Richard wants to abolish taxation

Didn\’t think I\’d see this:

I believe a large number value and want what the state supplies.

I believe a large number will be willing to pay for it.

I believe Labour has to give them that choice.

If you\’re to have a choice about whether you pay for state services then this inevitably means that state services cannot be paid for through the tax system. For the very point about tax is that you don\’t have a choice as to whether to pay it or not.

So, R. Murphy is arguing that tax should be abolished and state services organised upon a subscription basis. You want what the state provides you\’ve the choice of signing up and paying for it. And, obviously, the choice of not signing up, not paying for it and not getting it.

Amazing, Ritchie, even more neo-liberal than me! For I\’m just delighted with such a scheme in many areas but even I would insist that there are some things which only the State can do, things which can only be done if financed through compulsory taxation and which also, most crucially, must be done.

5 thoughts on “Richard wants to abolish taxation”

  1. Richard Murphy has the intellectual capacity of a gnat. Like many on the left, all thought and no thinking. Do they ever get past the stage of having an idea into thinking about how the idea would work (or usually not work in their case). It’s probably why British governments (because even the current Tory one is pretty much the same as TB’s original New Labour and it’s run by a civil service which is hanging to the left) never seem to think about the unintended consequences of their actions.

  2. ” even I would insist that there are some things which only the State can do, things which can only be done if financed through compulsory taxation and which also, most crucially, must be done.”

    Most people (but not me) would conceed defence, security and courts.

    What else would you suggest the state must force me to pay for?

    Could you enumerate these things?

    Tim adds: More than just those things, certainly. Big fan of Pigou Taxes for example. System of corporate law (not just courts), company registration etc, limited liability structures. I think I would insist upon deposit insurance for banks. Certainly I would insist upon a modicum of a welfare state: financing of food, education, shelter and health care for those who cannot provide it (financing note, not provision of). Neither private charity nor private sector insurance will be sufficient for everybody. Public health (please note, this is that portion of health care which is a public good, not just health care provided to the public. Public sanitation, vaccines, that sort of stuff).

    I’m afraid I’m much more of a big stater than is generally realised. I rant and scream and rave about the excesses, sure, insist that there are vastly better ways of doing many of these things than how we do them now. But while I’m more minarchist than is the position now it would be difficult to describe me as a minarchist by the standard of other minarchists.

  3. “I believe a large number will be willing to pay for it.”

    Oh really ? Surely you don’t mean:

    “I believe a large number will be willing for someone else to pay for it.”

    The “choice” is not whether you want to pay for service, it is whether you want to pay for someone else’s services.

    Note: Worstall caveats re “necessary” state administered services apply.

  4. I can choose not to pay VAT by not buying anything VAT-rated.

    I can avoid income tax by not working.

    I can avoid drink and tobacco duties quite easily.

    The tricky one is Council Tax.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *