what is a fair tax?

[Michael Fisher]

On the subject of "fair taxation", I'll address the national sales tax idea.

With the FairTax, the government would soon have databases of every transaction in the entire country.  Every economic aspect of our lives would be under tight government control.

FairTax proponents push for a national sales tax while ignoring the near impossibility of eliminating the 16th amendment.  This would leave us with yet another national tax.

The FairTax would be a complete disaster on many fronts, the least of which is the rapid destruction of consumer privacy and expansion of the government.

All monopolies of force are illegitimate.  The heart of government beats inside each of us with violence and death, and pumps blood of pure evil through the veins of all who participate in it.  We should not fund or participate in government at all, through any means.

Sincerely,

Michael
Ex-Vermont State Director of Americans for Fair Taxation

[KBCraig]

So long as government --all levels, from school board to federal-- remains as large and powerful as we have today, there will be no fair tax. So long as government continues to derive its power not from the consent of the governed, but through coercion, intimidation, and bribery of the governed, then taxes it imposes will not be fair.

Okay, that much said... once we've reduced spending by reducing government power, then whatever is left should be funded thusly: First, direct user fees to the maximum extent possible, with such fees going only to the activity for which they are collected (and no profit allowed). Second, a head tax for whatever is left over, meaning the general cost of administrating government (minimal, since we've already slashed as much as possible).

Kevin

[Lex]

So long as government --all levels, from school board to federal-- remains as large and powerful as we have today, there will be no fair tax. So long as government continues to derive its power not from the consent of the governed, but through coercion, intimidation, and bribery of the governed, then taxes it imposes will not be fair.

Okay, that much said... once we've reduced spending by reducing government power, then whatever is left should be funded thusly: First, direct user fees to the maximum extent possible, with such fees going only to the activity for which they are collected (and no profit allowed). Second, a head tax for whatever is left over, meaning the general cost of administrating government (minimal, since we've already slashed as much as possible).

How about just putting everything into use fees? When the use fees get too much, people will start using the free market instead :-)

[KBCraig]

How about just putting everything into use fees?

That's what I suggested, for all services and such. But there will always remain some small amount of overhead, such as the cost of elections, printing and archiving laws, minutes, records, etc. For those things, which aren't "used" by anyone in particular, and don't benefit anyone more than anyone else, a head tax makes since.

In my ideal world, a couple of bucks a year per capita should suffice.

Kevin

[Lex]

How about just putting everything into use fees?

That's what I suggested, for all services and such. But there will always remain some small amount of overhead, such as the cost of elections, printing and archiving laws, minutes, records, etc. For those things, which aren't "used" by anyone in particular, and don't benefit anyone more than anyone else, a head tax makes since.

In my ideal world, a couple of bucks a year per capita should suffice.

Kevin

Okay, I can live with a couple of bucks a year! 

That would make it what? $580,000,000

Should be enough to run the elections and print stuff.

I can even live with 4 bucks a year. That would bring us to a billion bucks. If the government can't run elections and print money for a billion dollars that's just too damn bad.

[Ron Helwig]

If the government can't run elections and print money for a billion dollars that's just too damn bad.

Why should the government print money? 

[Lex]

If the government can't run elections and print money for a billion dollars that's just too damn bad.

Why should the government print money? 

In that case why should the government even collect taxes?

Taxes and fiat money are equally evil.

[error]

The government has no business getting involved in money.

On that note, I just spotted an IRS bureaucrat posting links for Neal Boortz's "Fair Tax" (NOT!) from WORK. I'm not sure what to make of it.

[dalebert]

Whenever I hear someone arguing that the government MUST perform a certain task and I think to myself that there are enough people agreeing with that person to impose that viewpoint with votes (say 50.1% for the sake of discussion), then I can't help but think that's enough people to pull out their checkbook and support that. I tell my liberal friends they could easily afford to support public education and welfare if they didn't have to contribute to national defense, which they think deserves a budget of about $75 a year, and the inverse for my conservative friends.

Anyone ever considered the idea of replacing our compulsory government with one that runs either like a charity or a non-profit business? Perhaps a large corporation that you could buy shares in and your total influence on that organization (votes) would be based on how many shares you'd bought over your lifetime. You could even sell your shares (your influence) for some amount smaller than what a new share costs. And of course, even better, there could be many of these to choose from. Local activity would tend to be more effective when possible.

Of course, this organization should not have any real authority over others beyond what people personally choose to extend to it. For instance, you could hire people who's job it is to keep an eye out for violations of people's rights and write up reports when there is a real crime (one with a victim), but these "police" wouldn't have any special authority to act beyond what any citizen would be allowed to do. If I see a person being robbed, it is my prerogative to assist the victim if I want and since force is being used, force is justified. The difference for the "policeman" is it would be his or her job to act. Of course, a report written by one of these people would have no more official value than a report written by someone else. It's just a tool for information and their word is no better than yours or mine.

This system doesn't employ taxes, because money collected voluntarily isn't actually a tax. But in essence, I guess I'm saying that a fair tax is one that isn't extracted by force.