Publicani

I recently started a discussion on RonPaulForums. com forum with this question: What is the best argument against income tax? Here is a shorter version of this discussion. Paraphrasing Einstein, I still don’t know the answer, but I don’t know it on a much higher level.

Publicani: I will be interviewed on TV this Tuesday about my new book, Publicani. The major topic will be the Income Tax, which I passionately hate. Help me to make an argument against it. What do you think is the most convincing reason for abolishing the income tax?

Danke: Because it is enforced against those generally not liable. Mainly due to the convoluted way the IRC is written.

[IRC stands for Internal Revenue Code.]

Truth Warrior: It’s theft AKA robbery by and under threat of force and violence for non obedience and non compliance.

Publicani: I believe it is a theft. It’s not hard to make this argument. It’s immoral. It’s invasion of privacy. But why the income tax is the greatest evil?
And why if we abolish income tax, things will be good?

torchbearer: In a monarchy, the Kind had the Divine right. And he had the Right to tax his SUBJECTS.
The subjects had no rights.

Now ask the question.
What happens if I don’t pay the income tax?
You will be imprisoned.
How does the government get that right? Well, the government must have Right over your labor.
Thus, you don’t own your labor, the King, I mean, the government owns your labor. Thus have RIGHT over it.

That is why the income tax is immoral.

Same with property taxes. Property Taxes makes you a serf of the King, i mean, government. Who has the RIGHT to take your property if you don’t pay the Kings taxes, i mean, the government property tax.

Publicani: I believe it is a theft. It’s not hard to make this argument. It’s immoral. It’s invasion of privacy. But why the income tax is the greatest evil?
And why if we abolish income tax, things will be good?

Truth Warrior: Was the USA a better place to live, in many many respects, before 1913?

Publicani: OK, in what respect?
There are also countries without income tax, such as Bahamas, Bermuda, Kuwait, Somalia. Are people there better off than here? More freedom?

Truth Warrior: What was the budget of the Federal government in 1913?
What is the budget of the Federal government in 2008?

Zolah: There is no income tax for individuals in Monaco, I’d say that is a much better example in relevance to the United State’s income tax, look into Monaco’s history for more info.
What price salvation?

Cleaner44: I would argue that the Federal Income Tax is not nessesary.

The revenues gained are not used for any of the services that most Americans feel they need from the government. Without the Federal Income Tax we would still have our roads maintained by the taxes on gasoline, we would still have 911 service from the taxes on our phone service, we would still have all of the essential services as provided by the many other taxes we pay.

The Federal Income Tax is simply not needed and robs money from our economy that Americans would otherwise spend on products and services that they find valuable.

Since most people would rather not have the Federal Income Tax and we the people govern ourselves, why do we continue to have the Federal Income Tax?

ClayTrainor: what tax funds the military? actually a better question would be…

What exactly does the income tax pay for?

my point being, having a strong military is necessary…

weslinder: I understand the philosophical arguments, but there’s also the practical ones. There is a general rule of thumb for public policy that when you tax something, you get less of it. A tax of income suppresses income. The more progressive that income tax is, the greater the effect.

Danke: According to RP, if we went back to the year 2000 budget, we wouldn’t need the revenue from the income tax.

So I guess, cut spending is the answer.

Cleaner44: I would also mention that nine states currently do not collect income tax and they are perfectly able to provide the required services.

Seven states that have no state income tax:
Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.

Two states that tax only dividend and interest income:
New Hampshire and Tennessee.

ClayTrainor:The Grace Commision found in 1984 that the Federal Income Tax pays for one thing, the interest on our national debt.

We do need to have national security as provided by our military and that can be paid for without a Federal Income Tax. Certainly we were not weak and unable to defend our nation before 1913, right?

Publicani: My point is that even if the income tax is used for good purpose, whatever it is, defense or something, and is not wasteful, income tax is still evil, immoral, and should be abandoned. Would not you agree? How do I convince others?

Cleaner44: The list of good causes could be long enough to tax 100% of our income, so where do we draw the line? The government must operate within a budget just like the citizens.

In my opinion, 6% of our income should be the limit. These days we pay in the neighborhood of 30%. Even at that rate our government is still spending more than they take in and that is quite immoral. Spending too much, creating a debt, interest payments for our children that will consume their income, all quite immoral.

I don’t know that you can convince others but you can ask questions.

Do you feel you pay too much in taxes?
Do you believe our government is wasteful?
Do you believe in borrowing money to give military dictators?
Do you believe in wealth redistribution?

