3 votes

What type of and how much taxation is acceptable?

I was reading an article at Mises.org today by Murray Rothbard, in which he examines the relative (de)merits of the income and consumption taxes. (it can be read here: http://mises.org/daily/1768/The-Consumption-Tax-A-Critique)

Which got me thinking, what are Ron Paul's thoughts on the appropriate amount and type of taxation? I know he is against the income tax but does he think there is a better alternative, or that all public works should be privately owned and there should be no taxes if possible? Does he believe all taxing should be done at the Federal level or left to the states?

I think most people here will agree that taxes should be as low as possible but that some level of taxation is necessary (as I do), but I am not sure which type of tax is least destructive to the economy and least distorts market forces.

What are your thoughts?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Actually, the post office is

Actually, the post office is a bad example. The post office has an explicit monopoly. It's illegal to offer a competing first-class mail service. Read about Lysander Spooner.

It's also an indirect tax, if it's illegal for someone to start a business that competes with the State monopoly.

-----

I have my own blog. Let me know if you like it.

wolfe's picture

As much or as little as I *consent* to.

Which means that it isn't a tax but a voluntarily contribution.

Taxation=theft. It is taken WITHOUT consent.

If two parties get together:

* Gift - One consents to give money to the other .
* Trade - They consent to exchange money for goods/services.
* Theft - One demands under threat of force.

I will be glad when people stop asking "how much" and start asking "why do we allow it".

The government may also charge for a service which I "voluntarily" make use of (example: post office since FedEx/UPS exist).

An example of something that ISN'T voluntary would also be the post office, prior to having competition, since the government enforced a monopoly on delivery services through "law".

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Stealing is wrong, especially when the government does it!

How much theft, strong armed robbery, and extortion is acceptable?

NONE!

It is always wrong!

We all learn at a very young age, that stealing from others is always wrong, so don't do it, and don't ask others to do it on your behalf.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Not an expert

I'm not an authority on what Ron Paul thinks but...

If Ron Paul thinks that a limited constitutional government, such as a federation, or a republic, works to allow people to defend Liberty against all enemies of Liberty, both foreign and domestic, then TAX can be voluntary.

If taxes are voluntary then Liberty is preserved.

If taxes are involuntary then crime is made legal.

The concept of a Democratic Federated Republic, such as the working example provided in the time between 1776 and 1788, under The Articles of Confederation, the people hired representatives to run a State government and then those representatives formed an imperfect Union, or Federation, or Confederation, or Republic, or Democratic Federated Republic, and the method of taxing was voluntary between The Sovereign State Governments and The Federal Government.

When the FED wanted money the FED was told if it could have more money or if, no, sorry, you can't have any more money.

Each State retained the legal power to say yes, or say no, in case of a runaway despotic government POWER were to somehow, magically, become real at the Federal Level.

So the question is:

"What type of and how much taxation is acceptable?"

And the answer is:

Strictly voluntary taxes are acceptable since involuntary taxes are criminal, so who but a criminal will insist upon being paid or else?

There is no or else, you will pay.

The argument (for the sake of argument because it is false) that States can't exist without involuntary taxes has been proven false by the example given, the legal precedents were set during The Articles of Confederation REGIME occurring here in America between 1776 and 1788, for all who care to see, to see.

No involuntary taxes between Sovereign State and Federal parts of the Democratic Federated Republic and if a State government goes bad, starts enslaving the people, with anything, including crimes hidden behind involuntary taxes, then runaway slaves can runaway to a less despotic State in the imperfect Union, so no, bursting your false bubble, involuntary taxes were not necessary then, and they are not necessary now, so maybe, just maybe, you aught to kill that lie in your head before it consumes all of us, not just you.

Joe

BMWJIM's picture

NONE!

Tariffs are legal. I may not agreee but it is the law. Taxes are NOT legal. It was done by theft and continues by theft.

Jim

1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

GoodSamaritan's picture

All taxation is theft

from one group in order to give to another.

One solution is a fee for service (user fee) paid to whatever public or private organization or individual provides the service. In addition, the market should be left to determine what services it wants instead of being forced by government to pay for whatever services it decides to provide.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

shameless bump

shameless bump

none

Government should collect the small amount of funds it needs from tariffs.