What if many government officials or the homeless pay higher taxes than the rest of us? Should we take away their right to vote, as some want?
Imagine meeting a drunk on the street homeless people. He will follow you, he will stink, he will be unpleasant and he will annoy you.
You may be wondering what it's like louse - And this one vague has the right to vote, the power of which is the same as yours. And yet you work, you pay taxes both tabby and not at all. That homeless man would - in your opinion - he should not have the right to votebecause "no taxes pay".
Then you meet a civil servant. His working hours are obviously not long, he doesn't fight much and he has a better salary than you. And you pay this from your taxes. In your opinion, this person doesn't actually pay taxes either - on the contrary, he is paid from taxes. In your opinion, he shouldn't have the right to vote either - he does not finance the state!
What exactly is a tax? Tax is a forced payment, a forced expense. Taxes are not just direct payments of money that you send to the state office, they are all costs imposed by the state.
Imagine that the state introduces highly strict hygiene standards. They will also include, for example, the fact that toilets in restaurants must have non-contact batteries. A restaurant without contactless batteries cannot exist. The operation of such restaurants is prohibited.
However, non-contact batteries are more expensive than conventional batteries. This will artificially increase costs for many smaller restorers, and many will end their business due to new hygiene standards.
Competition in the industry will weaken. We have fewer restaurants on the market and entry into the industry is more expensive - so potential competition doesn't work either.
As a result, prices in restaurants will increase. It doesn't have to be just the numbers on the menu - you just get lower quality portions for the same money. They will be smaller or worse made or maybe from lower quality raw materials. Why not - the neighboring pub would fail, people from the area will now only come to us!
Forced cargo (ie tax), which fell first on entrepreneurs, eventually paid by guests at a real higher price of services. The fact that in our country, "everyone else" would bribe their local hygiene would not change anything - this is also a forced expense with the same effects.
Each guest of any restaurant then pays taxes.
Homeless man as a taxpayer
Let's go back to that homeless man. What if it used to be a businessman who became homeless after the state liquidated his industry? If it weren't for the state, he would still be in business, even if he wasn't exactly the best. However, because of the state, he cannot. The costs of homelessness (dirt, illness, social exclusion and related alcoholism…), or even the costs of changing industries, are taxes that this former entrepreneur pays.
What if a homeless job disappeared because of a labor code that was passed many years ago? What when disappeared due to a change in the minimum wage and the costs of homelessness (homelessness tax) are already so high that they prevent a return to normal life? What if that person is homeless because the state imposed a duty on imports of exotic fruits, which led to an inefficient allocation of resources …without the effect across the millionth knee was that individual's homelessness?
Then this individual pays taxes. And who knows - maybe they pay them higher than all of us, precisely because no one actually sees these indirect taxes.
Civil servant as a taxpayer
Many liberals like to say that civil servants do not pay taxes - they are paid from taxes, they do not contribute to the state budget!
But what do we know?
What if the official we met at the beginning would be a successful entrepreneur without the state, for example in the security market or the judiciary? What if his job in government didn't exist - and he would be much happier and maybe richer elsewhere?
What if in the private sphere does not exist a suitable sector or job for him precisely because of the previous state regulation - and so he is a state official? Then he also pays taxes - in the form of missed opportunities.
Just like the homeless man. As we all. What if the state exists only because of our missed opportunities?
Given the current situation, we cannot judge "how it would be without the state." Nobody just knows, because such a situation is not here. The state influences - either directly or indirectly - a huge number of things for an extremely long time. Many things do not exist today because of the state; a lot of things exist only because of the state. All links, all interactions that arose (or did not arise) because of it, changing our world. It changes alternatives from which everyone can choose and so on in the future changes people's destinies a affects the way they think, their actions. It changes preference individuals held moral values and forms of cooperation.
Without the state, we would not be able to choose between a state and a non-state school. Between working in the state or non-state sector. Between a private investor or a state subsidy. These possibilities would not occur to us. On the contrary - a huge amount of resources would be released or created.
Therefore, to deduce what a world without a state would look like on the basis of the current situation is illogical and incorrect. The shape of the contemporary world is irrelevant for the assessment of the world without the state.
No taxation without representation
When we talk about democracy, I am strongly opposed to the view that the weight of the vote in democratic elections (voting) should be different (ton the basis of property or the amount of tax paid).
First - we we don't know how much taxes we actually pay. What we pay in finance, what is deducted from our salary or what reduces our financial profit, is the minimum of taxes we pay. Everything else - costs forced by hundreds of regulations, missed opportunities - we cannot quantify.
Second - each of us is taxed in some way. Costs are imposed on each of us, often without our knowledge. Everyone should have the right to be represented or to participate in state decision-making. Taking someone's vote or giving different weight to the voices of different people would mean taxing someone without representation.
No taxation without representation.
Taxation according to property - and the resulting share of power - was one of the basic principles of feudalism. However, in my opinion, this is an even worse form of government than, for example, an absolute monarchy, where everyone is taxed but no one is represented. This reduces the possibility for a certain group of people to decide for themselves and transfers this power to an indefinite group, where it is difficult to identify the culprit. Which there is no danger of an absolute monarchy.
In order for the group to retain power, all they have to do is use the power of their voice and enforce rules that make it impossible to become truly rich and wealthy, that is, to gain a greater share of power.
1 vote = 1 person
Yes, at the time the "equation" applies, a poor and stupid majority can choose a government that will bully a clever and rich minority. However, a clever and wealthy minority can make up for the power of their voice with their social status and abilities.
For example, money that bureaucrats and politicians can apply; media that can change public opinion. They can invest in getting the "poor meat" to vote in the same way as the rich minority. They can convince them - on a voluntary basis.
And finally - everyone has the same basis, the same minimum share in decisions about themselves and matters that concern them.
Yes, the best form for this is anarchy, and I agree with the anarcho-capitalists. On the other hand: the state is here and will not fall apart tomorrow. Then I am a supporter of democracy, not another form of elitist dictatorship. Proponents of democracy before another form of dictatorship, not before anarchy.