Are
Taxes Really
Necessary? (NO)
By John Gelles
versus William
Hummel (on the previous page)
(Undertaken without
the permission of William Hummel)
Taxes are really NOT necessary.
Rather, they are a drag on investment and
consumption—as they disturb a system in perpetual
need of money's power to motivate us to produce what
people want, and want more than they have.
(Not that people should want more and
more—forever. Rather, they should want
less—and especially, they should want to end
poverty and pollution from now till the end of time.
And they would if given the chance.)
To understand the question (and this
debate) we must accept the fact that IF an
elected government could earn more money from the sale of
oil (or gold) than all its costs and gifts combined, it
would never tax the voters and expect to remain in
office.
What then do to earn money that way? How
can they do it and therefore save the cost of
collecting taxes—and avoid the hate of voters
who would rather have the money than a receipt for
taxes paid.?
Answer: they can coin
money out of gold, print it on counterfeit-proof paper,
or issue it into bank accounts invulnerable to loss.
(Such answer, does say what to sell
instead of oil or gold. In fact, it can be anything
and everything produced for domestic or global
purchase. It is that production that will back the
money of a nation without taxes.)
All of the aforesaid money will be new and persistent
when in use. It will be new
if government spends it into initial circulation. And it
will be persistent, because,
unlike debt-based money, it does not evaporate. when the debt is re-paid.
But if governments do that—each
time they spend money (never collected as revenue or
borrowed) and such spending adds to the money supply
forever, there will come a day when people (who
receive what government spends) will own, in total,
more money than they need.
(As the money supply grows immense,
it may relieve consumers from all debt. This would
not be bad. It is more or less the way people were
when marginal farming, hunting and fishing protected
them from sharp commercial trade. But, inflation is
no friend of the consumer of today. We must control
it as it is felt.)
So, the trick to avoiding taxes is to
have people save until they have too
much money (for them to want to get out of
bed.?) When will that
be.?
Savings will be too high if they lose
value for not being invested or wisely spent. So, the
next thing we must do is protect savings from
inflation: this means imitating what
we do for inflation protected securities issued by
governments now. We call
such issues TIPS bonds (for treasury inflation
protected securities).
(We could call such protection of
tax-free money, "indexed savings
accounts".)
In addition to protecting savings in
a tax free system, philanthropy can be counted on to
prevent the accumulation of too
much (new and persistent) money.
Long before the poorest person is a
billionaire, the effect of so much money on prices and
wages will be to make hard and
dangerous work really
pay well. It will pull
the price of necessities higher than we want—if we
expect people to work instead of living on their savings,
gifts or inheritances.
If this occurs, the price for ending
all taxes may be to implement price
control for all necessities.
Is limited price control more
inefficient and ugly than taxes? I think not.
I think I have proved William Hummel
wrong on the necessity or desirability of taxes. Taxes
are not preferable to indexed savings and limited price
control (like rent control in the city). What do
you think? What do you think of holding tight to
attempts by government to manage full employment and
stable prices with interest rate controls that cannot do
the job. Is it not time to change all that.?
go to DEBATE-page 1
|