On Tax

Click here for a larger image.

Are you more free if your government cuts education and health funding and instead returns your taxes to you in a most literal example of redistribution?

Or are you more free if your government takes your money but instead uses it to provide you with skills that make you competitive in the job market and invests in your earning potential (medicare etc.)?

Of the two compromises I'm inclined to prefer the latter, simply because it enhances the freedom of individuals. I view socialised healthcare and education as individuals pooling resources to accomplish something they wouldn't otherwise be able to and reaping the benefits. More skills + job market clout = higher pay. Higher pay = more disposable income to spend on stuff. More spending by individuals = more jobs.

This addresses the inevitable argument that if someone doesn't use a service, like healthcare for example, why should they pay for it? The obvious answer would be that they pay to keep it accessible. For an individual to pay for their healthcare needs would require prohibitive amounts of personal income (to accumulate as a hedge against future healthcare needs), which could be otherwise directed towards spending to keep the economy going.

Why should rich people pay more tax? Simply because in our society the richer you are the more of use you make of societies provisions. Wealthy individuals work hard for their wealth but what use does a poor person have for guaranteed investments or a government regulated property insurance market? Precious little. A tax system should give people the freedom to improve themselves and you can't do that by taking money from poor people. On the other hand those that make themselves wealthy without private armies and a personal economy and financial system should keep in mind that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It might just have looked that way on your way up.

Realistically a person who earns $30,000 and pays $3,000 in tax is far less able to spend their $27,000 in ways that expand a service economy. They have to look after their immediate needs first before eating out or watching a movie. On the other hand a person who earns $300,000 and pays $100,000 in tax is still able to do a great deal of discretionary spending, or saving and investing with the $200,000 left over. Obviously these are extreme examples but they illustrate my point.

Points for civilised discussion I hope.