Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
CrowEpistemologist

The "Ideal" Federal Govt. and What It Will Cost

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The obvious finally hit me. The fact that you all think Taxation should be voluntary is precisely why you won't address which type of tax is best. So, let me ask the question in a different way: By what standard should people decide whether they (and their neighbors) have voluntarily paid an appropriate amount of tax?

What do you meant we won't address this? I answered this exact question already.

The government should set a minimum, flat rate of contribution, on income, that you must pay to be a citizen. The rate should be set on a yearly basis, to cover whatever they need to fund the military. If someone doesn't pay it, they lose their citizenship.

There is a very significant, related issue: How should people find out what level of tax their neighbors have paid in order to apply societal pressure?

You mean how should people find out whether their neighbor is a citizen? Citizens would be proud of their citizenship, and they would freely advertise it. Lying about it should be illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about corporate level income? A corporation could not voluntarily pay taxes - that would be a violation of fiduciary duty by the managers - only the shareholders could. But, Nicky has pointed out that the corporate tax (together with dividend and capital gain exclusions) has the purpose of taxing foreign investors.

You're mixing up the two issues (I think because you are not differentiating between 'tax' and 'voluntary contribution' - one is forced, the other isn't; I guess I should've made that distinction clearer).

I never said corporations should be paying voluntary contributions. I said corporations' profits should be taxed right now, and up until government funding becomes voluntary.

Once it does, the contributions would come mainly from citizens, not corporations. And they would be voluntary contributions, not taxes. But, in some cases, corporations could and should contribute voluntarily. The part about that being a violation of fiduciary duty is just plain wrong. Corporations make donations all the time. Shareholders have the right to set up rules against it of course, but if they don't then it's fine. And they mostly won't set up such rules. Major (especially majority) shareholders usually have a lot of direct or at least indirect control over the running of a corporation, and it would be pretty stupid of them to tie their own hands up with rules like that.

When it comes to corporations, they would contribute to curry favor with consumers, the same reason why they contribute to various causes today. And they would contribute publicly, just like they do now.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole point of having a government is that you cannot trade in protection. Just ask anyone who ever dealt with the Mob. I doubt any of them would call the interaction "trade".

Insurance companies, just like any other business entity, are vehicles for trade.

Don't you pay for protection because Insurance companies trade in protection? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean how should people find out whether their neighbor is a citizen? Citizens would be proud of their citizenship, and they would freely advertise it. Lying about it should be illegal.

In what context should lying about it be illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what context should lying about it be illegal?

All of them.

Don't you pay for protection because Insurance companies trade in protection? ;)

No. Insurance companies trade in insurance, not protection. Hence the name. I guess security companies trade in protection, but only immediate self defense.

No one trades in the kind of protection the government offers (retaliatory force).

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Insurance companies trade in insurance, not protection. Hence the name.

That actually was just a joke... but then I got to thinking about it and it seems to me that while insurance companies don't trade in actual physical protection, they do trade in the financial protection of other people paying our bills.

No one trades in the kind of protection the government offers (retaliatory force).

A hitman might... but that's only on a micro personal revenge level. ;)

Edited by moralist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nicky - Sorry I didn't make it clear enough. I meant nobody except you would address the precise question of what the best type of tax would be. Unfortunately, nobody else has ventured an answer even now.

Your point that corporations would at times be willing to make voluntary government contributions is well-taken ... it would not necessarily be a breach of fiduciary duty. But, one thing you did not address is my question about whether we could realistically expect foreign investors to pay their fair share (either voluntarily sending payments to our country or by expecting the corporation to pay a voluntary contribution on their behalf).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...