What is the ideal method of Taxation for libertarians?

[ClayTrainor]

i see alot of talk from people around here about how they are against direct taxes, and even some who are against any form of taxation whatsoever.

What, in your mind is the best way to go about funding a constitutionally sized government? Taxing the Free Market? the government needs at least some money to function right?

 

[Andrew-Austin]

lol, well.... I'm not sure where other libertarians stand, but I'm primarily just against property tax and income tax.

 

[Brassmouth]

A voluntary tax system. If the government was doing a good job, people would be happy to pay.

Same for local level, most people would see the importance of police, fire stations, so they'd pay anyway.

This way it isnt coercive and the government is limited by what we the people see fit to give it.

 

[OKRonPaul]

Voluntary is nice, but I can't see it ever working. I'd like to see taxes in logical places as much as possible.

gas tax pays for roads - makes sense to me. Not sure you can do that for everything.

I live in a rural area, volunteer fire department. I pay a couple bucks extra on my electric bill for the fire department. I could choose not to, but then if they did have to come out I'd get a bill. It's basically insurance.

 

[Kade]

lol, well.... I'm not sure where other libertarians stand, but I'm primarily just against property tax and income tax.

You and I agree on something. I too am against property tax and income tax.

 

[Mini-Me]

I am absolutely against property tax and personal income tax. Inherited assets cannot always be objectively differentiated from personal income tax, so unless a non-privacy-invading way could be found for collecting on inheritance, I'm absolutely against that one as well. Except for logical taxes like gas taxes to pay for roads, I'm absolutely against excise taxes as well, because moral high-horses can use them to effectively ban the sale of products they don't like...and even when you're dealing with "logical" taxes like gas taxes, you have to be careful. After all, lobbyists could easily push for taxes against the kind of products their competitors sell. (That's not to say alternative energy wouldn't be a better idea in the long run than gas anyway...but still...)

I feel that the federal government should only be able to levy tariffs (uniform, as yongrel says below) and tax the states. At the state level, I wouldn't object to one of the following: Business income tax, sales tax, tariffs, VAT's, etc...but whatever tax is chosen, it should be very low and only enough to fund the absolutely essential functions of government (from the Constitutional rights-protection perspective). I don't like any taxes, but I'm not an anarchist, and I'm pragmatic enough to see that certain government functions, like high-tech defense, cannot be paid for with user fees alone.

 

[yongrel]

If we must be taxed, I think it makes sense to have a universal border tax for both imports and exports. Say a .05% tax on goods imported and exported across the border. It would apply equally to all products from all countries, and would be rather slight, so as to not interefere in any meaningful way with the markets. Also, this border tax would essentially be charging for a service, since the goods are either entering or exiting from the law enforcement jurisdiction of the government levying the tax. As someone paying this fee, I would either be preemptively or retroactively paying for the services of law and order granted to me within the border of the country.

This is just my fanciful musing.

 

[dannno]

If we must be taxed, I think it makes sense to have a universal border tax for both imports and exports. Say a .05% tax on goods imported and exported across the border. It would apply equally to all products from all countries, and would be rather slight, so as to not interefere in any meaningful way with the markets. Also, this border tax would essentially be charging for a service, since the goods are either entering or exiting from the law enforcement jurisdiction of the government levying the tax. As someone paying this fee, I would either be preemptively or retroactively paying for the services of law and order granted to me within the border of the country.

This is just my fanciful musing.

I made a similar post yesterday.

 

[jblosser]

A voluntary tax system. If the government was doing a good job, people would be happy to pay.

Same for local level, most people would see the importance of police, fire stations, so they'd pay anyway.

This way it isnt coercive and the government is limited by what we the people see fit to give it.

This. People pay for what they want, and if they fail to pay for it, it doesn't happen.

Voluntary is nice, but I can't see it ever working. I'd like to see taxes in logical places as much as possible.

This means you assume people are not smart enough or logical enough to pay for things they want, and must be forced to do so.

gas tax pays for roads - makes sense to me. Not sure you can do that for everything.

Usage fees make complete sense, and are voluntary in that if you don't want to pay them, you don't use the service. But how often are gas taxes today used for anything related to highways?

 

[rbu]

Free Market

 

[ClayTrainor]

Free Market

you mean, tax the free market?

 

[IPSecure]

What is the ideal method of Taxation for libertarians?

Just like marriage: "'Till Death Do Us Part!"

 

[SeanEdwards]

If we must be taxed, I think it makes sense to have a universal border tax for both imports and exports. Say a .05% tax on goods imported and exported across the border. It would apply equally to all products from all countries, and would be rather slight, so as to not interefere in any meaningful way with the markets. Also, this border tax would essentially be charging for a service, since the goods are either entering or exiting from the law enforcement jurisdiction of the government levying the tax. As someone paying this fee, I would either be preemptively or retroactively paying for the services of law and order granted to me within the border of the country.

This is just my fanciful musing.

I agree with this.

In addition to massively simplifying the tax code, this would have the added benefit of increasing the friction that opposes globalization.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

i see alot of talk from people around here about how they are against direct taxes, and even some who are against any form of taxation whatsoever.

