This is a question for all those minarchists out there. If there were to be an overhaul of the tax system in your country, what would be the least harmful/ridiculous/evil form of taxation? Income tax? Sales tax? Property tax? An altered form of one or more? A mixed system? Please explain your answers. I know a voluntary system of taxation is more popular here, but that’s not really taxation, so that’s not an answer to the question.
A dual tax system- user fees combined with a modified poll tax where the number of votes you can have in all elections is equal to the amount you choose to pay in to the system. Say, a $1000-per-vote rate, for the US.
Lets split the US into hundreds, thousands of counties and the competition between them will yield the best tax system. One cannot know a priori.
Land value tax.
Lets split the US into hundreds, thousands of counties and the competition between them will yield the best tax system. One cannot know a priori.
+1. Basically, that’s an extension of how the lowest (municipality) taxation tier works in Switzerland - towns compete by their tax rate, but they are allowed also to negotiate special arrangements on a case by case basis (e.g., a flat rate for millioners).
If we have to have the Federal government, then I agree with the State rate tax. However, if it has to exist at the Federal level, then I guess it should be non-protectionist tariffs or a low sales tax on everything.
Yeah… Nothing the size of the continental United States can possibly be “minarchist”. 
Universal Exchange Taxation - http://universalexchangetax.com/
So, a universal 0,1% VAT. Cool, I like VAT.
A tax on patriotic paraphenalia?
Critique of the Fair Tax:
http://mises.org/daily/1975/There-Is-No-Such-Thing-as-a-Fair-Tax
All taxation is evil and ridiculous. Some forms of taxation are more destructive than others. My proposal for a least-destructive tax is for a government to draw names in a lottery and then raid the properties of the unfortunates whose names have been drawn. The government seizes 50% of all property which it can locate belonging to the victim. Tax “evasion” is not a crime, so people are free to utilize any privacy measure to protect themselves from government seizure. The purpose of this scheme would be to reduce the systematic distortion of the market by government taxation, though it would not reduce systematic distortion due to subsidy. Also, taxpayers would be able to insure themselves against taxation since it would be like a natural disaster. Insurers would develop counter-measures against taxation in proportion to the costs of insuring taxpayers. A wise government that understands that all government is, ultimately, competitive in nature would adopt such a policy. A Singapore or Switzerland, for example, may be well advised to consider this form of taxation.
Clayton -
Least destructive form has been mentioned, Land Tax.
Condillac said so, becuase every other tax is tax against working (income) or tax against entrepreneurship (profit) or tax against society existing (exchange).
That said, there is no ‘good’ tax, because even land tax, for purposes of and only of defending property, increasing with growth of land to defend, implies monopoly of government in defense, so people who want their private defense are still forced to pay for what they don’t want.
"Lets split the US into hundreds, thousands of counties and the competition between them will yield the best tax system. One cannot know a priori. "
+2
“All taxation is evil and ridiculous” +1
“FAIR TAX CRITIQUE” +1
A Singapore or Switzerland, for example, may be well advised to consider this form of taxation.
I like the idea as a joke (of haha only being serious kind), but the wise governments will recognise that allowing to insure against (random) taxation will grow the infrastructure needed for full-fledged PDAs. So no way this will be allowed.
Asked this question because I was internally debating whether it is worse to tax social interaction (sales tax, income tax) or tax non-social interaction (land tax). The question arose when I was thinking how it would be possible to cut yourself free from the system by raising all your essential goods on your own land. However, without some small trickle of income your homestead/ranch would run low on money to pay the land tax. Eventually, if you didn’t participate in social commerce you would lose your land or part of your land. This doesns’t seem right, I think you should be able to squat on your own property and live from the land if you choose to. Another thing that bugs me is that property tax can be used to shrink large land holdings, as only the very large agri-businesses will eventually be able to afford the larger land areas.
I suppose there is a debate about whether you should tax action or inaction, I’d be interested to hear the discourse.
The worst tax is a high tax. So the best tax is whichever kind encourages government and voters to keep taxes low. With this in mind I would opt for excise taxes only, and on things people really want and need. Sales taxes on gas, movies, concerts, food, housing, etc would represent 100% of government income. People and politicians would really question that new $100 billion program or war if they knew it would raise gas ten cents or movie tickets a dollar.
No, I really am serious. Sure, it would grow said infrastructure but that’s my point… if you’re enlightened enough to understand that governments are ultimately in competition with one another for capital, land, human and natural resources, then you should also understand that you have to be the most competitive such government if you intend to survive in the long run. Since you’re already in the “defense” business, you have a head start on PDAs so you have nothing to fear there as long as you remain competitive. And since you’re one of the most efficient governments in the world already, you have nothing to fear from the global Establishment as you remain tough and competitive with your local PDAs. Eventually, government qua government would be completely eradicated, at least in that area, but it would only be an improvement to the fortunes of those currently in power. In other words, I believe it’s a rational choice from the point of view of the establishment of one of these city-states like Singapore or even a small nation like Switzerland.
Clayton -
Governments tax transactions because it’s easier to enforce and they can grab a bigger economic bite overall this way. The old-fashioned method was simple, direct seizure of property (not necessarily money). This gets costly as people get better and better at hiding their stuff. But that’s why I think we should just return to the old-fashioned method with the slight twist that only a fraction of the populace is subjected to taxation each time. This way, it’s possible to insure against it and the random distribution of taxation would erase any systematic effects on the market beyond the reduction in private wealth held.
Clayton -