Which tax is the least bad?

[westkybitcoins]

Presuming a society has taxes (safe bet there,) some taxes could be considered more intrusive, less efficient, or generally worse than other taxes.

Which taxes do you feel are the least bad?

Bonus points for explaining why; double points for also pointing out the especially egregious taxes, and explaining why.

[1714855501]

1714855501

[1714855501]

1714855501

[1714855501]

1714855501

[1714855501]

1714855501

[1714855501]

1714855501

[westkybitcoins]

That's like asking which kind of rape is the least bad.

Date rape?
Spousal rape?
Gang rape?
Prison rape?
Statutory rape?
War rape?

I'd prefer no rape.

Same goes for tax.

I suppose if there was something called "voluntary tax" and it was actually voluntary, that would be the least bad kind of tax. It would probably just be called a donation though.

Sorry if that wasn't the answer you were looking for.

I personally agree with you.

However, the purpose of this thread is to focus on which is the least bad, as debated among those who resign themselves to accepting taxes (or who believe taxes are necessary.)

The "why do people think income tax is ok" thread prompted me to start this one.

[bridgesro]

Probably property taxes. They're not usually as expensive and they do go towards something more necessary than what income taxes go towards (namely roads).

[westkybitcoins]

Ok, I guess I'll play. I'll vote for sales tax because it's somewhat easy to opt out of (and I actually get to own property).

I tend to agree that it's one of the more tolerable ones. I'd probably go with corporate income tax, myself. After all, if corporations are going to exist, and get special government-sanctioned privileges, I have little problem with them paying for those privileges.

[westkybitcoins]

Probably property taxes. They're not usually as expensive and they do go towards something more necessary than what income taxes go towards (namely roads).

Understandable.

But what if you had to choose between property taxes or personal income taxes paying for everything? Would that change your mind any?

[odolvlobo]

My view:

Personal income tax - worse than sales tax or VAT
Corporate income tax - unnecessary, redundant
Property tax (land) - otherwise known as confiscation
Property tax (other assets) - otherwise known as confiscation
Sales tax - better than income tax
Estate/Death/Inheritance tax - unnecessary, redundant
Poll/Head tax - fairest of all, but probably not a practical idea
Import/Export tax (Tariffs) - discourages trade
Value-Added tax - better than income tax (same as sales tax)
Capital Gains tax - unnecessary, redundant
Excise tax (fuel, alcohol, etc.) - careful what you ask for
Wealth/Net-Worth tax - otherwise known as confiscation


Some things to note.

- Taxing income discourages production, while taxing spending (sales and VAT) encourages saving and investment.
- Ideally, each person should pay the same amount of tax regardless of income or wealth because the results of government spending should benefit each person equally.
- It is probably a good idea for wealthy people to pay more taxes than poor people because there is a huge social benefit.
- Excise taxes can mitigate externalities, but they frequently cause more problems than they solve.

[bridgesro]

Probably property taxes. They're not usually as expensive and they do go towards something more necessary than what income taxes go towards (namely roads).

Understandable.

But what if you had to choose between property taxes or personal income taxes paying for everything? Would that change your mind any?

Well, that would shoot the property tax up for sure. If they paid for everything income taxes do now? No, I probably wouldn't support them. If I have to pay taxes, I want them to pay only for necessary services.

You must be joking!

If you don't pay your property taxes, you will eventually lose your home / land. Basically, when there is a property tax, you are a renter, not an owner.

I didn't say they were great. The topic is to pick the least of the bad, not which of the bad is actually good. Given what property taxes usually pay for and the fact that they're not a huge burden on most people, I'd say they're not as bad as some of the other taxes.

[Khadaji]

There's only two taxes I'd be more than happy to endorse and pay.

A flat tax ... under 25%

And a sales tax, at a low rate... certainly no higher than 10%.

I consider these the least "bad" because they're perfectly fair.

[Hawker]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

[westkybitcoins]

There's only two taxes I'd be more than happy to endorse and pay.

A flat tax ... under 25%

And a sales tax, at a low rate... certainly no higher than 10%.

I consider these the least "bad" because they're perfectly fair.

By flat tax, you mean a flat personal income tax?

[tkbx]

That's like asking which kind of rape is the least bad.

Date rape?
Spousal rape?
Gang rape?
Prison rape?
Statutory rape?
War rape?

I'd prefer no rape.

Same goes for tax.

I suppose if there was something called "voluntary tax" and it was actually voluntary, that would be the least bad kind of tax. It would probably just be called a donation though.

Sorry if that wasn't the answer you were looking for.

Taxes are necessary. Some of them are unfair or pointless, but I certainly wouldn't compare various taxes to various forms of rape. Maybe a better analogy would be medical procedures - some are painful, some are overly expensive, but lots are necessary.

