pull down to refresh
Yeah, I suppose the idea of "non-theft" taxation is that it is self imposed. We have the phrase "no taxation without representation" because it implies that taxation with representation is consented to and therefore not theft. Maybe there was a world where this was true, but it doesn't much feel like it anymore.
Definitely in the case of this proposed tax, it feels very much like theft, and it caught my eye because of how blatantly the person in the quote was willing to say it.
Representation doesn't make any taxes just (minor caveats excluded) but it does alter which taxes are feasible.
I like this mindset, but I have questions:
Are use taxes just?
How about tariffs?
What is your preferred method for funding a government?
Since taxes are involuntary by definition, I don't think they can be just. Since they are involuntary, my preference is that they be as avoidable as possible: i.e. only on luxury/sin goods.
Tariffs on goods between private parties are certainly unjust, but when one or both parties are state actors (or other criminals) it becomes less clear.
I'd prefer the government not be funded and just go away. If I can't have my top choice, then I think funding it through fines and fees levied against legitimately criminal acts is the best way to fund it. Taxes and fines on antisocial behaviors, narrowly defined, would be the next best.
Edit: On the representation note, I'd also say people shouldn't have to pay taxes unless the person they vote for wins and they're in the ruling party.
That's the underlying rationale for all taxes (and basically all other forms of theft).