Which tax is the least bad?

[Khadaji]

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.

Who's to say what "use" is?

Freedom and prosperity are directly correlated with the personal right to own things.

Where you cannot own things, or where the state can freely take away your property - you don't have prosperity.

[1714858653]

1714858653

[Hawker]

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?

Its a resource so pay tax on it. 

[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.

Who's to say what "use" is?

Freedom and prosperity are directly correlated with the personal right to own things.

Where you cannot own things, or where the state can freely take away your property - you don't have prosperity.

A resource tax forces a "use" that generates income.  The resource owner is free to do what he wants and if he is rich enough to leave the resource idle, he can do that. 

[Khadaji]

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.

Who's to say what "use" is?

Freedom and prosperity are directly correlated with the personal right to own things.

Where you cannot own things, or where the state can freely take away your property - you don't have prosperity.

A resource tax forces a "use" that generates income.  The resource owner is free to do what he wants and if he is rich enough to leave the resource idle, he can do that. 

So you'd be against Nature conservancy groups in principle?

[AnonyMint]

You forgot the choice for "no taxes". Sorry I can't vote.

Tax funds the government which enslaves us. Why would any one want to be a slave?

[countryfree]

I've chosen property tax, because it's quite normal if you own a land to pay a little for maintaining roads going to it, taking out the garbage, and that kind of stuff. I'm surprised so many chose corporation tax, because that couldn't work everywhere. Big corporations are plentiful in America or Europe, but there are plenty of poor countries with very few companies.

About income or asset-related taxes, I'm against all of them for the simple reason that I don't want anyone (besides family and friends) to know how much I'm making, nor what I own. I don't want to hide (I don't), but I want my privacy.

[Hawker]

...snip...

A resource tax forces a "use" that generates income.  The resource owner is free to do what he wants and if he is rich enough to leave the resource idle, he can do that. 

So you'd be against Nature conservancy groups in principle?

Its a poll about if there was only one way to raise tax what would it be.  Lets not pollute it by getting into a tax expenditures system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_expenditure

If it's important for you we can make a new thread.

[westkybitcoins]

Not a single vote for a death tax.

To the rescue!

Inheritance tax is a tax on unearned income that you get purely based on your relatedness to some-one who was wealthy. Inheritance fosters entrenched privilege and wealthy dynasties and should be taxed heavily.

Otherwise, I vote as a general rule for forms of tax where the wealthy pay more than the poor. I believe that people have the right to a basic standard of living which should be subsidised by those who are fortunate enough to have a standard of living far higher.

I would also favour wealth and property taxes over income taxes - hoarding should be penalised rather than working.

While I can see where you come from with favoring property taxes over income taxes, you'd rather penalize saving/hoarding rather than consumption? I'd take a sales tax or excise tax over property tax any day, even if you had to massage the specifics (don't tax food or basic needs, etc.) to make it less weighty on the poor.

[Bonam]

I don't like the idea of property tax. Once you've purchased property, you shouldn't have to be a renter on said property. I would support shifting revenue sources to other types of taxes if property tax could be done away with.

I find income/payroll taxes offensive, but they are the ones most visible to a large portion of the population, and so should likely stick around. If taxes were all hidden on corporate profits and such so that ordinary people didn't see them, the general population would be howling for even more government spending and entitlements. As it is now, at least there is a considerable part of the population that opposes greater taxation for the purpose of greater government spending. Taxes need to remain visible and painful, otherwise government will grow even more quickly.

[Twilight_Sparkle]

Voluntary(donation) tax is best, sales tax is the least bad, cause at least it promotes saving. Still theft though.

[odolvlobo]

I believe that people have the right to a basic standard of living which should be subsidised by those who are fortunate enough to have a standard of living far higher.

I am well-off by Western standards and I assure you that luck has nothing to do with it. My solidly middle class parents worked hard to give me a good education and I have worked hard and put that education to good use. I am certainly not "fortunate". I object to your trivialization of my effort and your desire to confiscate the results of it.

I also want to point out that people living in "poverty" in Western countries are considered wealthy by the rest of the world. Do you feel that they should also subsidize the rest of the world?

[westkybitcoins]

I also want to point out that people living in "poverty" in Western countries are considered wealthy by the rest of the world. Do you feel that they should also subsidize the rest of the world?

Well, that's one of the root problems with wealth redistribution; how far should the attempt to redistribute be extended? Within a neighborhood (where charity works best?) Within a region? A nation? Globally? Wouldn't anything less than global redistribution be arbitrary?

Apparently though, one's predisposition towards it seems to influence once's preference of certain taxes over others. In ways I hadn't expected, really.

[practicaldreamer]

I am well-off by Western standards and I assure you that luck has nothing to do with it.

Luck has had everything to do with it   

[Kiki112]

wealth tax, take the money from rich people and give it to poor people

Robin Hood style goverment

[jbrnt]

I think tax is fine if the rate is low. I would prefer a sales tax rather than an income tax. Poll/head tax is probably the fairest.

[westkybitcoins]

Maybe I should have started with just asking who believes the primary purpose of taxation is outright wealth redistribution. That's for another thread now, I suppose....

[jbrnt]

Maybe I should have started with just asking who believes the primary purpose of taxation is outright wealth redistribution. That's for another thread now, I suppose....

What do you believe is the primary purpose of taxation?
I am just thinking about paying for law enforcement, fireman, building roads and so forth.

[btcton]

I voted for import/export taxes. The way I see it, each country has to protect itself from other countries' production and exports, and import taxes are a good way to protect the economy against it. No protection would just devaluate the nation's currency even more due to other countries selling stuff for a cheaper price (#BitcoinMasterCoin). But then again, this goes against many capitalist principles. I would like to see someone's reply to this (though, take it easy on me).

[westkybitcoins]

Maybe I should have started with just asking who believes the primary purpose of taxation is outright wealth redistribution. That's for another thread now, I suppose....

What do you believe is the primary purpose of taxation?
I am just thinking about paying for law enforcement, fireman, building roads and so forth.

Well, I don't believe taxes are an appropriate way of paying for societal needs, but I used to, and when I did the primary justification was (1) for centralized defensive expenditures that might be difficult to arrange privately (an army, police, etc.) and (2) for common-use goods/services that everyone needs yet would have questionable benefit from competition (primarily roads and courts.)

Of course, I would still rate those as the strongest arguments as far as what the purpose of taxes should be. Anything not for group-use (and this includes handing out charity) can be done by individual people and/or organizations, so why bother with bureaucratic centralization, expensive middlemen and politicizing the task? (The "free rider" problem can be addressed in a variety of ways beyond forcing everyone to pay for everything.)

[Elwar]

The gas tax to pay for roads is about the "least bad". It is as close to a pay per use as you can get.