SH: > > I suppose there *could* be a neutral tax, but what would be the point? > > It would be something like taking five dollars from everyone and giving > > them back five dollars worth of 'services'.
FF: > The whole point is to provide collective services. > If you join a club and pay dues to get some services, do you then > complain > that you paid money and got services? SH: <<Of course not. How does that apply to governments and taxation, though?>> FF: <<You asked what is the point in collecting taxes and providing services.>> SH: Actually, no. I asked what the point was in collecting an amount of money whose only purpose was to provide 'services' equal to the amount of money collected. And then I reflected that a government never could do such a thing, anyway (that was the part you snipped out in your reply). A taxpayer could *never* get his five dollars' worth of services for his five dollars taxation - if only for the reason that he has to pay the overhead cost of having the money extracted from him, costs he would not incur when obtaining those services through a business. FF: <<For most services, voluntary action can do the job fine. But many folks would not want to have private armies around, so the point in having government collect taxes and providing defense is to prevent private parties from doing so.>> SH: I'm not sure I understand this paragraph. Are you saying that we have taxes to give people 'services' they don't want? Or to keep people from obtaining services they *may*, in fact, want? FF: <<But the relevant issue was neutral taxation, not the desirability of government per se. The tax issue needs to be addressed GIVEN that government exists and takes revenue.>> SH: My apologies for straying off with the 'what would be the point?' comment. I was thinking out-loud a bit and following the thought to the logical conclusion that in fact there *can* be no such thing as a neutral tax, unless of course the government could have perfect knowledge of what people wanted and could provide it - which is clearly impossible. Is my thinking off on that? I was simply agreeing with a previous statement that a truly neutral tax was an impossibility. It seems reasonable to me to make such a statement. Isn't the idea that there could be such a thing as a neutral tax simply a belief that central planning *can*, in fact, provide a better value on 'services' than the marketplace? But perhaps I don't understand the term 'neutral taxation'. I took it to mean a tax which would - in the end - produce no net loss (or gain, I suppose) for the entity being taxed. Is there some more technical sense of the term which I don't understand? Susan Hogarth Triangle Beagle Rescue of NC www.tribeagles.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
