> The difference between charging for goods and services vs taxation is that you are unable to choose not to patronise the state.
I agree with you on this for persons, that membership in the state should be voluntary and accessible. Currently people are forced into state membership and discriminated against when they seek alternative state memberships based on birthplace, parents, and other factors which would typically be considered bigotry.
However, this argument breaks down entirely when applied to corporations. Corporations do have voluntary membership in states; nobody is obligating a corporation to make use of the services of any state. Beyond a certain size, corporations basically have complete freedom to operate within whatever states they choose, making use of the services of that state. And when you consider that the vast majority of income for the rich comes from such corporations, and furthermore that one of the easiest ways to change which state(s) you are a member of is to operate through a corporation, the separation between corporations and rich individuals becomes unimportant. Maybe you are unable to choose not to patronize the state, but the very rich are not so limited. If anything this is a very strong argument for progressive taxation: the rich are patronizing the state more by choice than the poor and therefore it's fairer to charge them more taxes.
> So yes, it is nearly three quarters of this person's income, being taken against their will, to support an institution which is not just incompetent, but actually hugely, enormously viciously destructive and damaging to the world at large, to the extent that it is the largest non natural cause of death in the preceding century.
This would be a more persuasive argument if the governments to which this money was going were not run by the same people who are evading the taxes. Most, if not all, of the wars in the last 50 years have been caused by corporate interests. The difference between government and corporations is that at least in representative democracies, the governments must make enough pretense of doing good to keep getting elected (with plenty of help from corporate funding and other forms of corruption). Tax avoidance means that less money must go through this pretense; it's easier to justify spending less money on schools when the government has less money.
> Frankly, I'd give up almost all of the rest of it to avoid having given any of it to those parasites to begin with, and this is a constant drain on my motivation for economic activity in general, knowing how much of my earnings will go to finance activities that make me violently ill if I think too hard about them.
Okay, so why don't you act on your beliefs instead of stating them ineffectually? I doubt many people are enforcing the citizenship or taxation laws of Somalia right now. You can probably opt out of patronizing a state by moving there. If you really think that being forced to patronize a state whose actions you don't agree with is unfair to you, there are ways to stop patronizing states.
I agree with you on this for persons, that membership in the state should be voluntary and accessible. Currently people are forced into state membership and discriminated against when they seek alternative state memberships based on birthplace, parents, and other factors which would typically be considered bigotry.
However, this argument breaks down entirely when applied to corporations. Corporations do have voluntary membership in states; nobody is obligating a corporation to make use of the services of any state. Beyond a certain size, corporations basically have complete freedom to operate within whatever states they choose, making use of the services of that state. And when you consider that the vast majority of income for the rich comes from such corporations, and furthermore that one of the easiest ways to change which state(s) you are a member of is to operate through a corporation, the separation between corporations and rich individuals becomes unimportant. Maybe you are unable to choose not to patronize the state, but the very rich are not so limited. If anything this is a very strong argument for progressive taxation: the rich are patronizing the state more by choice than the poor and therefore it's fairer to charge them more taxes.
> So yes, it is nearly three quarters of this person's income, being taken against their will, to support an institution which is not just incompetent, but actually hugely, enormously viciously destructive and damaging to the world at large, to the extent that it is the largest non natural cause of death in the preceding century.
This would be a more persuasive argument if the governments to which this money was going were not run by the same people who are evading the taxes. Most, if not all, of the wars in the last 50 years have been caused by corporate interests. The difference between government and corporations is that at least in representative democracies, the governments must make enough pretense of doing good to keep getting elected (with plenty of help from corporate funding and other forms of corruption). Tax avoidance means that less money must go through this pretense; it's easier to justify spending less money on schools when the government has less money.
> Frankly, I'd give up almost all of the rest of it to avoid having given any of it to those parasites to begin with, and this is a constant drain on my motivation for economic activity in general, knowing how much of my earnings will go to finance activities that make me violently ill if I think too hard about them.
Okay, so why don't you act on your beliefs instead of stating them ineffectually? I doubt many people are enforcing the citizenship or taxation laws of Somalia right now. You can probably opt out of patronizing a state by moving there. If you really think that being forced to patronize a state whose actions you don't agree with is unfair to you, there are ways to stop patronizing states.