[westkybitcoins]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

I could almost agree that a property tax on land makes sense, considering government protection is supposed to extend across a domain, except that the usual penalty for not paying (the loss of your land) makes it unconscionable for me.

I disagree that the state creates property rights. The way you've worked that out, you're effectively saying only the state can really own anything, and people have no moral basis for disagreeing with any thing a state wants to do with it's property.

The fact that corporations are *literally* state-created entities is why I have little problem with them being taxed.

[westkybitcoins]

Not a single vote for a death tax.

What if it wasn't redundant, if it was the only tax?

[Khadaji]

There's only two taxes I'd be more than happy to endorse and pay.

A flat tax ... under 25%

And a sales tax, at a low rate... certainly no higher than 10%.

I consider these the least "bad" because they're perfectly fair.

By flat tax, you mean a flat personal income tax?

Yes. A flat percentage of anything earned.

One of the best tax systems I've even seen is the Fair tax... you can read all about it at Fairtax.org

[Hawker]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

I could almost agree that a property tax on land makes sense, considering government protection is supposed to extend across a domain, except that the usual penalty for not paying (the loss of your land) makes it unconscionable for me.

I disagree that the state creates property rights. The way you've worked that out, you're effectively saying only the state can really own anything, and people have no moral basis for disagreeing with any thing a state wants to do with it's property.

The fact that corporations are *literally* state-created entities is why I have little problem with them being taxed.

In the common law system, all land rights are derived from the state and in the event that the owner dies intestate, the state takes it back.  Things like a freehold ownership of a farm or a 999 year leasehold interest in a building or an easement over a riverway are literally state-created entities and we should have any problem with them being taxed.

[bryant.coleman]

Tax on cigars is welcome. Because I don't smoke.

[westkybitcoins]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

I could almost agree that a property tax on land makes sense, considering government protection is supposed to extend across a domain, except that the usual penalty for not paying (the loss of your land) makes it unconscionable for me.

I disagree that the state creates property rights. The way you've worked that out, you're effectively saying only the state can really own anything, and people have no moral basis for disagreeing with any thing a state wants to do with it's property.

The fact that corporations are *literally* state-created entities is why I have little problem with them being taxed.

In the common law system, all land rights are derived from the state and in the event that the owner dies intestate, the state takes it back.  Things like a freehold ownership of a farm or a 999 year leasehold interest in a building or an easement over a riverway are literally state-created entities and we should have any problem with them being taxed.

Yet common law as it currently exists isn't some manifest destiny of societal arrangements.

As I see it, an objective look between taxing corporations as active, functional entities and taxing, well, the ownership of personal land makes for a clear choice as to which should be preferred.

*Why* would you opt to tax land over corporations? Do you feel corporations being taxed creates problems that taxing personal land doesn't? Or do you have issues with some people paying no direct taxes (or with some other philosophical/ideological aspect of it?)

[Khadaji]

Tax on cigars is welcome. Because I don't smoke.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Hawker]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

I could almost agree that a property tax on land makes sense, considering government protection is supposed to extend across a domain, except that the usual penalty for not paying (the loss of your land) makes it unconscionable for me.

I disagree that the state creates property rights. The way you've worked that out, you're effectively saying only the state can really own anything, and people have no moral basis for disagreeing with any thing a state wants to do with it's property.

The fact that corporations are *literally* state-created entities is why I have little problem with them being taxed.

In the common law system, all land rights are derived from the state and in the event that the owner dies intestate, the state takes it back.  Things like a freehold ownership of a farm or a 999 year leasehold interest in a building or an easement over a riverway are literally state-created entities and we should have any problem with them being taxed.

Yet common law as it currently exists isn't some manifest destiny of societal arrangements.

As I see it, an objective look between taxing corporations as active, functional entities and taxing, well, the ownership of personal land makes for a clear choice as to which should be preferred.

*Why* would you opt to tax land over corporations? Do you feel corporations being taxed creates problems that taxing personal land doesn't? Or do you have issues with some people paying no direct taxes (or with some other philosophical/ideological aspect of it?)

For the sake of simplicity, lets assume I can only choose one form of taxation.

I personally have an aversion to hoarders of land and resources.  A resource tax that forces people to either use an asset, say land in a city centre, or to sell it to someone who will use it, seems like a good thing to me.

Corporation tax is a form of indirect tax on consumers.  If there is no resource tax, it may be that the economy is under-performing due to idle assets.  Under these circumstances, taxing consumers, directly or indirectly, is going to make the problem worse.

[odolvlobo]

I personally have an aversion to hoarders of land and resources.  A resource tax that forces people to either use an asset, say land in a city centre, or to sell it to someone who will use it, seems like a good thing to me.

What about the land under your house?