"Voluntary" taxes (i.e. sales tax)

[Chaoticoli]

Does Stefan have any videos explicitly arguing against the legitimacy of the sales tax without resorting to anarchistic arguments (i.e. government shouldn't exist, so sales tax shouldn't exist.)?

[Andrew79]

No idea, but the principle remains the same for any tax, it's nothing but extortion regardless of what it's called. "Anarchistic arguments" completely cover it, don't let anyone claim you're having to "resort" to something when you're simply being consistent and sticking to principles.

Anyone claiming sales tax is voluntary is conflating the choice of purchasing or not with the compulsion of paying the tax. If sales tax truly was voluntary, when you make a purchase you would be asked if you wish to pay it or not. You aren't, so there's nothing voluntary about it.

[Chaoticoli]

What do you say to someone who insistently claims that it's voluntary because you don't have to buy goods? It seems like way too long of a discussion that may not be worth it at all. It seems like I'd have to get down to the social contract and have to debate anarchy for the ideas to stick in.

[Andrew79]

I wouldn't: when I've explained my position to the best of my abilities once, I'm not going to keep repeating it or try to find new material if someone's simply going to say the same thing over and over again. I'm just going to move on.

Don't waste your time with these people.

[Chaoticoli]

I just wish there was a more comforting solution :/. Thanks for the feedback, though.

[Andrew79]

There might be a better, less awkward way of putting it, but even if you find a pithy little phrase, you won't "win".

They'll find another problem and so on.

If they don't accept the principles, your individual arguments will hold no water at all.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

Voluntary taxation is an oxymoron. You can point your debate opponent to a dictionary for evidence that taxation is compulsory and then you can point them to a thesaurus for evidence that tax and compulsion are not synonymous.

 

Or, you can ask them if they support consensual rape... if they enjoy watching the sun rise into the darkness... if they eat cow pork...

 

In the end, trade is voluntary. Taxation is not.

[Formelyknown]

What would be similar to a tax in a voluntary society would be something like this:

The shopkeeper sign a contract with local community to pay 1 bitcoin per month the maintain the roads that lead to his shop. The shopkeeper will set the prices so that all peoples purchasing his stuffs will help him pay for the road. You won't see it but it will explain why you paid 2 bitcoins instead of 1.96 bitcoins for your family weekly grocery.

[Magnus]

 

What do you say to someone who insistently claims that it's voluntary because you don't have to buy goods? It seems like way too long of a discussion that may not be worth it at all. It seems like I'd have to get down to the social contract and have to debate anarchy for the ideas to stick in.

 

I would calmly point out that there are two transactions here -- (1) the sale and (2) the tax.  There can be no doubt that there are two transactions involved, because there are two entirely different sets of parties to the two transactions -- the sale transaction occurs between a seller and a buyer, but the tax transaction occurs between the buyer and the government. 

Don't be confused by the fact that the two transactions are typically coupled, or that they occur at close to the same time, or that the tax is collected by the seller (who, at that moment, is acting as a tax-collection agent for the government).  The sale and the tax are definitely two separate transactions, because the seller does not get to keep the tax he collects.  That portion is not his money.

As to the voluntary/involuntary issue, the sale transaction is voluntary.  Then, that voluntary transaction is used as a basis for calculating a tax (which is compulsory).  Payment of the tax is not voluntary.

"Voluntary" means that the other party to a transaction will not retaliate against you if you decline to make the bargain. 

If someone offers to sell you something, and you refuse, and you can walk away without threat of retaliation, then it's a voluntary trade. 

In contrast, try walking away from the payment of the tax, and see if the recipient (i.e., the government) decides to retaliate.  They do.  They (mistakenly) consider refusing to pay them to be stealing, and they respond accordingly.

[Kawlinz]

 

What do you say to someone who insistently claims that it's voluntary because you don't have to buy goods? It seems like way too long of a discussion that may not be worth it at all. It seems like I'd have to get down to the social contract and have to debate anarchy for the ideas to stick in.

 

Buying goods is voluntary. But if you own the store and choose to either not charge taxes or not pay the taxes for your business... we know what happens.

[Guest spam dumpster]

I would say it like, "Voluntary 'taxes'" because taxes, by definition, are mandatory.  However, it would be possible for a state to acquire money through voluntary "taxes."  That doesn't address the other moral concerns about the state, but some examples currently in place would be voluntary lotteries and selling mock hunting licenses for jackalopes.

