How “flat taxes” usually come out proposed (from what I remember reading from Rothbard) is that it actually opens a whole new door to taxing already accumulated wealth rather than just income. I think a LVT or split rate tax is superior, but no genuine libertarian advocates taxation.
This is false.
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap16b.asp ### scroll down to (5) Is a Consumption Tax Possible? #### As I’ve said before, all taxes are basically income taxes.
Right, that is my argument. The tax revenue may be the same, but one tax may cost less to implement, at least on the surface. I’m not arguing for any tax, I’m just trying to explain the basic reasoning behind the “Fair tax.” It could be that the “Fair tax” isn;t more efficient at all, and would cost the same, if not more than the current tax system. I don’t know.
It seems to me that he’s half right…
-=Steve=-
Debating over which type of tax if preferred over the other, or which is more efficient is quite degrading, and in my opinion, totally counterproductive from both an economic and ethical point of view. It’s basically to acknowledge the legitimacy of taxation. Most are fooled into thinking that a change in the tax system can somehow amount to progress in the direction of liberty. It must be understood that this is a completely baseless assertion. It is popular by Conservatives precisely because it lets them keep their taxes and pretend they are against them at the same time.
Even if a flat tax were used what is stopping the state from adding other taxes on top of them?
The only thing that ever stops the government from adding new taxes: public opinion. If the majority wants tax increases, you’ll get them. Btw, I think it would be more accurate to say that conservatives are for taxation but realize it comes with a cost.
I agree. It’s like asking what is the best way to murder someone?
At least by now, from all the opposition to the health care bill from all the reports I’ve come across saying the majority of Americans didn’t want it, and I believe you thought this majority existed too, that you would understand “public opinion” isn’t all it’s made out to be. It’s been like this for decades but I cite only a recent example. How many times do politicians get into office and exactly do what they say they will do? I know you feel this is all there is, but you can’t believe at this point in the game that public opinion is what dictates D.C.
Wilderness, I think that there has been a huge public uprising against the healthcare thing, but we don’t have a supermajority. I mean last I saw, the polls were still close. We’re not talking 30 percent approval rating for Obama and the healthcare reform. If we were, I really don’t think that healthcare reform would’ve passed as easily if at all. But looking towards the future, repeal is still possible. We would need a Republican majority in both the house and the senate and a republican president to do it, but it’s still possible. It all depends on public opinion. If people decide that they’d rather stifle the economy with new taxes and new spending to be guaranteed health insurance, then that’s what we’ll get. Nothing without a cost.
Right, I think it would take something like 60% of any “right wingish” ideas to fly vs maybe a 51% of left wing views to get passed
Even if the analogy does hold, which I don’t think it does, the question would still be valid and relevant. There are ways of killing people that are far more humane than others.