I think that property taxes are likely the most fair types of taxation. Assuming that you’re hiring the government to protect the land you own, it makes sense that they charge a fee based on its value.
That said, if property owners are the only ones paying taxes, I think that they should get more of a say in how the government is run.
but of course the gov’t itself decides how much your property is worth. Also, in a world where property tax is seen as legit, there can’t be any private property. All property is really rented from the government.
The assessment should be done by a third-party to prevent government abuse.
As for the freedom aspect, protection of property is the reason that people collectivize to begin with - so the tribe next door doesn’t raid and plunder your village. I don’t think that anyone who doesn’t own property should be able to make decisions on how much to tax property owners, though. Hence, only property owners should be able to vote on issues related to property tax. Perhaps in rural areas, no tax would be necessary at all and property owners would be responsible for protecting their own property.
I think that paying taxes on the land you own could be seen as a cost of ownership, like maintaining a fence, mowing your grass, or fixing a leaking roof. It seems reasonable to me that a community may ask someone to leave who doesn’t contribute to its defense - you can’t get something for nothing, after all. I’d suggest dealing with this situation by the government paying the people for the assessed value of their property minus what was owed in back-taxes and then reselling the property.
The bottom line, however, is that taxes should be low enough not to be burdonsome. Most government services should be funded by service fees rather than by direct taxation.
You should read Rothabard’s Power & Market. The property tax, especially a general one, can be and is a very destructive tax.
If you’re going to allow people to pay or not pay these fees (since you don’t call them taxes), then why not have them work for profit also, and if they operate for profit, why not remove the coercive monpoly priveleges and open thesese services for competion so we can actually have proof for their service?
You should read Rothabard’s Power & Market. The property tax, especially a general one, can be and is a very destructive tax.
I certainly will. I’ve been slowly tackling economics texts, but I can only take on so much at a time. Mind you, I think that obligatory taxes should be limited to paying for the protection of natural rights, which I think is the proper role of government. So, taxes would pay for a police force (and possibly fund a militia). Any other service which a locality deems valuable to be provided by the government should be paid for with user fees.
If you’re going to allow people to pay or not pay these fees (since you don’t call them taxes), then why not have them work for profit also, and if they operate for profit, why not remove the coercive monpoly priveleges and open thesese services for competion so we can actually have proof for their service?
As I mentioned above, services provided by a government should be determined by the locality. I see no reason why a private enterprise couldn’t successfully compete with a government enterprise which is entirely funded by user fees. Ultimately, I don’t think that governments can compete with private enterprise when competing on equal ground, so private enterprise will likely snuff out government competition.
An expropriating private property right protector is a contradictory of terms. Something that contradicts itself cannot be true. Do you agree with this fundamental law of logic?
Consumption Tax. If we are ONLY taxed on outr consumption then every tax is voluntary. I still think it is basically unfair, but if we must exchange thoughts with in terms of mainstreamonomics…
So an income tax is also voluntary since nobody is forcing you to work and earn an income. What is wrong with this reasoning? Same as in yours.
@DD5: Precisely - there is no such thing as a voluntary tax… it really is a classic example of an oxymoron. It’s like gentle, loving murder. Just doesn’t make any sense at all.
Clayton -
An expropriating private property right protector is a contradictory of terms. Something that contradicts itself cannot be true. Do you agree with this fundamental law of logic?
The alternative is for the government to neglect to protect property if the tax is not paid, in the same way a security firm would stop showing up if you stopped paying them. I wonder about protecting life and liberty, though. If someone doesn’t pay their taxes, does the justice system not protect them from assault or involuntary servitude?
I’m going with a sales/consumption tax, or maybe tarrifs(assuming they arent enacted specifically for protectionist purposes). Taxes that discouage consumption and encourage savings/investment are almost always prefered to income or capital gains taxes
income is tax on labor not consumption, which is the opposite end of the specturm. i prefaced my point by stating CONUMPTION, but i do see your point.
Because of the use of a legal ‘term’ or art, people are deceived to veiw it as otherwise.
If you must have a tax, voluntary is the only one. That is done by lottery. A national lottery would give you the option of the tax or not.
Would you contribute $1 dollar for the chance to have $500 million? I can chose to play or refrain…VOLUNTARY.
contacting out to a ‘third party’ is the equivalent to replacing Communism with Fascism.
If taxing X reduces X then,
I am for taxing the state, taxing anyone employed by the state, taxing anyone associated with the state, or taxing anyone that has any kind of nexus with the state.
I like it. If you must have a STATE let it be composed of volunteers.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz_result?e=100&i=100_100.gif&p=100