 

Nobody has to play the lottery or buy these souveniers.  It's technically possible to fund a state entirely through these voluntary monetary exchanges (though they're not technically taxes).  But, once you do that, you still have to figure out how you're going to solve the other moral problems of the state.

 

By the way, sales tax isn't voluntary unless you can choose to buy something without paying it.

[Chaoticoli]

I argued that the person owning the business has to charge sales tax. Since this tax exists, it decreases their profits. This decreasing of profits due to taxation is effectively stealing. 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

I argued that the person owning the business has to charge sales tax. Since this tax exists, it decreases their profits. This decreasing of profits due to taxation is effectively stealing. 

 

 

The problem with that argument is that we have no way to know how a business owner would structure his pricing in the absence of sales tax. The likelihood is that due to competition, the prices of goods would not go up and thus, profits would not go up. Ulitmately, the compulsory nature of the tax is all one needs to demonstrate in order to prove it is not voluntary.

[Andrew79]

They'll find another problem and so on.

There's a perfect example of that in the "Corporations wouldn't exist without the State" thread:

Person A: In a voluntary trade, all that participate are winners, with no losers. This is a fundamental fact of economics.

Person B: There is NO evidence for your claim. Your claim is not varifiable, and I donnot accept it. On the other hand my claim is verifiable because it's all around us, every day.

Person A: If you want the Ipod more than you want the money and Apple want the money more than the Ipod, who exactly loses?

Person B: I can't afford either, but taking yours wouldn't make you happy. That would be stealing. Of course when a lot of people can't afford stuff any more stealing bread becomes survival.  If you can't handle this simple angle without talking about toys then I don't want to have this discussion with you.

Person B demonstrates he's not interested in honest debate.

As you engage people about politics you'll get this sort of thing a lot (most of the time it's not quite as blatant as this). And although it can be hard, the best option is just to move on otherwise you'll just be banging your head into a brickwall. (Typical warning signs of this sort of behavior are people going on about how open-minded they are and how they smart they are, moving onto how they're scientific and pragmatic, while you're religious and dogmatic.)

So don't waste your time with them, you'll just end up annoyed with their smug sneering.

[Chaoticoli]

 

 

I argued that the person owning the business has to charge sales tax. Since this tax exists, it decreases their profits. This decreasing of profits due to taxation is effectively stealing. 

 

 

The problem with that argument is that we have no way to know how a business owner would structure his pricing in the absence of sales tax. The likelihood is that due to competition, the prices of goods would not go up and thus, profits would not go up. Ulitmately, the compulsory nature of the tax is all one needs to demonstrate in order to prove it is not voluntary.

 

I disagree. There is another side to the equation. Although it's a very small amount, when there are taxes on goods, it will inevitably reduce demand for that product. In Michigan, there is a $.06/$1 sales tax. So, that means that every customer must pay $.06/$1 more than they would have given there was no tax.  This amount is not very significant, but it does add up. Any profits a business does not make because of government (regardless of how small the profits or government is) is still wrong. Government should not be able to take any money from you because you are not consenting of the government, regardless of the fallacious social contract. 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

 

 

I argued that the person owning the business has to charge sales tax. Since this tax exists, it decreases their profits. This decreasing of profits due to taxation is effectively stealing. 

 

 

The problem with that argument is that we have no way to know how a business owner would structure his pricing in the absence of sales tax. The likelihood is that due to competition, the prices of goods would not go up and thus, profits would not go up. Ulitmately, the compulsory nature of the tax is all one needs to demonstrate in order to prove it is not voluntary.

 

I disagree. There is another side to the equation. Although it's a very small amount, when there are taxes on goods, it will inevitably reduce demand for that product. In Michigan, there is a $.06/$1 sales tax. So, that means that every customer must pay $.06/$1 more than they would have given there was no tax.  This amount is not very significant, but it does add up. Any profits a business does not make because of government (regardless of how small the profits or government is) is still wrong. Government should not be able to take any money from you because you are not consenting of the government, regardless of the fallacious social contract. 

 

 

I'm sorry, I didn't think about that when I responded. You're correct, if taxation causes consumers to spend less, that reflects negatively on the overall profits of businesses. I was thinking from a profit margin perspective only.

