The poor (and lower-middle class) should be exempt from Income Tax (regardless of what they earn)

The exchange of property is not a crime... tax wealth not earnings. The rich (not high-earners) should pay more tax

Does a person have a (divine) right to a share of the Earth? If a person is innocent of any (violent) crime, do they have a "right" to a share of the Earth? If I have done nothing wrong and I find myself without land is it right that I "should" be given some by State force? What if I "spend" the land? Then would it be preferable for everyone to have an allocation of land (and subsequently an income?) which they are unable to sell?

The reason the person cannot sell the land is that they will then not be able to reclaim a further plot of land... it can be shown that they already possess a piece of land. If they are in difficulties as a consequence of selling the land that is a responsibility of charities and other welfare provision, it is no longer a question of land rights.

You wouldn't be able (allowed by the State) to sell your land rights... so you could only plead poverty if you were in debt to another person, or for some reason you are disabled in another way. If you sold your land that would be a private arrangement (similar to sub-letting property...) not recognised by the State. It would only be enforceable in private courts (not State courts) and so the ownership for the purchaser of the land would not extend to the State level and hence would be of reduced value.

The State won't let you sell land below a minimum level... you can't have less than a certain amount of natural resources. It's not violent to prevent someone from selling property rights recognised by the State... because they are upheld by the State in the first place... the State is a player (the third party) in the transaction and must give approval. You would need the permission of the State to sell your property.

Is aggression defined by the State?

Since property rights are defined (upheld) by the State and any transgression of those rights is viewed as initiating violence, then can it be said that the State defines the understanding of violence (in Society)?

And if violence is defined (and punished) by the State then why is Income Tax acceptable unless the State chooses to contravene the NAP?

For the State to impose an action which the individual is not able to freely refuse, surely the State must claim that he or she has done something wrong... or perhaps there is a greater (emergency) need? Or if the State seeks to provide another individual with a fair share of the Earth's resources then why would they punish trade since that does not demonstrate that you own an excess of resources (and does not alter your ownership).

It is reasonable for the State to "punish" land ownership, if not for any other reason than it is the State which upholds property rights...


Why tax people simply for earning money... why not tax them for more justifiable reasons, such as owning an excess of natural resources?

Tuesday 31 March 2009

Update: Individuals could make a dispensation appeal (an affidavit) to the State on the grounds of poverty, which would mean they no longer must pay Income Tax. The threshold for payment of taxes of this kind could be quite high meaning that many people would not pay any income tax. The "poor" (or even lower-middle class) would be given a tax-break... (31st Mar'09)