Bild von Steve Buissinne auf Pixabay
We, not so rich people, are always complaining about how rich people seem able to use holes in the tax laws to their benefit. We seem to believe that you need "tax hole" money in order to exploit them. Well, I have a hunch that that's not the case.
If you were a manufacturer, say an automobile manufacturer, your business would be to sell the vehicles you've manufactured. When the vehicle is sold, your government expects you to pay the tax you owe on that vehicle. The same is true of the entities providing the resources to build that vehicle. They will need to pay taxes on their compensation...earnings.
Now comes the interesting part. You may have noticed that the salary you and your employer agreed on is not the same amount you find in your bank account on Payday. The reason is that your employer skims the amount of your salary your government deems you owe it, and sends it to your government. Not sure if that's the case in every country, though. That, it seems, is where the idea that "taxation is theft" comes from.
It would seem that our governments have accused us of owing them a percentage of the results of our labor, found us guilty and executed our punishment, by way of direct taxation, via the income tax.
But, it occurred to me that when you go into a contract with your employer, you are actually selling your labor...a service...to that employer. Your labor is then used by your employer to create something of value, which can be sold. Your labor is then compensated, according to your contract. Your labor is really no different than the service provided by your employer's IT Support provider. The compensation for services provided by the IT Support provider is also taxed.
So, you are a service provider and your labor is the service being compensated. In that sense, it seems there is no theft going on...taxation can't be theft. You are selling your labor, with the understanding that your government will be taking it's share of the compensation.
Just random musings...
I don't see taxes as a punishment, but as a contribution by the individual to the fulfilment of communal tasks. But: the feeling that they are not fair is no random phenomenon. Many of these taxes would certainly feel more pleasant if we could have a direct say in how they are spent. Not via an election and thus via parties and their (non-binding) programmes, but by referendum. If funds were then not channelled into the arms industry and military budget, but perhaps into school infrastructure and cultural funding instead. Just as people are prepared to pay the price for a product that they would like to have, they will also pay taxes that are spent on measures that are perceived as useful without complaining. There are countries with corresponding programmes...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It would seem to me that contributions must necessarily be voluntary, and if they were voluntary, then there would be no need to do tax returns every year. The contributors name doesn't need to be linked to the voluntary contribution.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting idea. Anonymous voluntary levies: I'm not sure whether this would make justice possible (even if I don't see it at the moment either...) If nobody pays in voluntarily, communal tasks will fall by the wayside. And if there are only a few of them, they will help finance road construction and waste disposal for the others. I don't think that works with people. The way we tick and function...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly, that's why I think income tax can't be voluntary, and since it can't be voluntary, it must be forced.
Thanks for replying. That helps me rethink what I've written. :).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit