ARE THERE JUST TAXES?

The number  of people believing in the possibility of a just war are much smaller than that believing in the possibility of a just tax. There seems to be plenty of people looking for just taxes. If this is a sign of hope don’t forget these words of caution “the power to tax is the power to destroy” and “you can’t avoid death and taxes”.  So taxation itself is somewhat ominous.

Justice and Taxation

Jesus was careful to link the idea of justice with “taxation” in his words, “render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar”.  Justice has been seen    in terms of giving another their due .It could be a matter of “give and take” or a matter of sharing what belongs to all. We can obviously render a service to another for a service given even if that other is the state. A state can charge for its services but if this is to accord with justice surely there is a balance between what you get and pay for that service. With regard to the second aspect the state can supply a common share to each of its citizens. How is the individual expected to “render” so this result can be achieved? Does this rendering involve taxation? Maybe it doesn’t.
 Taxation is arbitrary and very fluid with there being all types, levels and all mixtures. A state may determine each of these issues for a time but how on earth can it achieve justice in the collection of revenue? Who is the arbiter of this?  The people only have a paper ballot box and can deliver their verdict after the event if at all. Most people try to minimise and some even avoid tax altogether.  Those not born yet are often the victims of runaway state debt with its consequent taxes, have no say.

The Ethics of Redistribution

Taxation is sometimes thought of taking from Peter to pay Paul. A state may at times be accused of being Robin Hood because of confiscatory taxes. But for some reason or other taxation itself is never seen as theft. Those who so regard it seem like pacifists who would never agree to war.  Are governments indulging in theft and are they immune from any charge of the kind per se because they may be elected and have re distributive intentions?   Can a state use the private wealth of its citizens to fund public purposes as it usually does? Can private wealth become public simply by the state’s fiat?  Should public wealth become privatised by law?  Must wealth be redistributed at all?   Would it not be best to allow a just and natural distribution in the first place rather than correcting after the event after much red tape and waste?

Alternatives to Taxation

  Those who see the necessity of common wealth for common purposes implicit in the law of rent are able “to see the wood from the trees” in answering above questions.  Really the amount of economic rent that most state could draw on is huge and is sufficient to the real needs of state. The state could provide anything lacking in the needs of all in a provident and efficient fashion if it “restricts” itself to the economic rent. 
If a government could get its natural revenue there is no need for it go to the “extreme” position of taxation. The army of tax gathers could be suffered to productive uses even if were still be employed by the state. I like to think that Jesus had this alternative in mind when he used the word “render” instead of the words of his questioner “pay taxes”.

The Natural Distribution of Wealth

The universal destination of all goods concept has been advanced by some followers of Jesus in a context of a strong defence of private property but to limit claims where the common good was seen to be in conflict with it. In their view goods are meant to be diffused to everyone in at least some sense or to some measure and private property is usually taken to include private property in land which entails unearned incomes going to individuals. A Georgist understanding of private property,is one which while not denying that private goods can have a social bearing and significance for the community, asserts simply that they belong to the individuals who produced them .Land because it is not  produced by individuals can not then be regarded as private property. With this understanding the division between private and public wealth is very clear cut to the real benefit of both and “the overkill solution” of universal destination is seen as unnecessary. The social destination idea for many unfortunately is just a pretext for redistribution of private wealth . As such it leaves open the theft of taxation and can provide an excuse for all theft. The real solution lies in taking unearned incomes from individuals so that this these socially generated incomes supply  the government. In other words, the government collects the economic rent or public wealth.  This will allow the public goods to be used by all. The rent in the hands of the state could be distributed to all either in the form of services or wealth or a mixture of both as democratically determined. Private goods on the other hand, the products of individual toil may reach a “universal destination” in this sense, by allowing individuals to produce their own wealth by working on freely available land in the first place and then by free trade and competition in the market. By being able to possess the land privately rather than owning it, citizens would have their private wealth secured against any theft including that of now  redundant taxation and any claims attempt to redistribute it by the welfare state.
 Why not share our boundless plains and mountains ie all the common wealth and allow private wealth to circulate, distribute itself and socialise naturally as it is destined to?