictable income of all! The only way it can fail is if you run through the list before fulfilling the quota - but no other method would extract more income anyway.
The Universal Exchange Tax taxes every transaction that involves money. That's why it is the "fairest" of all taxes. And its not like VAT at all, its just a tax on EVERY transaction.
Eugene: The Universal Exchange Tax taxes every transaction that involves money. That's why it is the "fairest" of all taxes. And its not like VAT at all, its just a tax on EVERY transaction.
That's exactly the VAT, albeit one with a universal tax base.
Andris Birkmanis: Clayton, I like the idea in general. you have to be the most competitive such government if you intend to survive in the long run. So you do not buy Hoppe's arguments about democratic governments mostly caring about short-term gains? Instead, the same establishment rules no matter who is elected? But in Switzerland every man and his dog compete for municipal power (which gets roughly one third of all taxes), so I fail to see the establishment in the usual sense. Another issue might be the tradition of direct democracy - how do you imagine pulling a tax like that through a referendum? Yes, I do agree with Hoppe's analysis and I take it a step further... if it is true that monarchs are more long-term oriented, then that means they are better able to dominate the political world by whatever means. Therefore, I think that the world is still run by royal families or ultra-wealthy families that are a kind of de facto, unrecognized royalty (e.g. the Rockefellers). The Clintons sat in the White House for 8 years. George Bush sat in the White House for 8 years. The Queen of England has been ruling since 1952... Harry Truman was President at the time, you know, the guy who dropped the atomic bomb on Japan all those years ago. Who do you think has more political power, the Queen of England or the chairmen of the Democrat and Republican parties? David Rockefeller was born in 1915, just one year after the opening of World War ONE. He has been the family patriarch since 1979... since Jimmy Carter was President. Who do you think has more political influence, David Rockefeller or an ex-President? Hoppe has really revolutionized my own thinking. I've been brainwashed my whole life to focus on the apparatus of public policy, the government, as if the government is really the most important aspect of society. The truth is that society is fundamentally private, if not for the masses, then for the Elites. My view is growing towards this idea that the Elites do not have to follow the public statutes, in effect, except those statutes which are part of some other private agreement they have between themselves (e.g. "I agree to raising taxes on corn if you agree to increasing water quality requirements, let's shake on it"). The wealth of the Elites is not subject to review by the public revenuers. Their travel is not restricted by the public border controls or the internal security apparatus (Mr. Rockefeller doesn't have to go through a TSA scanner, bankers from the Bank of International Settlements freely traveled between belligerent nations during World War II, etc.) And along with my first sentence, their imports and exports are only controlled as a matter of agreement between themselves, (e.g. "I agree to an increased tariff on wheat if you agree to remove restrictions on X Y and Z agricultural exports"). In general, the privileges that we generally imagine are only enjoyed by government employees are, in fact, simply riding on the private privileges the Elites have always had. These privileges are simply extended to the public bureaucracies for the convenience of the Elites in enforcing the status quo. The inevitable conclusion of this line of reasoning is that the Presidency cannot be the highest seat of authority in the land. The buck does not stop in the Oval Office. I'm not sure where it does stop but I'm pretty sure it doesn't stop there. </off-topic ranting> Clayton - http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com | Post Points: 20
Clayton,
I agree that wealthy families are the most powerful entities on earth but I will not agree that they run any country, let alone the world as some say. No one can run the world: it too big. No one can run the US, it’s too big. Heck, George Soros is having a very tough ride trying to control my small country, let alone any large-size place.
So, to take up your question: where does the buck stop? Nowhere. Everyone adds something along the way of political power, and the end result is an unpredictable, chaotic, spontaneous order.
@Merlin: Agreed and I think the historical record is conclusive on this. One day, the Prince is wringing his Lords for every last ounce of gold they have and they're pleading for their very lives, the next day he has a sword to the back of his neck, signing a charter giving up 90% of his authority. There is no doubt that power is very fluid. Nevertheless, I think that history has been nothing if not a weeding out of less adept political rulers leaving only the most cunning, the most shrewd, the most conniving still standing. There is definitely an "evolutionary" process underway but in a bad sense and I think it bears some resemblance to Hoppe's theory of democracy as "competition in the production of bads". So, it's a mistake to think that there is not a real hierarchy of political power in the world and every region in the world but, at the same time, it's a constant give and take between the various power centers, each struggling for ultimate control.
And on a more optimistic note, I've been thinking how the public choice problems that plague government - specifically, that it is ridiculous to imagine the government "cares" about its citizens beyond the extent to which it can enrich itself on their backs - is a two-edged sword. The same reason that voters don't educate themselves about elected leaders is the same reason that you almost certainly won't get a ticket for going 5-10mph above the speed limit or smoking a joint in the privacy of your home. The government does its best to create an illusion of pervasive omniscience but it is just an illusion. In reality, the government comprises a tiny fraction of the populace and each of them has a full plate trying to keep all the other delinquents in line. I might be smoking a joint and the government doesn't like that but then the guy two blocks down has a meth lab in his bathroom and the local Sheriff's narcotics officers stand to gain a lot more prestige looking for the meth lab guy than they stand to gain looking for me.
Once you understand that "the law" is not statutes, you realize that statutes should only ever be observed out of prudence... you should observe some statutory laws for the same reason you don't walk down a dark alley at night. Yet, at the same time, you ought not to become lawless since - despite the many perversions of real law created by statutory law - humans never stop being human and the law is the law. To put it briefly, people will naturally shun you if you're an asshole, no "law" required. And since statutory law should only be observed as a matter of prudence and the only law that really matters is the law of human behavior, the vast majority of "illegal" activity is not really morally off-limits... the government just does its damnedest to make it dangerous and risky. So, it's just a question of whether the risks created by the government are worth running in order to do whatever it is you have in mind to do. And I think this is the essence of Block's Undefendable activities... some people choose to run the gauntlet but until they begin hurting people, damaging property or imposing uninvited risks on others, they're not violating law per se, they're just doing stuff the government doesn't want them to.
It reminds me of the old adage... it's only illegal if you get caught. I think this is true of almost every statute.
Well, the market also continuously weeds out the least efficient entrepreneurs, stiles of management, etc. but that still doesn’t mean that any one firm or even individual will ever control the market. Perhaps some processes, as the market or power, are just too big for hierarchies.
Perhaps some processes, as the market or power, are just too big for hierarchies.
Do you extend the socialist calculation problem to power market (or rather, arena)?
Andris Birkmanis: Perhaps some processes, as the market or power, are just too big for hierarchies. Do you extend the socialist calculation problem to power market (or rather, arena)? I’m sure that this does apply, even if no Austrian has ever cared about it. Ho does the King know which tax will yield the highest long-term cash flow pattern? There would seem to be no way of getting a decent answer. But I was rather referring to the spontaneity of power, in the sense of the whole power structure emerging without any individual willing for it to be as it is. Whether or not this spontaneous power order is also the most efficient calculation-wise is besides the point, although an interesting issue in itself. The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms. | Post Points: 5
I’m sure that this does apply, even if no Austrian has ever cared about it. Ho does the King know which tax will yield the highest long-term cash flow pattern? There would seem to be no way of getting a decent answer.
But I was rather referring to the spontaneity of power, in the sense of the whole power structure emerging without any individual willing for it to be as it is. Whether or not this spontaneous power order is also the most efficient calculation-wise is besides the point, although an interesting issue in itself.