If taxation is theft, then this is a metaphysical problem. If the absolute minimum amount of taxation is used for a proper minarchy, then it would be theft in name only.
No method of taxation can avoid being unfair. Every method must be unfair to someone. Sacrificing the rich to the poor is not better (or worse) than taxing the poor to pay for services to the rich. Regressive and progressive taxes alike are inherently unfair because all depend on force. No one pays voluntarily. Therefore, no reorganization of any tax system can find justice. So many fallacies and so little time. Where do I start?
There is such a substantial difference between a system of taxation that takes over 50% from some people and gives a 'rebate' to others, even though they didn't pay anything in, and a system that has a national sales tax, or a flat-tax. 50% versus nothing is unfair (except in Marotta-land). To run around shouting all is unfair, is to ignore that difference, and that is like saying killing someone or sneezing on them are both are intrusive - true, but there is a difference.
No one pays voluntarily - that's true. But I'd prefer to pay a tiny amount than a large amount. What is your solution to this... continue what you consider to be an inevitable injustice forever? Each reduction in taxation is, in itself, a move towards greater justice. Each change to make a tax law that applies equally to all is a move towards justice. Justice is not just a location, but moves towards that location.
But neither has either of the libertarian proposals for voluntary taxation (the "contract fee" and the lottery) survived even a cursory interrogation. Whose interrogation? Yours?
You keep going back to the voting issue. I told you that I have no interest in that and I'm already regretting making an observation. The issue is getting from where we are now, to a government that is so small that everyone can vote, and if they are voting a conflict of interest (say, because they are a government worker), the number of such workers will be so small it won't have an effect.
... no tinkering with the Constitution will deliver the world you want. The changes to society at large must be deeper and explicitly philosophical. Yes, that's true. I've never disagreed with that. But does that mean we don't discuss what could be improved? Do we wait till we magically have a philosophically perfect society and then sit down to look at the constitution? Does that mean that a change to the constitution could never be helpful in turning the tide, politically and philosophically - at least to a small degree?
I do remember, vaguely, making some comment about you being a security guard. Maybe I was out of line, but maybe not - because there might have been a cogent point behind my remark. If you can give me a link to that, I'll take a look and if I was out of line, I'll apologize. I've worked at a Jack in the Box flipping burgers, dug ditches, washed dishes, and a dozen other jobs in my time. I have nothing against manual labor and respect the act of independence that is earning a living. One thing I do know. If I made fun of you for being a security guard, there is more to the story than you imply, because I don't make fun of people because of their jobs - I've held far too many of those jobs at the minimum wage level to ever think that way.
You took a cheap shot at the concept of a national consumer sales tax. Your little vignette ignored the fact that along with the much higher sales tax, the fellow would not be paying social security tax, medicare tax, unemployment taxes, inheritance taxes, income taxes, and that the price of all goods and services that are in a competitive market would cost less before the sales tax was applied because there would be no corporate income taxes, no employer paid payroll taxes, and their creditors would not be paying tax on the interest from their bonds, their shareholders would not be paying taxes on dividends. And because the employer paid payroll taxes would be gone, salaries and wages would be higher. And all of that is before taking into account the great boom in the economies brought about by the giant shift in America's competitiveness in the global market. In other words, you were unfair in your argument.
... earning more would be the solution to a regressive tax. But what if you are at your the limit of your ability?I repeat, "regressive taxation" and "progressive taxation" are Progressive concepts that arise from their Fabian Socialist roots which go back to the concept of 'From those according to their ability and to those according to their needs.'
It is more just to tax everyone the same. If it is an income tax, make everyone pay the same percentage. If it is a sales tax, make everyone pay the same. You are implying that those of ability have an obligation to pay for those with less ability.
Not everyone who is poor is lazy. Who said they were? Why address that to me? I've been poor, often. And, I'm often lazy. We are talking about what kind of taxes would be fairer - more just. Even when I'm feeling so lazy it is like not having bones in my body, or when I've been too poor to eat to eat the value meal at a McDonalds, I have never expected someone else pay any part of my share.
Your argument, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to come down to this: All taxes involve the threat of force, therefore they are all unfair. Since they are all unfair to start with, there is no use changing them in any way - besides it will take a philosophical revolution to totally turn society around and it isn't any use trying to make changes until that societal perfection occurs. In the meantime those of greater wealth and/or greater ability should have pay for the poor or those of lessor abilities.