[quote]Otep wrote:
orion wrote:
I don’t follow your argument.
Could you define ‘natural rights’ for me? I’m not seeing how an income tax violates my current definition of natural rights.
I’m also not seeing how the mercantilist trading policies of the early US regulated trade in a benign way that an income tax doesn’t.
What your current definition of natural rights is hardly matters because
a) the idea of property rights is the very core of the natural rights idea and
b) you were not a founding father.
The US constitution is very inspired by Locke´s “treatises on government”.
So, if your constitution and the whole raison d´etre of the US was to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens it cannot introduce a tax that infringes on all three.
Whether you enslave someone for 3 years and set him free to work for himself for another 3 years or simply take half of what he makes for 6 years makes no difference, both is forced labor.
Obviously that means you are no longer free and that your property is no longer yours and if you try to defend yourself against that intrusion you have a very good chance of losing your life too.
For details on todays natural right ideas see Rothbard´s “Ethic of Liberty” or simply Locke himself.
Tariffs:
A tariff is self regulating because if it gets too high, people simply do without tobacco or alcohol or it gets smuggled. There is a natural cut off point beyond which revenues decrease when you raise tariffs.
Of course the same is true for an income tax, but much less so because most people need to work to earn a living. In fact, if you raise taxes high enough people will even work more to not slip into poverty.
So to give you an example:
What would be more in line with the ideas the US were founded upon when it comes to financing streets?
A tax on gasoline or simply an income tax?
Obviously the first one only taxes those who use the highways which also has economic benefits, whereas the second one means forced labor to finance streets you might never use.
I´d say the first tax is justifiable IF one can justify state built infrastructure at all, whereas the second alternative is never justifiable as long as the first alternative exists.
I notice you didn’t give a definition of ‘natural rights’. So as near as I can tell in context it is both defined by the founding fathers (of the US) and is ‘property rights’, or more broadly the right to life, liberty and property (as in, one’s own).
Okay, I’m with you so far.
And I can see how you describe a tariff (or VAT, or sales tax, as I don’t think we’re limiting the discussion specifically to imports/exports) as self-regulating, because if it’s too high people will refuse to purchase said item (you also mention smuggling, which would be illegal and a breach of social contract, and therefore outside the bounds of discussion). We’re mentioning voluntary transactions here. I’m still with you.
And then you mention how taxing income is a violation of natural rights, because it violates one’s right to property (as in, the property/cash one has earned). And I can kinda see where you’re coming from… in that one has earned property and it is inappropriate for a government developed to protect property to remove property. I’m still with you.
Here’s the quandary though- under this line of thinking, it is inappropriate to tax property, but it is appropriate to tax the transaction of property (the tariff model seen above). As in, it is legitimate to tax a merchant’s sale of fish-balls on the street corner, but it is not legitimate to tax the income of the merchant after that transaction has been made.
So you could tax an employer for paying employees. The employee provides a good (his services), and the government taxes the transaction of property from the employer to the employee. And, like most VAT and sales taxes, it would most likely be based on a percentage of income.
So making the employee pay the tax illetimizes the system, but making the employer pay the tax is a legitimate action? All the same money is present in the transaction under both models (employee pays vs. employer pays), does it matter which one is responsible for paying the taxes?[/quote]
First of all I do not think that tariffs are a shining example of libertarianism, I am just saying that that was the original US tax system that had some advantages.
I do not really feel that the act of transferring property to another person gives a government the right to tax it and why should it. However, if a government is legitimate it has to be financed somehow and in the end all that you can tax is what citizens have produced.
I think that any tax is highly problematic but that we have to agree to taxation in some form. If the reason for a states existence is the protection of life, liberty and private property an income tax can hardly be the answer though. We should at least strive to keep the intrusion into our lives to a minimum and avoid the transfer of wealth if we possibly can, not only because it is theft but also because it leads to a giant waste of resources.
So basically what I would propose is this: As much indirect taxes as possible, for a specific purpose. Meaning, f.e., a gasoline tax for roads and bridges and for roads and bridges only.
On top of that a VAT and a tax refund for any VAT that was paid for purchases under 20000$ a year, per person, per household and no VAT on human labor.
That way, if you want to use a government service you pay for it directly and everything you need to live is basically tax exempt and the costs of employing someone would be magically cut in half.
As you can see such a tax system might have its flaws, like all systems, but at least it leaves citizens much more room to exercise their liberty than most current tax systems do.
Therefore, other tax systems that needlessly infringe on the liberty and property of its citizens can hardly be legitimate, even if you agree that a states existence can be justified and that is what I was trying to show.
