Topic: Which tax is the least bad? - page 4. (Read 5307 times)

I don't understand: If I pay taxes when I receive my salary why I must pay additional taxes like: VAT, import-export, inheritance etc ?
I like to pay only 10% like in the Bible  
If I am jobless I will pay 0

Well all taxes are a form of redistribution. Given the ultimatum to choose a tax, I would prefer sales tax b/c (atleast on the consumer side) it is easily avoided.

A sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich and the benefits of the public spending go to the rich more than the poor.  As such, a sales tax is just another form of redistribution.

Forced taxes are a bad idea overall IMO, but if I had to choose one it'd be sales tax.

- very small amount
- doesn't apply to necessities
- doesn't infringe on personal property
- only applies when somebody is making a purchase in an active economy

If you want to ignore the problem, then you really need to get people to vote for ignoring free riders.  We already do this - for example we allow charities to raise income tax free so they are free riders. 

If you can't get people to vote to allow the group of free riders you want let off because you are opposed to compulsory taxation, then the idea just won't fly.

The problem at issue here is the "free rider" problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

There are many, many ways the problem can be addressed other than by forcibly making everyone "give something back." The idea that the only possible solution in each case is that anyone who might possibly benefit (especially from something as indirect as benefiting from "a vast and complicated global economy") must have money stolen from them at pain of imprisonment is both archaic and unnecessary.

This is illustrated by the fact that there are forms of taxation that allow free riding, and yet its possible for any specific governmental entities--or even just program--to make due with only taxes that allow it. One example of this is using gas taxes to support roads construction and maintenance.

Free riding occurs in this situation in a number of ways, from people riding bikes on the road (or walking along it) to people hitchhiking, or even using an electric vehicle. To, instead of taxing fuel sales, go to the homes of everyone within 20 miles of the road, and forcibly and regularly extract a fee for the direct and indirect benefits of the road to them, would be a far inferior approach to funding the road even from a statist perspective.

Focusing on making every single person who does or who might consume or benefit from a service (particularly services where consumption can hardly be avoided) pay a mandatory fee for the service is likewise an archaic way to look at such issues, and "solutions" resulting from that mindset can often lead to worse results than more voluntary, less intrusive ones... sometimes including just ignoring the free riders.

Wealth concentration is partly the result of the ineffective of taxes in redistributing wealth. It does not make wealth distribution a primary purpose of taxes. The primary purpose of taxes is to pay for public services.

I agree and would go a lot further.  If you look at tax policies over last 40 years in most of the West, there has been a massive redistribution towards the rich with policies like farm subsidies, mortgage subsidies and the like which redistribute cash from the poor to the rich.

It's because the rich are typically the ones in control of structuring the tax system, including any loopholes.

This is why the idea of using taxes as a means of wealth-redistribution is such an eye-roller. You're never going to get the top 1%--or heaven forbid, top 0.1%--to have their wealth drained and given to the poor and needy in some politically-oriented karmic reparation. Real-world weath redistribution always boils down to taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor various groups, effectively rendering the lower classes, as a whole, poorer than before (due to the inefficiencies, fraud, waste and middlemen that such programs inevitably encounter.)

Still, as far as this thread goes, being upfront about one's intentions regarding taxation does go quite a ways towards explaining the "whys" of one's choices.

I don't doubt it, though they were also used to fund the lifestyle of the upper classes. What I said however is that some taxes in modern times inherently affect the wealthy more than the poor, making them redistributive since the poor benefit most from state benefits.


Without a doubt, your living is supported by a vast and complicated global economy. You don't get to opt out when it's time to give something back.

That's a valid point and one folks often forget despite my own opinion that taxes should be as minimal as possible.

For the last 40 years the trend in wealth redistribution has been to concentrate earning power in a small percentage of society.  Within the top 1%, incomes are as steeply varied as between the 99% and the 1%.

No-one voted for this.

Based on these facts, I would say that wealth redistribution is an accidental side effect of tax policy in current societies.  The main main function of tax is to raise money to keep the market system running smoothly.

Yeah, we are on the same page.

I believe these group-use services have to be paid by compulsory taxes, because these services cannot exclude any particular non-tax-paying person from consuming the service.

Wealth redistribution is a function of taxes in current societies, but not a primary purpose of taxes. Wealth redistribution is more of a moral obligation and/or political tool.

People shouldn't benefit equally from state benefits, people in greater need should benefit more.

I take it this is how you want the world to work then? "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France.

I see where you are coming from but there is no problem with using percentage of income as a measure of fairness.  You may have another way of measuring fairness but percentage of income is a perfectly valid one.

Of course spending is of more benefit to the rich.  Our system creates a great environment for business by having a cheap educated workforce in a secure legal environment.  We are all benefiting from that system and its infinitely preferable to the kleptocracies you see in poor countries.  By definition, our market-based system has winners and losers and we don't  need the tax system to redistribute from the losers (the poor) to the winners (the rich).  

Far from it. Taxes were invented to pay for armies, long before the idea of redistribution was invented, and today in many countries, most of the tax money is used to pay for the huge number of civil servants, with the jobs of collecting taxes, controlling and organizing the country, which means telling ordinary people how they should work, live and think. In Scandinavian countries, it's more than one person out of ten which works in some kind of administration. People have no freedom at all, and the only cool Scandinavian people I've ever met had left their country for good.

This leads us to the idea of administration, and besides tax, I'm very much against it in any form. I don't want anyone to know how much I'm making, nor even what I do for my living. I'm a free person, and I have nothing to declare to anyone. Nobody has. There shall be no NSA, and no Internal revenue Service. We are free people, aren't we?

That's why I'm only in favor of a modest property tax, because it just needs some bookkeepers to register land ownership.

This is why I'm against all state benefits, so that everybody's equal.

I think that there is a problem with using percentage of income as a measure of fairness. Also, the assumption is that people with high incomes receive more benefits from government spending, and I think that is the real problem if it is true. If everyone benefits equally from government spending, then it is only fair if everyone pays the same amount for those benefits.

Both are unfair as they penalise the poor and subsidise the rich.

Consider 2 women - one has inherited a factory and earns millions per week - the other sweeps the floor in the factory.  Taxes are used to provide a decent workforce and decent infrastructure.

If you levy a sales tax or poll tax, the poor woman pays a greater percentage of her income.  Not very fair.

The rich woman has an indirect subsidy from having her workers educated by the state, her premises protected by the police and so on.  So the poor woman is paying a bigger percentage of her income and its being used to subsidise the rich woman.

That's a very unfair way to raise money.