[Ferm5]

 

I would say it like, "Voluntary 'taxes'" because taxes, by definition, are mandatory.  However, it would be possible for a state to acquire money through voluntary "taxes."  That doesn't address the other moral concerns about the state, but some examples currently in place would be voluntary lotteries and selling mock hunting licenses for jackalopes.

 Nobody has to play the lottery or buy these souveniers.  It's technically possible to fund a state entirely through these voluntary monetary exchanges (though they're not technically taxes).  But, once you do that, you still have to figure out how you're going to solve the other moral problems of the state.

 By the way, sales tax isn't voluntary unless you can choose to buy something without paying it.

 

If a govt sells lottery tickets or some other product/service to fund itself, then it's not govt. It's just a business offering a service and using the profit to do things.

A sales tax, however, is coercive. A business offers a product or service. A govt forces you to pay a sales tax everytime you buy a certain product. The moral distinction is clear. To say it's voluntary because you can choose not to buy the product is like saying the US govt is voluntary because you can choose to live elsewhere.

Another way to think about is does the govt have monopoly on the sales tax? Can anyone impose a sales tax on the people? Anyone can sell lottery tickets to others w/o having a monopoly. But you can't impose a sales tax w/o a monopoly. The monopoly makes it govt.

[Metric]

Altough it's easy to say that all taxes are inherently evil (which is true), I think there's an extremely obvious and pronounced "heirarchy of evil" when it comes to taxes.  Something that would make a very interesting video to flesh out.

Personal income taxes are by far the worst -- it's straight-up "fractional slavery."  You're an asset of the government who forces you to report in every year on your profitability, and hand over whatever they tell you to.

Property taxes are right up there as well -- if you have to continuously pay someone else to continue to own it, then you don't actually own it (another slave position).

Import fees and the like are kind of "middle of the road" -- the individual doesn't get burned too badly, but the government is definitely staking out its territory and restricting what an individual can do when he crosses a border.

Corporate income taxes and the "fair tax" seem *almost* legitimate, if you were to accept the legitimacy of the corporation.  A corporation is a creation of the government with certain benefits, so paying the government in return for the liability shield they offer is *almost* a legitimate trade, and not very invasive to the average individual at all (he isn't forced to report to his owner every year with a bundle of cash -- he just pays higher prices when he trades with corporations).

[Existing Alternatives]

 

I would say it like, "Voluntary 'taxes'" because taxes, by definition, are mandatory.  However, it would be possible for a state to acquire money through voluntary "taxes."  That doesn't address the other moral concerns about the state, but some examples currently in place would be voluntary lotteries and selling mock hunting licenses for jackalopes.

Nobody has to play the lottery or buy these souveniers.  It's technically possible to fund a state entirely through these voluntary monetary exchanges (though they're not technically taxes).  But, once you do that, you still have to figure out how you're going to solve the other moral problems of the state.

 

Governments are usually only successful in raising funds through lotteries when they set a monopoly on issuing these lotteries. In a true free-market environment there is always competition that will undercut the profits and all but eradicate any funds being raised. These monopolies are usually maintained by means of … violence. So, no, no dice for “voluntary taxation”.

Funny enough, as government always grows, there are tonnes of examples in history of these voluntary lotteries eventually becoming less voluntary, but rather just another form of explicit taxation.

 

[Existing Alternatives]

If the sales tax is moral because you have the right not to buy anything, wouldn’t income tax be just as moral because you have a similar right not to earn anything? At the same time, since you can avoid being raped by locking yourself in your own house, does it make rape any more moral?

[Existing Alternatives]

 

Corporate income taxes and the "fair tax" seem *almost* legitimate, if you were to accept the legitimacy of the corporation.  A corporation is a creation of the government with certain benefits, so paying the government in return for the liability shield they offer is *almost* a legitimate trade, and not very invasive to the average individual at all (he isn't forced to report to his owner every year with a bundle of cash -- he just pays higher prices when he trades with corporations).

 

That’s a very interesting point that I never heard or thought of. Usually, I would argue that corporations are income producing tools of individuals and since individuals are taxed on the output of their tools, taxing tools is nothing short of double taxation. But saying that corporate tax is simply “protection money” for the liability removal – that’s something I’d need to internalize. Thanks!

