Political Theory

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

dude6935 — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:34:40 GMT

This is wrong. It's a tax on businesses. The people who would buy at the +8% price would have bought anyways, but the business loses all the people who would only buy at the +7% or less price.

Individuals miss out on the externality of saving they would have encountered by downward competition among sellers, but no individual who buys with sales tax was unwilling to pay that price anyways.

Excellent answer.

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

Caley McKibbin — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 03:18:34 GMT

Contrary to Senator Reid, even using the medical definition of voluntary for payment, even if you don't go to jail, not paying will simply result in armed expropriation.

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

Wibee — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 03:15:16 GMT

Ad hominems does not promote a healthy debate. Neither is the tone of your reply. Just say " If businesses do not pay their taxes they are threatened with violence in the form of fees, jail time, or being shut down completely." and move along. The rest is incedinary.

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

Ricky James Moore II — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:00:22 GMT

First of all, the government does not claim to own the land. Second of all, even if it did, what business threatens to throw you in a cage for life for not paying, besides the government?

I don't think prison is even legitimate for real criminals, much less some guy sitting on his porch smoking crack. Pretending they did own all the land they could sue him and deport him, they could not cage him for some period of time (though they could obviously restrain him if he was a standing threat).

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

Spideynw — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:56:12 GMT

xarthaz:

If you assume government to be owner of all land in their territory(which they effectively are due to monopoly on violence), then there is little, if anything un-propertarian about asking for taxes as a condition of use of the property.

First of all, the government does not claim to own the land. Second of all, even if it did, what business threatens to throw you in a cage for life for not paying, besides the government?

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

Anarcho — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:10:31 GMT

"Hence describing libertarianism as voluntary is absurd, voluntarism is purely an anarcho-communist term. Theres nothing voluntary about aggressively enforcing a piece of land as your own."

Voluntarism spans across many ideologies from anarcho-capitalism to anarcho-communism. It is often used synonmously (correctly or not) with anarcho-capitalism but can be used to describe anyone who believes simply that all human association should be voluntary as much as can be possible. Voluntaryist hence oppose the intiation of aggression or coercion.

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

Joseph F — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:30:57 GMT

Sales taxes do not go directly to the consumer. The market price of any good necessarily includes the sales tax. That is, if consumers are willing to pay $5 for a product, but there is a $1 tax on that product, then the income going to the producer is $4. It is the producer that absorbs the loss caused by the imposition of a tax on the product. Ultimately, the additional costs of production incurred by the producer gets passed down to the original factors of production; that of land and labor.

Let's say that a business sells widgets for $5, as that is the market price for that widget. All of the producers costs are in line with this selling price, and the producer yields a profit of about 5% of his total income. Now, let's say that the government imposes a sales tax of 20% (or, $1 on that $5 widget). Obviously, the funds to pay this tax must come from some source. If the producer decides to pass that additional cost onto the consumers, then the price of the good will now be $6. However, assuming that the demand curve is not perfectly inelastic, the demand for widgets must necessarily decrease, and along with it the profits of the producer. The most easily understandable proof of this is that if the producer were able to sell his widgets at $6, then he would have already been doing so before the imposition of the sales tax. Remember, it is the consumers that determine the ultimate market price of any good, not the costs incurred by the producer. If it costs a producer an exorbitant amount of money to produce a good, it does not follow that he can then charge an exorbitant price for his goods. If he does attempt to charge a high price due to his costs, the consumers do not have to purchase them, they will simply save that money, invest it, or purchase other goods instead.

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

mahall — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:53:32 GMT

Its the same as implicit agreements in any commercial area, ie paying money for riding on a private road or crossing a toll bridge etc. The only difference is whether the method of attaining ownership is justified. The use of aggression is not the argument, the justification of ownership is. Hence describing libertarianism as voluntarist is absurd, voluntarism is purely an anarcho-communist term. Theres nothing voluntary about aggressively enforcing a piece of land as your own.

Service fees are not the same as taxes.

If the use of aggression is not the argument then why debase voluntarism on it's inherent use of defense?

How is voluntarist a communist term? Voluntary exchange is the free market - the proverbial opposite of communism.

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

Anonymous — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 15:05:13 GMT

Exactly. For there to be a similarity, one must have a written contract with the state to pay them taxes for those services. No contract, no service. It's just implied "tacit consent" or "social contract" which is...see my signature.

Its the same as implicit agreements in any commercial area, ie paying money for riding on a private road or crossing a toll bridge etc. The only difference is whether the method of attaining ownership is justified. The use of aggression is not the argument, the justification of ownership is. Hence describing libertarianism as voluntarist is absurd, voluntarism is purely an anarcho-communist term. Theres nothing voluntary about aggressively enforcing a piece of land as your own.

Yeah, that's the whole point though; we don't recognize the State as an owner of land. If they own a chunk of untouched land in Northern Alaska, then I claim Antartica (actually States have already done that as well). It controls the land, but it didn't acquire ownership of the land the same way every other human being in the country is able to own something.

State is taxing (virtually)everyone doing everything in its land, so the rights are actively enforced, not meaningless selling of moon or mars land.

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

Ricky James Moore II — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:41:27 GMT

What I find more interesting about the so-called "sales" tax is that it is not a tax on sales, at all. It is a consumption tax. Businesses make YOU pay it. If it's a sales tax, that means they are forcing you to pay their taxes if you want their services.

It's really a consumption tax that goes directly to the consumer.

This is wrong. It's a tax on businesses. The people who would buy at the +8% price would have bought anyways, but the business loses all the people who would only buy at the +7% or less price.

Individuals miss out on the externality of saving they would have encountered by downward competition among sellers, but no individual who buys with sales tax was unwilling to pay that price anyways.

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

MaikU — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:25:46 GMT

Exactly. For there to be a similarity, one must have a written contract with the state to pay them taxes for those services. No contract, no service. It's just implied "tacit consent" or "social contract" which is...see my signature.

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

mahall — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:07:59 GMT

xarthaz,

I understand. Your post implies that taxes are justified since the state is the effective owner. My position, however, is that taxes are never justified. Taxes are fundamentally different than service fees.

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

Eric080 — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 10:51:33 GMT

Yeah, that's the whole point though; we don't recognize the State as an owner of land. If they own a chunk of untouched land in Northern Alaska, then I claim Antartica (actually States have already done that as well). It controls the land, but it didn't acquire ownership of the land the same way every other human being in the country is able to own something.

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

Anonymous — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 10:30:48 GMT

Yes, government isnt actively managing all its property like in communist states, however it effectively is the owner. As its known interventionist capitalism is a more productive way for states to farm their wealth than outright socialism, hence the more delicate, calm ways of states getting dividends from their property. The similar idea that Molyneux presented http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

Re: Voluntary Taxes? Give me a break.

mahall — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 10:01:44 GMT

If you assume government to be owner of all land in their territory(which they effectively are due to monopoly on violence), then there is little, if anything un-propertarian about asking for taxes as a condition of use of the property.

The abolishment of private property rights is communism. You can't say "there is nothing un-propertarian" about tax in this instance since your first sentence eliminated the possibility of propertarian society.