Taxation is always harmful, period. But assume hypothetically for a moment that some form of taxation must exist. Which form of taxation would be least harmful?
Obviously, low taxes. But which taxes specifically?
Taxation is a burden, but it should be a burden borne equally if it is to exist. Income taxes burden the poor more than the rich, capital gains taxes burden the rich more than the poor, etc. What taxes would burden everyone equally, and therefore be the most impolitic?
I already say no to the fair tax. To me, it seems...well...unfair. I also feel that a universal sales tax will harm the poor and middle classes more than everyone else.
I came across something called the universal exchange tax, which seems like a better idea to me in that it is more equal in its distribution of the burden. But at the same time, I am skeptical of it, and critics have said it seems like another way of putting a VAT.
Property taxes seem like a poor solution too...for it would prevent people from living off their land. Also, the wealthy may have huge sums of money, but not much more property than everyone else, so they will have less burden.
I'm going with a sales/consumption tax, or maybe tarrifs(assuming they arent enacted specifically for protectionist purposes). Taxes that discouage consumption and encourage savings/investment are almost always prefered to income or capital gains taxes
income is tax on labor not consumption, which is the opposite end of the specturm. i prefaced my point by stating CONUMPTION, but i do see your point.
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
Because of the use of a legal 'term' or art, people are deceived to veiw it as otherwise.
If you must have a tax, voluntary is the only one. That is done by lottery. A national lottery would give you the option of the tax or not.
Would you contribute $1 dollar for the chance to have $500 million? I can chose to play or refrain.........VOLUNTARY.
Chris: The assessment should be done by a third-party to prevent government abuse.
The assessment should be done by a third-party to prevent government abuse.
contacting out to a 'third party' is the equivalent to replacing Communism with Fascism.
If taxing X reduces X then,
I am for taxing the state, taxing anyone employed by the state, taxing anyone associated with the state, or taxing anyone that has any kind of nexus with the state.
I like it. If you must have a STATE let it be composed of volunteers.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz_result?e=100&i=100_100.gif&p=100
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/666806/posts