[Metric]

 

 

Corporate income taxes and the "fair tax" seem *almost* legitimate, if you were to accept the legitimacy of the corporation.  A corporation is a creation of the government with certain benefits, so paying the government in return for the liability shield they offer is *almost* a legitimate trade, and not very invasive to the average individual at all (he isn't forced to report to his owner every year with a bundle of cash -- he just pays higher prices when he trades with corporations).

 

That’s a very interesting point that I never heard or thought of. Usually, I would argue that corporations are income producing tools of individuals and since individuals are taxed on the output of their tools, taxing tools is nothing short of double taxation. But saying that corporate tax is simply “protection money” for the liability removal – that’s something I’d need to internalize. Thanks!

 

Yeah, one could imgaine that people could still choose to do business without a liability shield if they so desired, in which case the corporate tax really would be a voluntary trade -- a liability shield for a percentage.  But the largest businesses would almost certainly "buy" their liability shield, because in doing billions of dollars of business per year with millions of people, you know that someone somewhere is going to take you to court eventually (for spilling hot coffee on themselves or whatever). 

Of course, it all breaks down when you realize that a "liability shield" is an artificial thing to begin with -- the government would effectively be selling away my ability to hold someone responsible for something they did to me.  So from that perspective it's still immoral and probably quite damaging when scaled up, but at least the average Joe isn't explicitly a slave.

That's why I think it it would be interesting to see the "heirarchy of evil" explored in a video -- people tend to be drawn to "ranking things" and will buy into a certain, difficult premise more readily if there seems to be some kind of calculus about the whole thing.  You can always ask a statist, "Which form of taxation do YOU find to be the least like human ownership?" and you might even see them process the question and return an actual answer.

[Libertus]

Of course, it all breaks down when you realize that a "liability shield" is an artificial thing to begin with -- the government would effectively be selling away my ability to hold someone responsible for something they did to me.  So from that perspective it's still immoral and probably quite damaging when scaled up, but at least the average Joe isn't explicitly a slave.

But he is a slave. He's also the tax payer who foots the bill if something goes wrong. Liability shield means, someone else pays for damages. That is - Joe.

 

[Metric]

 

Of course, it all breaks down when you realize that a "liability shield" is an artificial thing to begin with -- the government would effectively be selling away my ability to hold someone responsible for something they did to me.  So from that perspective it's still immoral and probably quite damaging when scaled up, but at least the average Joe isn't explicitly a slave.

But he is a slave. He's also the tax payer who foots the bill if something goes wrong. Liability shield means, someone else pays for damages. That is - Joe.

 

 

I don't disagree with you on principle.  I'm just saying there is a very interesting and under-discussed heirarchy here.  At the top is full-on, unapologetic "get back in yer box" slavery.  A little under that is "report to me every year with a bundle of cash you made or else I throw you in a box."  Down near the bottom is "you can't sue Mr. Jones because he bought a liability shield from us -- you can only sue his corporation."  If we had the latter, the state would probably fly under my personal ethical radar (at least between other outrages they cause), and it would be easier to direct my energies elsewhere.

[Dumitru]

Why is the word voluntary in the thead title in quotation marks?

 

 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

Why is the word voluntary in the thead title in quotation marks?

 

 

 

Because it is an evasive use of the word voluntary, in that you either pay the attached tax at consumption or you don't buy the good/service. You can choose not to pay the tax but you can not choose not to pay the tax and still buy the good or service.

[NumberSix]

Currently there is proposed legislation to force internet based stores to collect sales taxes in every jurisdiction they sell in.  What you need to know, is that, right now, the consumers are legally obligated to pay these taxes; however it is almost impossible to enforce, making them almost voluntary.  I can’t find the article, but the percentage of consumers who paid these taxes was around 1% in California.  So, people are breaking the law to not pay sales taxes when they can get away with it.  Californians spend freely on Amazon.com before sales tax deadlinehttp://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/05/business/la-fi-amazon-shopping-spree-20120905Internet Sales Tax: Here Come the Auditorshttp://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/29/internet-sales-tax-here-come-the-auditors/

[Libertus]

 

Why is the word voluntary in the thead title in quotation marks?

Simple, because taxes are, by definition, never voluntary, if they were, they would be called donations.