When are Taxes not Theft?

Heard on the radio today that Austin is going to give 3 million dollars as an incentive to HP so that they'll graciously relocate here. Oh, I know, they aren't actually 'giving' anything. They're offering incentives (rebates on taxes) and I'm sure you and I won't even notice that HP (the multi-national corporation) isn't paying the same property taxes that us working stiffs are.

Why should we care when we as living, existing entities with limited time in this world are stolen from on a daily basis while a corporation with no real existence and no limit on their lifespan (profitable or not) gets a free pass for 10 years (about a quarter of the average persons working life) and has potentially centuries to make however many millions it is destined to make.

So, to get to the point, when are Taxes not Theft?

When the tax is levied on an legal entity that has no physical being to maintain. When the tax is levied on creatures of law that have no existence outside of law; if the cost of maintaining it's existence is the maintenance of gov't and law, can any cost be considered 'unreasonable'? Can any cost short of self destruction be considered theft, since the alternative is for them to cease to exist?

Taxes levied on creatures of the state cannot be ruled theft. Corporations and other creatures of law, government sheltered businesses of any kind, should carry the burden of gov't since they owe their very existence to government in the first place, and would have no ability to continue in existence without it.

In my opinion, this is the answer to the age old question of how to fund government. Let those who profit from it, those who would have no existence with out it, pay for it. Starting with corporations like HP.

3 comments:

  1. Actually your logic is flawed, unless you really do want to pay taxes.

    A Corporation/Business/Entrepenuer needs people to buy their products, they do not however need the Government for anything. (This was proven throughout the first 90+ years of America's History for there was little Government interference in Business)

    A person however, needs Corporations for their increased standard of living, we don't particularly need Governments, but we seem to necessitate some dominering group that is in "charge".

    So technically, the only partial need for the Government is from people - sadly enough, conjured up by people themselves. Corporations however, need no Government, only customers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. adron_bh said...
    A Corporation/Business/Entrepreneur needs people to buy their products, they do not however need the Government for anything.


    Corporation does not equal business does not equal entrepreneur.

    An Entrepreneur is a person; as such he has a physical person and does not require government to exist or to continue in existence.

    A business can be a corporation, or it can be any number of other of owner arrangements, including sole proprietorship. To that extent a business also has a physical person and does not require government to exist.

    A corporation is a loophole created in law that allows a person or persons to engage in business while being sheltered from direct liability. Under current US law it is granted many of the rights that a person enjoys. However... A corporation has no physical existence and can not exist without government and it's laws to maintain the legal system that creates it.

    QED, a corporation requires government to exist, and as such should be grateful to provide whatever funds the gov't requires to continue functioning. I extrapolated this to include any company that receives or is sheltered in business by gov't, since none of them could exist without gov't.

    If I chose to do business with corporations, then yes, I would have to pay taxes indirectly through them to the gov't. That would be the price of doing business then.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Informed Citizens wrote:
    Anthony Steele says, in summary, tax Artificial Persons (Corporations, Professionals, etc.) NOT Natural Persons (people)

    I AGREE.



    You are msrepresenting my argument by including 'professionals' in the list of 'artificial persons' (Your phrase. I prefer Niven's LE - Legal Entity designation. Has a nice ring to it) to the extent that a professional, for the most part, is just another working stiff trying to earn a living. In most instances they are not given the option of practicing their profession without seeking a gov't license; making licensing the problem, not need for governments continued existence. The knowledge they carry in their heads (what really makes a professional what he is) will not evaporate if the government takes a powder.

    Nor am I saying "stick it to those who can pay" which is what you go on to state quite openly. Corporations are not people, and are not represented by a single person, but are in fact creations of law, with no existence outside of law. As such, whatever cost is needed to maintain gov't and law, corporations should be asked to pay it; since, to not maintain gov't would result in the end of the corporation.

    I've been meaning to Blog on the subject of Design and Construction, Permit and Review for awhile now. I need to hammer that one out. It's one of the ways that a 'Profession' could actually lower the cost of gov't, while at the same time addressing the issues of 'appropriate design' and 'land use'. I can already hear the crickets chirping on the subject, though. One of the reasons I've not bothered to write my thoughts down.

    ReplyDelete

Ad Hominems, Spam and Advertisements will be mercilessly deleted. All other comments are eagerly anticipated.