Publicani: Suppose we cut spending and have, as somebody suggested here, only 6% income tax. I don’t see a big difference.
It’s still a theft of my property. It’s still a violation of my rights. It’s still somebody deciding how much pain could be inflicted on me for the good of others.

BillyDkid: Do you mean legal argument or practical argument? There are all sorts of practical reasons why taxing income is very bad. I am less clear on the legal part. I have heard it said that it is unconstitutional, but I don’t know enough to say. It is horrible the way we get taxed on the same money over and over again. I would be curious to know just how much of our money actually goes to taxes. I know we have that “tax freedom” day thing, but that only takes into account income taxes. There is a boat load of other moneys we pay out of that same money to various levels of government, sales tax, registrations fees, import taxes and on and on and much of it is hidden from us so never really get a good feel for just how much of our incomes goes to the government.

JenHarris: There are a lot of reasons why Income tax is bad but for me the biggest reason is that you are penalizing the productive people of society for doing their best to earn a living and at the same time you are positively reinforcing negative behavior from all the people who get stuff for free from the taxes we pay. Why would someone go out and get a job when they can take advantage of all the programs out there and be better off? It’s just one more way that the government is stripping the people of this country of their personal responsibility.

Publicani: “Do you mean legal argument or practical argument?” Neither. A moral argument.
I think the income tax is bad. I am not sure it’s illegal. I don’t care if it’s practical or not. At least for the purpose of this discussion.
The book I wrote, Publicani, is based on the assumption that somebody can come and take a part of your intellect. Whether it’s legal, or practical, I think it’s immoral.
The same way it’s with the income tax. That’s why I fully expect the interview will discuss the income tax and I want to use the opportunity to change people’s opinion. What do you think is the best argument? Is there a single argument that would convince any reasonable person that the income tax should be abolished?
What would convince you?

hypnagogue: I agree that I see no inherent wrong, and certainly not evil, in income taxes. Obviously service related taxes are superior, ie gas tax for roads, but what then should be taxed to cover those things which all citizens utilize? Things like the military, the courts, etc.

Obviously it must be a tax which applies to everyone, and the more equally it applies the better. Honestly, I can think of nothing more indispensable and universal than income. If anyone has a superior suggestion, I’d be very eager to hear it, since I’ve actually thought on the alternatives fairly heavily.

I will say though that a sales tax seems to me to be inferior to an income tax, as it would more heavily affect the poor than the rich, since the rich have the option of saving much more of their wealth than the poor. Additionally, a sales tax would artificially encourage savings over spending, which ideally should be left to the market. An income tax by contrast is neutral to the issue of spending vs. saving, and in my opinion, less likely to alter the actions of those subject to it. It’s easier to influence someone to buy less, than it is to encourage them to make less money.

Publicani: “Learn why they came up with the income tax and to whom it applies.” My income is my property. Why should I care about their reasons to take it from me?

Cleaner44: Let me make myself clear, I am 100% against any Federal Income Tax. The number I used of 6% was meant to illistrate the point that I believe our government does need money to operate, but much less than what they currently take from us. I think that an income tax is the worst possible way to collect the needed revenues.

Collecting taxes to send to Saddam Hussien, Osama bin Laden, Israel, Pakistan, Peru, South Korea, or any other bullshit, I am completely against. I am also against redistribution of wealth in any way and believe our taxes should be very low and are only needed to fund very limited things, such as police departments, fire departments, small military, roads, etc.

Collecting taxes to pay for these services is not theft in my opinion. I would gladly pay taxes to have a fire department and most Americans probably would too. Having a 6% national sales tax to pay for all services would work for me. Then it would be up to our representatives to budget accordingly.

BillyDKid: Well, for one, and doctor paul is explicit about this, it amounts to slavery. You legally obligated through the threat of force to work for half the year and give your earnings to the government. It is forced labor and not different that the way serfs were required to give half of their crop to the nobles. I would say that is immoral. But even if it were not immoral, it punishes productivity and hard work.

micahnelson: 1) We are a government of the people.
2) An overwhelming majority of people do not want to pay an income tax.

There. Thats a pretty simple thought process.

Publicani: I am not sure about 2). 50% of the income earners don’t pay any tax – why should they be against it? And even if 99% are for it – does it make it right? Moral? What if we all vote to force Bill Gates to pay all his income in taxes? We have the majority, does it make it right?

And I am not sure whether “practicality” is a factor in deciding whether income tax should be abolished. What if for some reason it does not punish productivity?

Cleaner44: I have never in my life met someone that wants the Federal Income Tax.

