We should tax that which can be harmful

If a person acquires new wealth in the form of land, this could be to the detriment of others whereas new wealth acquired through peaceful labours (so, excluding conquest) harms no-one

To exclude someone from owning sufficient land for their self-sufficient survival is to deny them the right to life, and is to make them a slave of those who seek rent. If someone has no choice to provide labour or pay rent to another for their survival because they have been denied the right to live in this way, a crime has been committed. Since there is easily sufficient resources to provide for the entire population, to have denied someone the ability to provide for themselves without some justification is to place them in servitude.

If a person cannot provide for themselves with a typical quantity of land then greater amounts will be of little marginal benefit, to them.

The source of all wealth is derived ultimately from the environment and someone with insufficient access to these resources cannot be said to have been given access to a free life. Everyone should be given sufficient natural resources to survive...

The most efficient way for the State to achieve this would be to charge rent (a tax) to those with an excess of non-renewable property. It is only by way of the State that property rights are upheld, so in a democracy if property rights are deemed to be unfairly allocated there can be no objection to a re-allocation of property rights.


21st January 2009

...Is it a good idea to tax trade? (23rd Jan09)


Perhaps we could tax individuals when we consider that they have more than their fair share of natural resources?

24th January 2009

Why punish something (by using taxation) which has not been shown to do any harm? What harm does free trade do to anyone? It is a victimless crime... If I choose to work "for" someone (and exchange my labour for a price) why should the State intervene as a result of this act, if it would not do so in the absence of this act? Why does "working" arouse the interest of the State, whereas idleness does not? Does the State prefer me not to collaborate with others?

Why does the State punish work, trade and labour? Why do the Government claim to value "work" yet at the same time penalise those who do so by imposing an income tax?

Sunday 29 March 2009