What, in your mind is the best way to go about funding a constitutionally sized government? Taxing the Free Market? the government needs at least some money to function right?

no taxes

second best is voluntary contributions

the third is to leave taxes to states

the fourth would be a flat tax

ordered from ideal to less ideal

 

[nickcoons]

As a libertarian, I oppose all forms of taxation. I don't understand how a libertarian can support any taxation.

Conventional wisdom puts the so-called “necessary evil” of taxation on par with death—inevitable, unavoidable, the way the world works. Our society seems to believe that taxation is indispensable to civilization. Our ancestors once believed the same thing about slavery.

Today, we know better. Slavery is not only unnecessary to civilization, but hinders its development. What we call “evil” has a way of doing that.

One day, the “necessary evil” of taxation will be recognized for what libertarians know it to be: legalized theft, a hindrance to civilization, prosperity, harmony, and happiness.

- Dr. Mary Ruwart

I love going into all the different ways of answering the question "but how do you pay for things without taxes?", but that's already been done.

 

[Truth Warrior]

i see alot of talk from people around here about how they are against direct taxes, and even some who are against any form of taxation whatsoever.

What, in your mind is the best way to go about funding a constitutionally sized government? Taxing the Free Market? the government needs at least some money to function right?

I'd say the current Federal government is "constitutionally sized".

Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." -- Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

1. User Fees.
ie. Pay per use, or pay flat fee per year.
User choice as to which within practical constraints.
Users go to a web page, pick level of government, pick what they want to pay for and how.

2. Minting/Storing fees of Gold/Silver by government
(private sector competition in minting and storing is allowed, but small tax is payable to government in case of minting,
because government delegated their responsibility allowing for a profit to be made)

3. Interest on loans of Gold/Silver by government
(private sector competition in lending is allowed)

4. No Taxes otherwise.

5. No Tariffs otherwise.

 

[Kalifornia]

in a minarchic society, we must have some means to pay for minimal government. I think that taxes should be levied in the order that they impact personal individual liberty, with preference on those that impact liberty less.

1. Universal Tarriff - People are free to choose to import and export or not, and could likely avoid this tax altogether without too much difficulty. A minimal 1% tax on all goods imported or exported (with a preference on taxing imports) would provide ample resources to fund the necessities of a national federal level government.

2. Land and natural resources tax - Those who have not thought this through may disagree with me. But even Jefferson (google "jefferson usufruct") recognized the utility of requiring payment from those of us who hold access to marketable natural resources (land, water rights, mineral deposits, timber, etc...) as a means of providing a balancing force to counter the natural inherent tendency in a society for some families to acquire and horde these resources, or also to deincentivize individuals from destroying the land. A fair tax levied only on the value of the land itself (say anything over 40 acres) and the natural resources it provides, or on the despoiling of natural resources, not only incentivizes good stewardship, but it also gives incentive for unused land to be returned to the market, increasing access to land by nonlanded people.

To avoid this tax, people simply would not purchase large parcels of land or resource rights.

Consider this a 'use tax' on an excessive share of the one true unavoidable commons that exists in any society (land and natural resources).

3. Corporate Income taxes - So long as corporations enjoy liability limitation as an incentive to pool capital, they ALWAYS will be creating damage to society that they can externalize to others. it is only fair to create a countervailing disincentive that will benefit society at large. Since availing ones self of the corporate business entity is voluntary, I see no intrusion of personal liberty to require corporations to pay income taxes. If one does not wish to pay corporate income tax, he must simply take full responsibility for the liabilities he incurs in the course of his business.

4. Sales Tax - While it would certainly be harder to do than the above examples, a universal, minimally invasive, sales tax on all goods provides a revenue stream, while also allowing people to withhold their support of the government. Say, for example, the government decides to go off on some foreign intervention that is not supported by the people. Well, all they have to do is retreat to their homesteads and avoid engaging in the marketplace for a while. Soon the government will cease receiving funding, and will have to stop their expenditures or soon go bankrupt. this concept applies to the tarrif equally.




Other taxes such as the personal income tax are abominations and too intrusive upon individual liberty to be contemplated.

 

[Matt Collins]

I live in a rural area, volunteer fire department. I pay a couple bucks extra on my electric bill for the fire department. I could choose not to, but then if they did have to come out I'd get a bill. It's basically insurance.

Why not just have everyone who wants fire protection simply pay in a voluntary fee to the fire department? Your insurance rates would be lower which would be an incentive to do so.

 

[Matt Collins]

I am absolutely against property tax and personal income tax. Inherited assets cannot always be objectively differentiated from personal income tax, so unless a non-privacy-invading way could be found for collecting on inheritance, I'm absolutely against that one as well.

Inheritance and capital gains tax are just as, if not more, insidious than the income and property tax.


The income and inheritance taxes are designed whether on purpse or not to limit upward class mobility. That's right, these two taxes keep the middle class from moving into the wealthy category. If my parents parents had left them a few hundred thousand dollars, and then when my parents pass if they leave me a few hundred thousand plus what they inherited, and then I build my own wealth and then leave that to my kids (assuming I ever get an opportunity to mate ha ha), my kids would probably be millionaires and have an enitrely different world of options available to them throughout life. It's called changing the family tree. The inherentence tax and the capital gains tax stop this process.

The Kennedy and Bush families are prime examples. Their long ago ancestors were not wealthy. Both of which just a couple of generations ago were able to amass wealth and then pass that onto their kids. Look at the opportunities members of both families have had because of it.