Comment by carlosjobim
2 days ago
What gives the taxman a right to the fruits of a persons labor? There is of course no other argument for this than "or we kill you". Tax on income is another form of slavery and serfdom. Especially when you consider that a large proportion of slaves through history were free to roam and had to find their own source of income to pay a weekly or monthly fee to their owner.
All other forms of taxation at least have arguments to ethically justify them, including land taxation.
The cooperative will of people?
The argument is not "pay taxes or we kill you", it's "pay taxes or get out of our town". No one is a slave, if the government asks for too much and provides too little, people will move.
I live in a town with non-trivial taxes. It was my personal decision to move there, no one said "move there or we kill you". When choosing a place to live, I could have moved to some other city/state/country with lower taxes, but I've decided not to. I like that we have working utilities, parks, roads, schools, law enforcement, stores. The town had a vote to increase town tax to raise money for schools and libraries, more than 70% approved.
I don't care about your ethical reasoning about tax types, if you want to live in my town, you contribute to the town's well-being. If you refuse to, on any grounds... well, maybe some other place will be a better fit for you.
Roads, libraries etc. Why is it better that those are paid from income taxes rather than property taxes? Or sales taxes or tariffs etc?
You're arguing "end justifies the means" and "might is right". "My town" and all as you argue.
Unless you truly believe that people choose where and how they will be born, which of course might be the case. And then they only have themselves to blame, as you say.
I'd like to hear how you think land tax is ethically better. You mention serfdom, which is most similarly linked to land tax as the serfs would have to pay the lord for existing on that place. Likewise, your mention of roaming slaves forgets that they had to pay some value every period and were not allowed to simply not work, which is more similar to property tax where you must pay regardless of income or ability or pay.
> your mention of roaming slaves forget
I mention it right there in the very same sentence, you must have stopped halfway.
> I'd like to hear how you think land tax is ethically better.
First things first - "better" is a bit strong of a word since there has never been any argument made in favour for taxing labour except for "might is right" or "the end justifies the means". If you have an argument except for those to why it is ethically right by itself to tax somebody for working, then I'd like to hear it.
Now for the argument in favor of land tax:
Nobody has any inherent right to "own" land. The concept of "owning" is an invention and is also completely absurd once you think deeply and clearly about it. God created all land and it has been there for millions of years before anybody set foot upon it and claimed ownership. Claiming to own the land - and what more claiming to have a right to transfer that ownership to anybody but your children - is something of an abomination.
Compared to owning your labour and the fruits of your labour. Which is an extension of owning your own body. Or owning something you've purchased and can bring with you wherever you go.
The government itself is an extension of the concept of land ownership. So it is natural that they would levy taxes on their vassals - people claiming ownership of any land. The government vouches for your unjustifiable claim on this land and you pay them for the privilege. It also fits very well with the concept of governments being limited geographically in extension.
I don't claim that there aren't very good arguments against taxing land, but there are at least ethical and logical arguments for it, while taxation of labour have no such arguments in favor.
You can also argue ethically in favour of taxation on foreign trade - tariffs. Because in such, the government doesn't interfere in what people do within their country.
> You mention serfdom, which is most similarly linked to land tax as the serfs would have to pay the lord for existing on that place.
You forget that the serfs are given no right to sell the land, which is why they are serfs and not lords. That's the most important factor. The lord certainly did pay a land tax to the king.