I have to question your 50% figure, that does not sound at all acurate to me. Did you make this up or do you have some evidence?

No need to worry about 99% of the people unless you live in a Democracy. Democracies are bad which is why our founding fathers setup a Republic.

Publicani: The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes

Another reference – According to the National Taxpayers Union
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

For the year 2005
Top 1% pays 40% of all taxes
Top 5% pays 60%
Top 10% pays 70%
Top 25% pays 86%
Top 50% pays 97%

Cleaner44: Yes, but you said:
Quote:
50% of the income earners don’t pay any tax
This is quite different.

It is not true that 50% of income earners do not pay any (income) tax.

hypnagogue: This all just seems to me to be anti-tax sentiment rather than anti-income-tax. It would be useful if those who declare income tax ‘evil’ to give an example of a just tax and to demonstrate the material difference between that and the income tax.

micahnelson: Arguments against any tax are all philosophical. We are made to pay because they have the monopoly on force. It is like telling the mob how unethical it is for them to collect dues.

You do raise a valid point, however. Taxes are needed to carry some legitimate functions of government.

As far as I am concerned, taxes should raised specifically from people who make use of the service funded. For instances, gas taxes which pay for roads make sense to me. If you are buying gasoline, you are making use of the roadways and therefore should contribute. Building roads is a legitimate government function. (not trying to anger the libertarians here, i realize you dont NEED government for roads, but its part of how we do things here.)

Low taxation in general, apportioned specifically to those who will benefit from the program. Some form of broader taxation would be needed to fund the military, but certainly not an income tax.

States have a broader brush with which to paint to cover whatever civic programs the state determines to be of value. I personally would want to be in a state with low low taxes and little government expansion, but certainly places like California would want to extend the arm of government. Thats up to the Californians.

DriftWood: Appart from the moral argument taxes are bad because of its consequences.

Tax is bad because it diverts capital from where it is most needed, to where it will be wasted. If people where allowed to keep all their money they would use it for whatever thing they needed the most. When govt takes money from people only to give it back by charity, some is lost to corruption and other is wasted on things that each person does not need the most. Say if the money goes to public schools, some of the people in the school would rather have used the money to buy food, medicals, clothes or something else instead they get something that is not as urgently needed. Taxes translate into central spending plans, one size fits all. One size does not fit all, everyones needs and priorities are different. This is why taxes are bad. It destroys wealth.

Also when the govt take money from productive people and give it to unproductive people, they are encouraging unproductivess. You get more of it. The problem gets worse the more govt tries to fix it.

Curlz31: Well the best argument for me is the base philosophical argument. Income tax is stealing. The government claims it requires the tax to fund government programs that help poor people, however it is not justified to steal people’s money just because you want to help others.

People need to make an individual decision to help poor people. If they are forced to pay the government then they start becoming dependent on government and start to see government as all-knowing. This actually compounds problems because people have no sense of self-responsibility when it comes to the proportion of their income they get to keep. This further compounds government intervention. This is why socialism is self-perpetuating. It’s like Heroin. You start needing more and more, even though it is killing you. You become dependent.

Then you can argue the practicalities. it is inefficient etc etc. but to me, this is secondary to the basic immorality of stealing property.

TruthWarrior: The income tax is a plank in the “Communist Manifesto”, as are central banks, BTW.

Publicani: Thanks, everybody. Interesting arguments, stimulating discussion. Helpful. Sorry if I misunderstood or misquoted anybody.
This post does not mean to end the discussion, please keep your comments coming.
The book, by the way, is a fiction. It never mentions income tax even though the plot is driven by a similar concept. It is available free online at
http://www.publicani.com/book/
if you like it, please comment on
http://www.amazon.com/Publicani-Zak-…/dp/1419683497
- maybe somebody else will read it and start thinking about the issue.

ams5995: Theft is aggression. Taxes are theft. Taxes are aggression. We could run this whole mother country without one single tax. YES WE CAN!!!! CHANGE!!!!!!!

CuriousOnlooker: Where would the funds be raised to pay for a strong national defense? (NOT offense.)

torchbearer: the states would be responsible for their own territories.
The federal government was never ment to have a standing army. Only the states.

hypnagogue: You need only contrast the requirements for a modern effective armed forces to recognize how totally impracticable that would be. Could you imagine getting 50 independent armies to function as a single responsive unit. The logistics and POLITICS should run a man’s blood cold.

I know this is a reviled argument sometimes around here, but it’s undeniable that times have changed. The science of modern warfare nowhere near resembles what the founders had to provision for, and no doubt would have been unimaginable even in their wildest nightmares.