It just so happened my sister asked me today to help out filing records at the tax consultancy she’s been working for And after a day full of boring, tedious and uninspiring work, I realised how lucky I am to work in something that I actually like.Thinking about all human resources going to waste got me thinking whether we could only eliminate taxes. Do we want to eliminate taxes?
Let’s imagine we’re living in fairly normal country with rich people and poor people; the rich people paying 50% of their huge incomes while the poor don’t pay anything because they literally have nothing to give. And then one day, We strike gold! and the country itself (and not some greedy tycoon) becomes rich. How rich? rich enough to live pay the entire amount it previously earned from taxes.
Scenario #1: So no one pays taxes anymore! which is a great thing, especially if you paid a lot of taxes before and now you don’t. I guess if you’re a dirt-poor who used to get tax-exempt, this new turn of events won’t change much. You’ll miserable existence will continue. By the state becoming rich, it is actually the rich-people who now see the improvement in their life and not everyone.
Scenario #2: So the rich people will pay a reduced tax while the poor people will get a negative income tax, Which makes a lot of sense that now everyone are benefited from the new country’s wealth. But let the rich man ask “Actually you have enough money. why are you still taking my money?”, which is fairly legitimate. The rich capitalist is making an honest living – should he get punished for it? and what about the poor slacker who earns money by doing nothing? is that fair?
Fairness? Quoting the late Terry Pratchett – “there’s isn’t an atom of justice in the world” so, no life isn’t fair, deal with it. we should aim that the maximum amount of people in the world would be happy, and if the rich man’s 1000$ would make 100$ poor people equally happy, i’d consider it a good trade. And let’s talking about the rich man’s sin, for I question his morality: can an honest man become rich? isn’t “rich” actually means “having more than you actually need”? so I don’t claim that all rich people are crooks but at least they’re not modest and if they’re earned their money for a person less-fortunate than them, they weren’t that nice him, haven’t they?
But let’s get on with Scenario #3: Which keeps the taxation system as it but raises the quality of services provided by the state- improving the public transportation and public schools and so on, which its primary benefactor are the poor people, so in a sense we do actually give them more money while we take from the rich just as we took before. So a different way to look at taxation is as “distribution of wealth” from the individual for the sake of the community, which doesn’t sound so bad, right?
In my ideal world, people would “volunteer” to work for their state for a short period of time and in exchange will get this negative-fixed-rate-income tax for the rest of their lives, while no other taxes will be imposed. if the funding wouldn’t suffice, people will need to work more to get time lifetime pension plan, but nothing should ever be coerced. not even this redistribution of wealth.